Information Note on the Court’s case-law 64

May 2004

Yurttas v. Turkey - 25143/94 and 27098/95

Judgment 27.5.2004 [Section III]

Article 3

Degrading treatment

Inhuman treatment

Detention incommunicado for 11 days: no violation

Article 6

Article 6-3-c

Defence through legal assistance

Detention incommunicado for 11 days: no violation

(Extracts from press release)

Article 3– “The Court also notes that complete sensory isolation, coupled with total social isolation, can destroy the personality and constitutes a form of inhuman treatment which cannot be justified by the requirements of security or any other reason. On the other hand, the prohibition of contacts with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons does not in itself amount to inhuman treatment or punishment (see, among other authorities, Messina v. Italy (dec.), no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999- V). Nor does the Court exclude the possibility that excessively long detention in complete isolation and in particularly difficult circumstances for the detainee constitutes treatment contrary to Article 3.

In the instant case, the Court notes that during his time in police custody the applicant was not kept in complete sensory isolation coupled with total social isolation. Admittedly, he was forbidden all contact with the outside world, but he did have contact with members of staff working on the premises and, for the most part, with his fellow detainees. In addition, in the absence of any questioning of the applicant, this detention amounted to a wait of eleven days before he was brought before the judges. This time-scale could not have surprised the appli cant, since, at the material time, it complied with the domestic legislation. Nor could it be considered so excessively long as to affect the applicant's personality or cause him intense mental suffering.”

The Court therefore considers that the applicant's detention in police custody in itself did not attain the minimum level of severity necessary to constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3. Consequently, there has been no violation of that provision.”

Article 6 § 3 (c) – (n o assistance from a lawyer during police detention)): “[The] Court notes that, in the instant case, the applicant was not questioned by the police during his detention and made no statement to the police which could subsequently have been used against him in criminal proceedings. In addition, it notes that the applicant's statement before the public prosecutor at the State Security Court had no impact on the criminal proceedings against him, given that he had an opportunity to make a statement on the same d ay before a judge and later before the State Security Court itself, assisted by his lawyers. It also notes that the prosecutor's accusations to the effect that the applicant was seeking to bring about the collapse of the State through the use of force (Art icle 125 of the Criminal Code) were accepted by neither the first-instance court nor the Court of Cassation. Finally, it notes that the national criminal courts, which convicted the applicant on the basis of his public statements, recorded by various techn ical means, drew no conclusions from his silence during his detention and attached no weight to this fact in their deliberations.

The Court does not exclude the possibility that the lack of legal assistance during police detention may raise issues under Ar ticle 6 of the Convention. However, it considers that the circumstances of the instant case do not enable it to conclude that the applicant's defence rights were irretrievably prejudiced during his detention and that he was deprived of a fair trial on acco unt of the lack of communication with a lawyer during this period.

Consequently, there has been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the lack of assistance from a lawyer during police detention.”

© 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