SECOND SECTION
CASE OF
MESUT DENİZ v. TURKEY
(Application no.
36716/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 November 2013
This judgment will become final in
the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may
be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mesut Deniz v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human
Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Guido Raimondi,
President,
Danutė Jočienė,
Peer Lorenzen,
András Sajó,
Işıl Karakaş,
Nebojša Vučinić,
Helen Keller, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Acting Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 November 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an application (no.
36716/07) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34
of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Mesut Deniz (“the applicant”), on
3 August 2007.
The applicant was represented by Ms G. Altay,
Ms F. Yolcu and Mr H. Karakuş, lawyers practising in
Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their
Agent.
On 23 April 2010 the application was communicated
to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits
of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 1975 and is currently
detained in Sincan prison.
On 5 October 1999 the applicant was arrested and
taken into custody by police officers in Havza, a district of Samsun, in the
course of a routine identity check. He was taken to the Havza police
headquarters. According to the arrest and seizure report, the applicant was
arrested at around 1.30 p.m., after he had tried to evade the police by jumping
off the two-metre high balcony of a café and was apprehended by the
officers. According to the report, the applicant threw himself on the ground
repeatedly and sustained various injuries. In particular, he had bruises and
scratches on his back, on the left shoulder, on both arms and on the forehead.
In the arrest and seizure report it was also noted that the applicant had false
identity papers and, inter alia, a Kalashnikov rifle, bullets,
night-vision binoculars and a walkie-talkie in his bag.
The applicant was subsequently taken to the Samsun
police headquarters.
On the same day, at around 3.05 p.m., the
applicant was examined by a doctor in Samsun who observed that the applicant was
rather tired. He further observed the following injuries on the applicant’s
person: ecchymoses on both the left and right sides of the forehead, on both the
left and right scapulas and in the lumbar region; hyperaemic lesions
on both the left and right sides of the neck, hyperaemia and ecchymoses on the
left biceps, hyperaemia on the right biceps and ecchymoses on both calves.
On 6 October 1999, at
around 9.25 a.m., the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Samsun Forensic
Institute who noted that he was tired and weak and had bruises of
various shapes and colours on his body. In addition to those noted in the
medical report of 5 October 1999, the doctor observed the following injuries on
the applicant’s body: ecchymoses, swellings and scratches of various sizes on
the middle of the forehead, in the left zygomatic region, on his head, on the
left clavicle, on the left side of the abdomen, on the left side of the crista
iliaca region, on the outside of the left arm, on the inside of the left upper
arm, on both thighs, on the right elbow and on both wrists. According to the
report, there was also bleeding under both nipples, hyperaemia on the glans of
the penis and three ecchymoses on the penis.
On 7 October 1999, at around 10.30 a.m., the
applicant was examined by a doctor at the Samsun Forensic Institute who found
no additional injuries on his body, apart from those recorded in the previous
medical report of 6 October 1999.
On the same day, the applicant was transferred
to the Ankara police headquarters.
On 12 October 1999 the applicant was examined by
a doctor at the Ankara Forensic Institute who, in addition to the injuries
noted in the previous reports, observed oedema on the palmar surface of the
third finger and sensitivity on the first toe. The doctor asked for additional examinations
to be carried out by the Department of Urology and Neurology at Ankara Hospital.
The applicant claimed that he had been subjected
to various forms of ill-treatment during his arrest and subsequent detention at
the Samsun police headquarters and the Ankara police headquarters. In respect
of the treatment at the Samsun police headquarters, he claimed to have been
beaten, given electric shocks, hung by his arms, hosed with cold water, had his
genitals and fingers squeezed, been made to lie on an icy surface and been raped
by one police officer with a hose.
Subsequent to his detention in police custody,
the applicant was charged under the former Criminal Code with membership of an
illegal organisation and attempting to undermine the constitutional order; he
was remanded in custody.
On an unspecified date, the applicant’s lawyers
lodged an official complaint with the Samsun public prosecutor’s office, claiming
that the applicant had been subjected to various forms of ill-treatment while being
held at Samsun police headquarters between 5 and 6 October 1999. They submitted
that the applicant would be able to recognise the person who had given the
orders, as well as some of the others involved. They said that the applicant
had also been ill-treated in Ankara and that they would lodge a separate
complaint to that effect.
On 9 June 2000 the applicant sent a handwritten
letter to the public prosecutor claiming that he had been ill-treated during
his arrest and subsequent detention at both the Samsun and Ankara police
headquarters. He gave a detailed account of the treatment during his arrest, at
the Havza police headquarters and at Samsun police headquarters. He again submitted
that he would be able to recognise the person who had given the orders at
Samsun police headquarters as well as some of the others involved. As regards
his detention at the Ankara police headquarters, the applicant merely stated
that he had been subjected to ill-treatment there also.
On 24 July 2000 a forensic medical expert, at the
request of the applicant’s lawyer, lodged an opinion with the Ankara Medical
Association on the basis of the medical reports issued in respect of the
applicant. In that report he submitted that the injury details recorded in the
arrest report had no medical significance since it had not been drafted by
medically competent persons. He also criticised the fact that the applicant had
not been transferred to the Department of Urology and Neurology at Ankara
Hospital, as requested in the medical report of 12 October 1999. The
medical expert concluded that it was not possible to determine the exact cause
of the injuries noted in the medical reports.
On an unspecified date the applicant began a
hunger strike in prison. In 2001 he began to suffer from a mental disorder.
According to a report dated 19 April 2002 issued by the Medical Board of the Ankara
Numune Hospital, the applicant presented psychotic symptoms. The experts could
not determine whether these symptoms were due to the hunger strike (Wernicke-Korsakoff
syndrome) or to schizophrenia.
On an unspecified date in 2000 the Samsun public
prosecutor initiated an investigation into the applicant’s allegations.
On 14 November 2001 the Samsun public prosecutor
filed a bill of indictment with the Samsun Criminal Court accusing a police
officer, H.Ö., whom the applicant had identified through photographs, of
ill-treatment under Article 245 of the former Criminal Code.
On 21 March 2002 the Samsun Criminal Court held
the first hearing on the merits of the case.
On 17 July 2002 the first-instance court heard
the accused police officer, who denied the allegations of ill-treatment.
On 28 February 2003 the applicant was brought
before the Ankara Criminal Court in order to give evidence, acting on letters rogatory.
However, he was not able make any statement, as he appeared to be suffering
from a mental disorder.
On 16 April 2003 the Samsun Criminal Court
convicted H.Ö. as charged and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment and
suspension from duty for a period of three months. The court then commuted the
sentence to a fine and suspended its execution.
On 5 December 2005 the Court of Cassation
quashed the judgment of 16 April 2003, holding that the police officer should
have been charged with torture under Article 243 of the former Criminal Code
and that therefore the case should have been heard by an assize court.
On 11 October 2006 the Samsun Criminal Court declined
jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Samsun Assize Court.
26. On
22 November 2006 the Samsun Assize Court commenced the trial.
27. On
6 April 2007 H.Ö. made statements before the Assize Court and
denied the charges against him.
On 30 July 2007 the applicant gave evidence
before the Ankara Assize Court acting on letters rogatory. He waived his right
to a lawyer. He reiterated that he had been ill-treated at the Samsun police
headquarters and that, although he was not completely certain, the accused
appeared to be one of the police officers who had ill-treated him. In this
connection, the applicant claimed that about twelve police officers had ill-treated
him, but that at the time when he had been asked to identify the perpetrators
he had been on hunger strike, depressed and suffering from health problems. He
reiterated that he was not certain whether the accused was one of those who had
ill-treated him and affirmed that he wanted those responsible to be prosecuted.
In addition, he stated that he did not wish to join the proceedings as a civil
party.
On 26 September 2007 the Samsun Assize Court
acquitted H.Ö. of the charges against him. In its decision the court held that
while the forensic medical reports established that the applicant had been ill-treated
between 5 and 6 October 1999, the applicant could not formally identify the
accused as responsible and, as such, there was insufficient evidence to convict
him.
On 7 January 2010 the applicant’s lawyer
appealed against the first-instance court’s decision. In particular, she
maintained that since the applicant suffered from Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome
and schizophrenia he could not be deemed to have understood the
consequences of waiving his right to a lawyer and not joining the proceedings
as a civil party, and that therefore the court should have assigned him a
lawyer. In addition, the lawyer submitted that the applicant and the accused
should have been allowed to confront each other in order to give the former the
opportunity to identify the latter. The applicant’s lawyer submitted a copy of the
report dated 19 April 2002 issued by the Medical Board of the Ankara Numune
Hospital in support of the appeal.
On 11 January 2010 the applicant’s lawyer applied
to the Samsun Assize Court requesting it to annul its previous decision (eski
hale getirme) to serve its judgment on the applicant, on the ground that it
should have been served on his legal representative, and to disregard the
applicant’s statement regarding his wish not to intervene in the proceedings as
a civil party so as to enable him to lodge an appeal against the decision. In her
application, the applicant’s lawyer also maintained that since the applicant
suffered from Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, the rogatory court should
have assigned him a lawyer, even if he had waived that right.
On 19 January 2010 the Samsun Assize Court held
that the applicant could not lodge an appeal against the judgment of 26 September
2007 as he had not joined the proceedings as a civil party.
On 5 February 2010 the applicant’s lawyer lodged
an appeal with the Court of Cassation against the Samsun Assize Court’s
decision of 19 January 2010.
According to information obtained by the
Registry from the website of the Court of Cassation, on 4 May 2012 the higher
court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A description of the domestic law and practice
concerning prosecution for ill-treatment in force at the material time can be
found in Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, §§
96-98, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3, 6 AND 13 OF
THE CONVENTION
The applicant alleged
under Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention that he had been subjected to
ill-treatment while in police custody at the Samsun police headquarters, and
that the authorities had failed to carry out
an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment.
The Court considers that these complaints
should be examined from the standpoint of Article 3 alone, which reads:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.”
A. Admissibility
The Government argued that
the application should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. In
this connection, they stated that the applicant should have joined the
criminal proceedings initiated against the accused police officers. They
further argued that the applicant had failed to make use of administrative
remedies in respect of his complaints of ill-treatment. The Government submitted,
in particular, that the applicant could have sought compensation under Article 125 of
the Constitution on the basis of the authorities’ strict liability.
The Court notes that it has examined and
rejected similar preliminary objections by the Government in previous cases (see Ferhat Kaya v. Turkey,
no. 12673/05, § 30, 25 September 2012; Uyan v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 15750/02, § 48, 21 October 2008; Karayiğit v. Turkey (dec.), no.
63181/00, 5 October 2004; and İlhan v. Turkey
[GC], no. 22277/93, § 61, ECHR 2000-VII). It finds
no particular circumstances in the instant case which would require it to
depart from its previous findings. Accordingly, it rejects the Government’s
preliminary objection.
The Court notes that this part of the
application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35
§ 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any
other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. The responsibility of the respondent State in the
light of the substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention
The Government
submitted that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment were
unsubstantiated. They maintained that the injuries observed on the applicant’s
body had been caused by his own actions and that according to the arrest and
seizure report he had sustained his injuries during his arrest.
. The
applicant submitted that he had been subjected to various forms of
ill-treatment amounting to torture while detained at the Samsun police
headquarters. He submitted, in particular, that he had been kicked and slapped,
given electric shocks, hung by his arms, hosed with cold water, had his penis
and fingers squeezed and twisted, his toes pressed and been made to lie on an
icy surface.
The Court reiterates that
Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic societies,
making no provision for exceptions, and permitting no derogation from it under
Article 15 § 2 of the Convention (see Selmouni
v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V). It reiterates
that where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to
be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a
plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused and to produce evidence
casting doubt on the veracity of the victim’s allegations, particularly if
those allegations are supported by medical reports. Failing this, a clear issue
arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many
others, Selmouni,
cited above, § 87, and Çelik and
İmret v. Turkey, no. 44093/98, § 39, 26 October
2004). In assessing such evidence, the Court has
adopted the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”. Sufficient proof may, however, follow from the
coexistence of adequately strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Hacı Özen v. Turkey, no. 46286/99,
§ 46, 12 April 2007).
. Furthermore,
where the events in issue lie wholly or in large part within the exclusive
knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons under their control in
custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries
occurring during detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as
resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation
(see Hacı Özen, cited above, § 47).
Turning to the circumstances of the present
case, the Court first observes that in its judgment of 26 September 2007 the
Samsun Assize Court found it established, on the basis of the medical reports
dated 6 and 7 October 1999, that the applicant had been subjected to
ill-treatment on 5 and 6 October 1999 (see paragraphs 8, 9 and 29 above).
In this connection, the Court notes that three medical reports were drawn up in
respect of the applicant during his period in police custody at the Samsun
police headquarters, and these were also referred to by the Samsun Assize Court. The
medical report of 5 October 1999, made at the beginning of the applicant’s
detention, recorded the applicant as having sustained injuries on his forehead,
both scapulas, the lumbar region, the neck, both biceps and both calves. The
second and third medical reports, drawn up on 6 and 7 October 1999, recorded
that the applicant had the injuries noted in the report of 5 October 1999 and,
in addition, various types of injuries to his left
zygomatic region, his head, the left clavicle, the left side of the abdomen,
the left side of the crista iliaca region, the left arm, both thighs, the right
elbow, both wrists, both nipples and the penis (see paragraphs 7-9 above).
. The
Court notes that neither the Government nor the applicant disputed the findings
of these medical reports. However, they put forward different explanations as
to how the applicant had actually sustained the injuries. The applicant claimed that he had been beaten, given
electric shocks, hung by his arms, hosed with cold water, had his genitals and
fingers squeezed, been made to lie on an icy surface and been raped by one
police officer with a hose, whereas the Government
alleged that the injuries had occurred when he had attempted to jump off the
balcony of the café where he was arrested.
. The
Court observes that the medical reports of 6 and 7 October 1999 contain
findings which were not included in the report of 5 October 1999. The
Court notes, in this connection, that the Government have not provided any
explanation for those injuries. It further observes that the findings in the
medical reports are at least consistent with the applicant’s allegations that
he was beaten severely and had his penis twisted and squeezed.
. The Court reiterates that States are responsible for the welfare of all persons held in detention.
Such persons are in a vulnerable situation and the authorities have a duty to
protect them (see Mehmet Emin Yüksel v. Turkey, no. 40154/98,
§ 30, 20 July 2004). Bearing in mind the authorities’ obligation to
account for injuries caused to persons under their control in custody, and in
the absence of a convincing explanation by the Government in the instant case,
the Court considers that at least the injuries recorded in the medical reports
of 6 and 7 October 1999 which were not noted in the report of 5 October 1999 were
the result of treatment for which the Government bore responsibility. As a
result, the Court, unlike the Government, agrees with the conclusion of the
Samsun Assize Court that the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment when he
was detained at the Samsun police headquarters.
. Having regard to
the nature and degree of the ill-treatment and to the strong inferences that
can be drawn from the evidence that it was inflicted in order to obtain
information from the applicant about his suspected connection with an illegal
organisation, the Court finds that the ill-treatment involved very serious and
cruel suffering that can only be characterised as torture
(see, among other authorities, Salman v.
Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 115, ECHR 2000-VII; Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 64, Reports
of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey,
no. 32446/96, § 47, 2 November 2004; and Koçak v. Turkey, no. 32581/96, § 48, 3 May 2007).
Accordingly, there has been a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb.
2. The responsibility of the respondent State in the
light of the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention
The Government submitted that the applicant’s
allegations of ill-treatment had been subjected to an effective investigation. Statements
had been taken from the applicant and the accused police officer and the
medical reports had been examined by the public prosecutor and the national
courts.
.
The applicant maintained that the criminal proceedings brought against the
police officers had been ineffective, as he had been unable to put questions to
the accused police officer during the criminal proceedings, which furthermore
had not been concluded within a reasonable time.
. The
Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention requires the authorities to
investigate allegations of ill-treatment when they are
“arguable” and “raise a reasonable suspicion” (see, in particular, Ay v. Turkey, no.
30951/96, §§ 59-60, 22 March 2005). The minimum standards of effectiveness
defined by the Court’s case-law include the requirements that the investigation
be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny. It is beyond doubt
that a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit
in this context. A prompt response by the authorities in investigating
allegations of ill-treatment may generally be regarded as essential in
maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in
preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of
unlawful acts (see Batı
and Others, cited above, § 136). When the
official investigation has led to the institution of proceedings in the
national courts, the proceedings as a whole, including the trial stage, must
satisfy the requirement of the prohibition of ill-treatment. While there is no
absolute obligation for all prosecutions to result in conviction or in a
particular sentence, the national courts should not under any circumstances be
prepared to allow grave attacks on physical and moral integrity to go unpunished (see Okkalı v. Turkey, no.
52067/99, § 65, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
. The
Court has found above that the respondent State was responsible, under Article
3 of the Convention, for the injuries sustained by the applicant. An effective
investigation was therefore required.
. In
this connection, the Court observes that an investigation into the applicant’s allegations
was initiated by the public prosecutor’s office. The applicant made statements
to the public prosecutor and was asked to identify the police officers who had
ill-treated him. This investigation led to the committal for trial of H.Ö.,
identified as one of the police officers who had taken part in both the arrest
and the questioning of the applicant.
. The
Court observes, however, serious shortcomings in the investigation and in the
ensuing criminal proceedings. Firstly, neither the public prosecutor nor the
national courts obtained statements from the other police officers who were on
duty at the time of the applicant’s detention in police custody, or from any
other witnesses, such as persons detained at the same
time as the applicant. The courts relied solely on the statements of the
applicant, who apparently was unable to give evidence in court on account of
mental instability. Furthermore, the national courts failed to give the
applicant or his lawyer the opportunity to examine the accused in person. As a
result, relying on the medical reports and in the absence of any witness
statements, the Samsun Assize Court found it established that the applicant had
been ill-treated but it failed to identify and punish the perpetrators. Thirdly,
there is nothing in the case-file to indicate that the accused police officer
was suspended from duty while he was under investigation. On this point, the
Court underlines the importance of the suspension from duty of the agent under
investigation in order to prevent any appearance of collusion in or tolerance
of unlawful acts (see Abdülsamet Yaman cited
above, § 55). Finally, the Court cannot but notice that there were substantial
delays in the criminal proceedings in question: they lasted more than nine
years, a delay that runs contrary to the requirement of promptness and
reasonable expedition.
. Thus,
in view of the aforementioned shortcomings, and in particular the substantial
delay in the conduct of the proceedings, the Court finds that the perpetrators
of acts of violence enjoyed virtual impunity, despite the existence of
incontrovertible evidence (see Batı and Others, cited
above, § 147). The Court therefore considers that the investigation
and the ensuing criminal proceedings were inadequate and therefore in breach of
the State’s procedural obligations under Article 3 of the Convention.
. Accordingly,
there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural
limb.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
The applicant complained under Article 13 of the
Convention that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective
investigation into his allegation and thus denied him the opportunity to claim
compensation for his grievances under Article 3.
Article 13 of the Convention reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the]
Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national
authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons
acting in an official capacity.”
A. Admissibility
The Court notes that this part of the application
is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of
the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other
grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
The Government submitted that there had been an
effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment.
The applicant maintained
that the national authorities had failed to punish those responsible for
his ill-treatment and that, as a result, he had not had an effective
remedy whereby he could claim compensation.
. The
Court reiterates that in a number of judgments concerning cases brought against
police officers that were time-barred, the Court concluded that the civil
remedies had been inoperative as a result of the shortcomings in the
investigations and substantial delays in the proceedings and found a violation
of Article 13 (see, among others, Batı and Others, cited above, § 148; Müdet Kömürcü
v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 40160/05, § 36,
21 July 2009; and Serdar Güzel v. Turkey, no. 39414/06, § 50, 15 March 2011). The Court considers that the same considerations are
applicable in the instant case, where the criminal proceedings, which lasted
for more than nine years, resulted in the acquittal of the accused police
officer. The Court consequently finds no reason in the instant case to depart
from its previous conclusions.
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 13 of the
Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
Article 41 of the
Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there
has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial
reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction
to the injured party.”
A. Damage
The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in
respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The Government submitted that the applicant’s claim was excessive.
In view of the violations found under Article 3
of the Convention, the Court finds that the applicant must have suffered pain
and distress which cannot be compensated for solely by the Court’s finding of a violation. It therefore
awards the applicant the sum claimed by him in full, namely EUR 20,000, in
respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicant also claimed EUR 6,750 for the
costs and expenses incurred before the Court. He claimed EUR 6,540 for his
lawyers’ fees and EUR 210 for translation, postal and photocopying costs. He
submitted that the amount claimed for his lawyers’ fees corresponded to their
work carried out between 2007 and 2010 for the present case.
The Government contested the claim.
According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant
is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has
been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are
reasonable as to quantum. The Court notes at the
outset that no invoice has been submitted to substantiate the costs. It
therefore rejects those claims. As regards the lawyers’ fees, in view of the
documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it
reasonable to award the applicant the sum of EUR 2,000.
C. Default interest
The Court considers it appropriate that the
default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the
European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 13 of the Convention;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant,
within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts, to be converted into the currency of the
respondent State, at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros), plus any
tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax
that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the
expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest
shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending
rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three
percentage points;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 November 2013,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Guido
Raimondi
Acting Registrar President
