AKSOY v. TURKEY

• Judgment Date: 18 December 1996
• ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:1996:1218JUD002198793
• Respondent State: Turquia
• Date: 18 December 1996
• Application Number: 21987/93
• Court: Chamber (European Court of Human Rights)
• Counsel: N/A
• Applied Rules: 3;5;5-3;5-1;6;6-1;13;15;15-1;15-3;25;25-1;35;35-1;41;38;34
• Official Gazette Publication: [object Object]

COURT (CHAMBER)

CASE OF AKSOY v. TURKEY

(Application no. 21987/93)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

18 December 1996

In the case of Aksoy v. Turkey[1],

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and the relevant provisions of Rules of Court A[2], as a Chamber composed of the following judges:

MMR. Ryssdal, President,

Thór Vilhjálmsson,

F. Gölcüklü,

L.-E. Pettiti,

J. De Meyer,

J.M. Morenilla,

A.B. Baka,

J. Makarczyk,

U. Lohmus,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar, and Mr P.J. Mahoney, Deputy Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 27 April, 24 October and 26 November 1996,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last‑mentioned date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case was referred to the Court on 4 December 1995 by the Government of Turkey ("the Government") and on 12 December 1995 by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission"), within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 of the Convention (art. 32-1, art. 47). It originated in an application (no. 21987/93) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) on 20 May 1993 by Mr Zeki Aksoy, a Turkish citizen.

The Government’s application referred to Article 48 (art. 48); the Commission’s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Turkey recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The object of the request and of the application was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Articles 3, 5 para. 3, 6 para. 1 and 13 of the Convention (art. 3, art. 5-3, art. 6-1, art. 13).

2. On 16 April 1994 the applicant was shot and killed. On 20 April 1994 his representatives informed the Commission that his father wished to continue with the case.

3. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of Rules of Court A, the applicant’s father (who shall, henceforward, also be referred to as "the applicant") stated that he wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyers who would represent him.

On 26 March 1996 the President granted leave, pursuant to Rule 30 para. 1, to Ms Françoise Hampson, a Reader in Law at the University of Essex, to act as the applicant’s representative.

4. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Mr F. Gölcüklü, the elected judge of Turkish nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). On 5 December 1995, in the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr L.‑E. Pettiti, Mr J. De Meyer, Mr J.M. Morenilla, Mr F. Bigi, Mr A.B. Baka, Mr J. Makarczyk and Mr U. Lohmus (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 5) (art. 43). Following the death of Mr Bigi, Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson, the first substitute, became a member of the Chamber.

5. As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 6), Mr Ryssdal, acting through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Government, the applicant’s lawyers and the Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant to the order made in consequence, the Registrar received the applicant’s memorial on 7 March 1996 and the Government’s memorial on 15 March 1996.

6. In accordance with the President’s decision, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 26 April 1996. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand.

There appeared before the Court:

- for the Government

Mr B. Çaglar, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,Agent,

Ms D. Akçay,

Mr T. Özkarol,

Mr A. Kurudal,

Mr F. Erdogan,

Mr O. Sever,

Ms M. Gülsen,Counsel;

- for the Commission

Mr H. Danelius,Delegate;

- for the applicant

Ms F. Hampson, University of Essex,

Mr K. Boyle, Barrister-at-Law,Counsel,

Mr K. Yildiz,

Mr T. Fisher,

Ms A. Reidy,Advisers.

The Court heard addresses by Mr Danelius, Ms Hampson, Mr Çaglar and Ms Akçay.

AS TO THE FACTS

I. Circumstances of the case

A. The applicant

7. The applicant, Mr Zeki Aksoy, was a Turkish citizen who, at the time of the events in question, lived in Mardin, Kiziltepe, in South-East Turkey, where he was a metal worker. He was born in 1963 and was shot and killed on 16 April 1994. Since then, his father has indicated that he wishes to pursue the case (see paragraph 3 above).

B. The situation in the South-East of Turkey

8. Since approximately 1985, serious disturbances have raged in the South-East of Turkey between the security forces and the members of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). This confrontation has so far, according to the Government, claimed the lives of 4,036 civilians and 3,884 members of the security forces.

9. At the time of the Court’s consideration of the case, ten of the eleven provinces of south-eastern Turkey had since 1987 been subjected to emergency rule.

C. The detention of the applicant

10. The facts in the case are in dispute.

11. According to the applicant, he was taken into custody on 24 November 1992, between 11 p.m. and midnight. Approximately twenty policemen had come to his home, accompanied by a detainee called Metin who, allegedly, had identified the applicant as a member of the PKK, although Mr Aksoy told the police that he did not know Metin.

12. The Government submitted that the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on 26 November 1992 at around 8.30 a.m., together with thirteen others, on suspicion of aiding and abetting PKK terrorists, being a member of the Kiziltepe branch of the PKK and distributing PKK tracts.

13. The applicant stated that he was taken to Kiziltepe Security Headquarters. After one night, he was transferred to Mardin Antiterrorist Headquarters.

He was allegedly detained, with two others, in a cell measuring approximately 1.5 x 3 metres, with one bed and a blanket, but no pillow. He was provided with two meals a day.

14. He was interrogated about whether he knew Metin (the man who had identified him). He claimed to have been told: "If you don’t know him now, you will know him under torture."

According to the applicant, on the second day of his detention he was stripped naked, his hands were tied behind his back and he was strung up by his arms in the form of torture known as "Palestinian hanging". While he was hanging, the police connected electrodes to his genitals and threw water over him while they electrocuted him. He was kept blindfolded during this torture, which continued for approximately thirty-five minutes.

During the next two days, he was allegedly beaten repeatedly at intervals of two hours or half an hour, without being suspended. The torture continued for four days, the first two being very intensive.

15. He claimed that, as a result of the torture, he lost the movement of his arms and hands. His interrogators ordered him to make movements to restore the control of his hands. He asked to see a doctor, but was refused permission.

16. On 8 December 1992 the applicant was seen by a doctor in...