Information Note on the Court’s case-law 55

July 2003

Y.F. v. Turkey - 24209/94

Judgment 22.7.2003 [Section IV]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Compulsory gynaecological examination of applicant’s wife while in custody: violation

Facts : The applicant and his wife were taken into police custody on suspicion of aiding and abetting the PKK. The applicant’s wife was held in custody for four days, duri ng which she was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment. She was examined by a doctor, who found no signs of ill-treatment, and then taken to a gynaecologist for a further examination at the request of the police. Despite her refusal, she was forced to under go an examination. The doctor reported that there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. The applicant’s wife lodged a complaint about the forced gynaecological examination. Three police officers were prosecuted but were acquitted on the ground that they had had no intention of degrading or humiliating the applicant’s wife but had wished to protect themselves against possible allegations of rape.

Law : Article 8 – The Government had not contested the right of the applicant to bring a complaint on beha lf of his wife and in that connection it was open to him, as a close relative of the victim, to complain about the alleged violation of her rights, in particular having regard to her vulnerable position. A compulsory medical intervention, even of minor imp ortance, constitutes an interference with the right to respect for private life and in the circumstances of the case the applicant’s wife could not be expected to resist submitting to the examination in view of her vulnerability in the hands of the authori ties, who exercised full control over her during her detention. There had therefore been an interference by a public authority with her right to respect for private life. The Government had not argued that the interference was “in accordance with the law” at the relevant time and indeed under domestic law any interference with a person’s physical integrity is prohibited except in the case of medical necessity and in the circumstances defined by law. Moreover, in the course of the preliminary investigation, a detainee may only be examined at the request of a public prosecutor. However, the Government had not demonstrated the existence of medical necessity or the circumstances defined by law and had not suggested that a request had been made by the public pros ecutor. While the medical examination of detainees can provide a significant safeguard against false accusations of sexual ill-treatment, any interference with physical integrity must be prescribed by law and have the consent of the person concerned. In th e present case, the interference was not in accordance with the law.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – The Court awarded 4,000 euros to be paid to the applicant to be held for his wife. It also made an award in respect of 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