Search
document

Document text Analytics

CAVUSOGLU v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 32983/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3903

Document date: September 8, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

CAVUSOGLU v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 32983/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3903

Document date: September 8, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 32983/96

by Özgür ÇAVUSOGLU

against Turkey

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

8 September 1997, the following members being present:

Mr. S. TRECHSEL, President

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

P. LORENZEN

K. HERNDL

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

Mrs. M. HION

MM. R. NICOLINI

A. ARABADJIEV

Mr. M. de SALVIA, Deputy Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 26 August 1996 by

Özgür Çavusoglu against Turkey and registered on 17 September 1996

under file No. 32983/96;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, a Turkish citizen, was born in 1975 and lives in

Izmir. He is represented before the Commission by ilhan Gül Kireçkaya,

a lawyer practising in izmir.

The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may

be summarised as follows.

On 16 November 1995 the applicant was taken into police custody

in izmir on suspicion of being a member of a leftist terrorist

organisation.

On 27 November 1995 he was questioned by the Public Prosecutor

attached to the izmir State Security Court. He was also brought before

the judge of the izmir State Security Court. The judge having regard

to the nature of the offence, placed the applicant in detention on

remand. On the same day he was examined by a doctor from the izmir

Forensic Medicine Institute who noted in his report that there had been

no signs of beating, force or violence.

On 28 November 1995 the applicant requested a medical examination

concerning his allegations of ill-treatment and underwent a medical

examination in the above mentioned institution. In his report, the

doctor noted the presence of some bruises on the nose, lips and on the

left foot caused by a blunt instrument and concluded that these

findings did not constitute a danger to life but would prevent the

applicant from working for 2 days.

In an indictment dated 18 December 1995 the Public Prosecutor at

the izmir State Security Court charged the applicant together with

16 accused with being members of an illegal organisation whose aim was

to undermine the Turkish Constitution and replace it with a Marxist-

Leninist regime.

On 31 January 1996 the applicant lodged a complaint with the

Public Prosecutor of izmir and alleged that he had been ill-treated

while in police-custody.

On 18 February 1996 the Public Prosecutor of izmir dismissed the

complaint, pointing out that according to the medical report of

27 November 1995 there was no sign of beating, force or violence. The

Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the second report had been

obtained after the first one and there was no evidence substantiating

that the findings in the latter were due to ill-treatment by the

police.

On 26 February 1996 the applicant applied to the Assize Court of

Karsiyaka to set aside the order dismissing his complaint.

On 4 March 1996 the Assize Court of Karsiyaka rejected the

application. It held that in the absence of sufficient evidence against

the accused the decision taken by the Public Prosecutor was in line

with the law and procedure.

The criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant are

still pending and he is still in detention.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that

during his police custody he was hung by his arms. In this context he

explains that he suffers from pain in the heart as well as in the

muscles of the shoulder and breast area. He also complains that he

suffers from incontinence as a result of torture by forced entry of a

truncheon into the anus.

2. The applicant further complains that he was held in police

custody for 11 days without being brought before a judge, contrary to

the requirements of Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that he was held in police custody for

11 days without being brought before a judge, contrary to the

requirements of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention.

However, concerning the above complaint, the Commission is not

required to decide whether or not the facts alleged by the applicant

disclose any appearance of a violation of these provisions, as

Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention provides that the Commission may

only deal with the matter within a period of six months from the date

on which the final decision was taken.

The Commission refers to its case-law according to which when an

act of a public authority is not open to any effective remedy, the six-

month period runs from the date on which the act took place

(No. 8007/77, Dec. 10.7.78, D.R. 13 p. 85, at p. 153).

The Commission observes that in the present case the applicant's

police custody was effected pursuant to the Law on the Procedures of

State Security Courts and that he had no domestic remedy in respect of

his detention in custody.

The Commission notes that the situation complained of ended on

27 November 1995 whereas the application was submitted to the

Commission on 26 August 1996, that is more than six months after that

date.

It follows that this part of the application has been introduced

out of time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3)

of the Convention.

2. The applicant also complains under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the

Convention that during his police custody he was hung by his arms. In

this context he explains that he suffers from pain in the heart as well

as in the muscles of the shoulder and breast area. He also complains

that he suffers from incontinence as a result of torture by forced

entry of a truncheon into the anus.

The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the

file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is

therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the

Rules of Procedure, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent

Government.

For these reasons, the Commission,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant's complaint

that during his police custody he was subjected to torture;

unanimously,

DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M. de SALVIA S. TRECHSEL

Deputy Secretary President

to the Commission of the Commission

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant