Information Note on the Court’s case-law 68

October 2004

Y.B. and Others v. Turkey - 48173/99 and 48319/99

Judgment 28.10.2004 [Section III]

Article 6

Article 6-2

Presumption of innocence

Statements made to the press by the police with regard to suspects, photographed by journalists, prior to being brought before a judge: violation

Facts : The five applicants were arrested and taken into police custody. Before th ey had been brought before a judge, the police investigators presented them to the press at a press conference held in the security police’s premises. The police officers stated that the applicants were members of an illegal organisation and that it had be en established that they were involved in criminal activities; those activities were then listed in the press release issued by the police (which did not name the applicants). Journalists took photographs of the applicants. On the day on which the applican ts were brought before the prosecutor and the judge, a daily newspaper published an article which described them as the perpetrators of specific named offences. They were named and their photographs were published. A few days later, the applicants were cha rged with those offences. At the close of a trial, held in the same year before a National Security Court which included a military judge, the applicants were found guilty of membership of and assistance to an illegal organisation. They were each sentenced to terms of imprisonment.

Law : Article 6 § 2 – The publication of photographs of the suspects, who were subject to criminal proceedings, did not in itself amount to a breach of the presumption of innocence. The national authorities were entitled to inform the public about ongoing criminal investigations, provided this was done with all the discretion and prudence required. Where they made public objective information concerning criminal proceedings, this information was to be free from any assessment or pr ejudging of guilt.

In the present case, although the press release had not mentioned the applicants’ names and although it was stated that they were to be brought before the public prosecutor, the way in which the applicants had been presented to the pres s made them very easily identifiable; in addition, their names and photographs had appeared in the press articles. Similarly, the content of the press release drawn up by the police and distributed to the press had referred to the applicants, without any q ualification or reservation, as “members of the illegal organisation” and stated that it had been “established” that they had committed several offences. Those two statements could have been construed as confirmation that, according to the police, the appl icants had committed the offences of which they were accused. Taken as a whole, the attitude of the police authorities, in so far as it entailed a prior assessment of the charges which the applicants might face and provided the press with an easy physical means of identifying them, was incompatible with the presumption of innocence.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – The Court made awards in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants on account of the violation of the pres umption of innocence. It awarded them a sum jointly for costs and expenses.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes