Resolution CM/ ResDH (2019)359 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Three cases against Turkey

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 December 2019 at the 1363 rd meeting of the Ministers ’ Deputies)

Application No.

Case

Judgment of

Final on

28490/95

HULKI GÃœNEÅž

19/06/2003

19/09/2003

72000/01

GÖÇMEN

17/10/2006

17/01/2007

46661/99

SÖYLEMEZ

21/09/2006

21/12/2006

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and to the violations established;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases primarily concern the unfairness of criminal proceedings on account of the statements taken under duress and admitted in evidence at trial, leading to the applicants ’ conviction and sentencing to life imprisonment;

Recalling further that the Court found other violations concerning:

- the lack of independence and impartiality of the state security courts (this issue was examined under the Gençel group of cases, see Final Resolution CM/ ResDH (2013)256 );

- the e xcessive length of criminal proceedings ( this issue was examined under the Ormanci group of cases, see Final Resolution CM/ ResDH (2014)298 );

- the lack of legal assistance in police custody (this issue was examined under the Salduz group of cases, see Final Resolution CM/ ResDH (2018)219 );

- inhuman and degrading treatment while in police custody and the ineffectiveness of the subsequent investigations into these allegations (this issue is being examined under the Bati group of cases;

Recalling the respondent State ’ s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and

- of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;

Recalling that at the 1172 nd meeting, the Committee welcomed the adoption of the law allowing the reopening of proceedings in the applicants ’ cases on 11 April 2013 by the Turkish Parliament and its entry into force on 30 April 2013, and noted with satisfaction that the Turkish authorities had sent official notifications to all applicants in the present group of cases and informed them of their right to a reopening of proceedings following the coming into force of the above-mentioned law [1] ;

Noting that in its Interim Resolution ResDH (2005)113 the Committee recalled that the Turkish authorities had taken comprehensive general measures to prevent new similar violations of the right to a fair trial and were implementing a comprehensive set of measures aimed at preventing ill-treatment by members of the security forces;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2019)426 );

Having taken note that no further individual measures can be taken in Gocmen and Soylemez cases and having satisfied itself that the shortcomings identified by the Court as regards the initial trial of the applicant in the case of Hulki G üneş were remedied, as explained in the action report;

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,

DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

[1] CM/Del/Dec(2013)1172/24