SECOND SECTION

Application no. 75599/10 Salamatou TOURE against Turkey lodged on 31 December 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant , Ms Salamatou Toure , is an Ivo rian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Konya . She was represented before the Court by Ms S. UludaÄŸ , a lawyer practising in I stanbul .

A. F acts concerning the events before the applicant ’ s arrival to Turkey, as submitted by her

The applicant used to live in a town in Ivory Coast named Danane near the Liberian border and is of Yakouba ethnicity.

According to the applicant ’ s submissions, her family members supported opposition leader Ouattara at a time when Gbagbo ruled Ivory Coast . They felt targeted during the period of chaos that followed the elections in the country and became separated. The applicant started living with another family member who was killed a while afterwards.

Following the death of her relative, the applicant fled to Ghana , where she obtained a forged Ghanaian passport through a human smuggler in order to travel to a European destination. During the flight to Turkey , the latter kept the passport but the applicant was not able to find him upon her arrival at the Istanbul Atatürk Airport on 28 December 2010.

B. Facts c oncerning the events after the applicant ’ s arrival in Turkey, as submitted by both parties

On 29 December 2010 the applicant was noticed by the airport authorities in the international transit zone of the Istanbul Atatürk Airport . According to the Government ’ s submissions, although the applicant claimed to have flown to Turkey from Ghana the day before, she could not be identified in the security camera records. Nor could she show any document proving her identity when requested. That day the applicant contacted the UNCHR and informed it of her situation in a telephone conversation. According to her submissions, she also tried to hand in a letter to the airport authorities by which she requested asylum but this was refused by them.

On 31 December 2010 the UNCHR contacted the applicant ’ s representative, indicating that the applicant was being held in the international transit zone of the Istanbul Atatürk Airport and that the authorities had confirmed their intention to deport her to Ghana or Ivory Coast . However, the UNHCR did not have access to the said zone. The applicant ’ s representative was also informed by the UNHCR that the national asylum procedure was not implemented at the airports and that therefore it was not possible to assess the applicant ’ s asylum request.

On 3 January 2011 the applicant submitted another request for asylum to the airport authorities. Subsequently, a note in English was drawn up by the authorities to inform her that her request would be evaluated by the Ministry of Interior and that she would not be deported until the end of the asylum procedure. The note also indicated that she could be kept in the transit zone for a period of up to ten days and stated that although she had the right to object, the objection would not provide her release. The applicant signed the note.

On the same day, another lawyer representing the applicant tried to meet her in order to conduct a detailed interview about her application and to have her sign the authority forms required by the Court. However, the representative was refused access to the transit zone and could not have a meeting with the applicant.

On 4 January 2011 the UNCHR sent a second letter to the applicant ’ s representative, stating that the authorities were still investigating how the applicant entered the country and that she would be deported to Ghana or Ivory Coast once they figured out the problem.

Following a second request from the applicant ’ s representative, on the same day an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court was applied and the applicant was kept in the transit zone.

On 5 January 2011 the airport authorities drew up a record, indicating that they had tried to inform the applicant about the asylum procedure with the assistance of an interpreter but that the applicant had refused to cooperate.

The applicant had a face-to-face meeting with her representative for the first time on 6 January 2011.

On 10 January 2011 the Head of the Foreigners ’ Office informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Istanbul Governorship that upon a decision of the Ministry of Interior, the applicant was allowed to enter Turkey pending the evaluation of her asylum request.

Subsequently, on 11 January 2011 the applicant was transferred to the Kumkapı Foreigners ’ Admission and Accommodation Centre . On the same day, the authorities handed in a document to the applicant in order to explain the asylum procedure.

A UNHCR official was allowed to conduct an interview with the applicant in person on 13 January 2011. Subsequently, the UNCHR formally started the examination of her claim for international protection.

On 17 January 2011 the applicant had a meeting with her representative again.

On 25 January 2011 the Ministry of Interior instructed the Konya Governorship to issue a temporary residence permit in respect of the applicant until otherwise instructed.

C. Procedure before the Court

On 31 December 2010 the applicant ’ s representative lodged the present application with the Court, claiming that the applicant was being deported to Ghana or Ivory Coast . She requested the Court to stop the applicant ’ s deportation under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and indicated that she did not have direct access to the applicant, which prevented her from submitting an authority form.

The President of the Chamber to which the case had been allocated refused the request under Rule 39.

On 4 January 2011 the applicant ’ s representative made a second request for the application of an interim measure under Rule 39. She indicated that the applicant was still being kept in the international transit zone of the Istanbul Atatürk Airport and that her requests for asylum were being disregarded by the airport authorities although she had expressed her fear of persecution if returned. The representative further maintained that the applicant had a stress-related bleeding but was not being given any hygienic material for her condition.

On the same day the President of the Chamber decided to indicate to the Government, under Rule 39, that the applicant should not be deported to Ghana or Ivory Coast until 19 January 2011. The Government were also invited to allow the applicant ’ s access to her representative as well as to the UNHCR and to answer certain questions as regards her situation.

On 19 January 2011 the President of the Chamber decided to prolong the interim measure until the applicant ’ s asylum claim was examined by the national authorities and the outcome was final.

On 7 February 2011 the Government submitted their responses to the questions put to them by the Court. They indicated, inter alia , that there was no deportation order issued in respect of the applicant and that the examination of her asylum request was pending. They maintained that the asylum procedure had started before the communication of the interim measure by the Court and had it been their intention to deport the applicant, they could have returned her to Ghana before that date. According to their statements, the applicant was informed of all stages of the procedure and there was no restriction of her access to her representative and to the UNHCR.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant argues under Article s 2 and 3 of the Convention that her removal to Ghana or to Ivory Coast would expose her to a real risk of death or ill-treatment .

She invokes Article 13 of the Convention, claiming that there is no effective domestic remedy whereby she could have her allegations under Articles 2 and 3 examined.

Relying upon Article 5 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention, the applicant complains that she was held in detention at the Istanbul Atatürk Airport and the Kumkapı Foreigners ’ Admission and Accommodation Centre without there being any legal basis and that she was not informed of the reasons for her detention. She maintains under Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 that she did not have access to any domestic remedy to request her release, challenge the lawfulness of her detention or claim compensation for the unlawful deprivation of liberty.

The applicant maintain s under Article 34 of the Convention that she was denied direct access to her representative during the period she was held in the international transit zone of the Istanbul Atatürk Airport .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Would the applicant ’ s removal to Ghana or Ivory Coast give rise to a real risk that she would be subjected to treatment in violation of Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, have the authorities taken the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention into account when considering the applicant ’ s requests for asylum?

3.(a) Having regard to the absence of a deportation order in respect of the applicant and with reference to the complaint raised under Article 5 of the Convention, what was the reason for the applicant ’ s detention at the international tra nsit zone of the Istanbul Atatürk Airport and the Kumkapı Foreigners ’ Admission and Accommodation Centre ?

(b) Did the applicant ’ s detention comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty fall within paragraph (f) of this provision?

(c) Was the applicant informed promptl y of the reasons for her deprivation of liberty, as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention, when she was detained?

(d) Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective remedy by which she could challenge the lawfulness of her deprivation of liberty, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

(e) Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for her detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4 , as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?

4. Was the applicant ’ s lawyer prevented from meeting with her and obtaining a power of attorney during the first eight days of her detention in the international transit zone of the Istanbul Atatürk Airport ? If so, can the authorities ’ refusal be considered as hindering the effective exercise of the applicant ’ s right of individual petition, guaranteed by Article 34 of the Convention ( Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 129 , ECHR 2005 ‑ I ; Shtukaturov v. Russia , no. 44009/05, §§ 138-149 , 27 March 2008 ; and D.B. v. Turkey , no. 33526/08 , § § 66-67 , 13 July 2010 )?