Source: http://www.ipsofactoj.com/DecidedCases/international/2008/part11/int2008(11)-013.htm
Timestamp: 2017-09-19 13:38:45
Document Index: 509801204

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 11', '§ 3', '§ 34', '§ 50', '§ 3', '§ 38', '§ 50', '§ 100', '§ 51', '§ 101', '§ 86', '§ 53', '§ 28', '§ 1', '§ 56', '§ 53', '§ 47', '§ 1', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§ 105', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1']

Yusuf Salduz v Turkey [ECHR]
IpsofactoJ.com: International Cases [2008] Part 11 Case 13 [ECHR]
NICOLAS BRATZA,President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Judges
Vincent Berger, Jurisconsult
On 24 September 2007 a panel of the Grand Chamber decided to accept his request (Rule 73).
.... in view of these material facts, the court does not accept the applicant's denial and finds that his confession to the police is substantiated.
Where juveniles are detained in police custody, account should be taken of their status as a minor, their age and their vulnerability and level of maturity. They should be promptly informed of their rights and safeguards in a manner that ensures their full understanding. While being questioned by the police they should, in principle, be accompanied by their parent/legal guardian or other appropriate adult. They should also have the right of access to a lawyer and a doctor....
to reinforcing the legal position of minors throughout the proceedings, including the police interrogation, by recognising, inter alia:
the right to the assistance of a counsel who may, if necessary, be officially appointed and paid by the state.
States Parties shall ensure that: ....
The child must be guaranteed legal or other appropriate assistance in the preparation and presentation of his/her defence. CRC does require that the child be provided with assistance, which is not necessarily under all circumstances legal but it must be appropriate. It is left to the discretion of the States parties to determine how this assistance is provided but it should be free of charge....
The Committee recommends that the States parties set and implement time limits for the period between the communication of the offence and the completion of the police investigation, the decision of the prosecutor (or other competent body) to bring charges against the child, and the final adjudication and decision by the court or other competent judicial body. These time limits should be much shorter than those set for adults. But at the same time, decisions without delay should be the result of a process in which the human rights of the child and legal safeguards are fully respected. In this decision-making process without delay, the legal or other appropriate assistance must be present. This presence should not be limited to the trial before the court or other judicial body, but also applies to all other stages of the process, beginning with the interviewing (interrogation) of the child by the police.
The relevant part of this text provides as follows:
The Committee recommends that the State party continue reviewing the law and practices regarding the juvenile justice system in order to bring it into full compliance with the Convention, in particular articles 37, 40 and 39, as well as with other relevant international standards in this area, such as the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules) and the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (the Riyadh Guidelines), with a view to raising the minimum legal age for criminal responsibility, extending the protection guaranteed by the Juvenile Law Court to all children up to the age of 18 and enforcing this law effectively by establishing juvenile courts in every province. In particular, it reminds the State party that juvenile offenders should be dealt with without delay, in order to avoid periods of incommunicado detention, and that pre-trial detention should be used only as a measure of last resort, should be as short as possible and should be no longer than the period prescribed by law. Alternative measures to pre-trial detention should be used whenever possible.
Rule 93 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Resolution (73)5 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe) provides: “An untried prisoner shall be entitled, as soon as he is imprisoned, to choose his legal representation .... and to receive visits from his legal adviser with a view to his defence and to prepare and hand to him and to receive, confidential instructions. At his request, he shall be given all necessary facilities for this purpose .... Interviews between the prisoner and his legal adviser may be within sight but not within hearing, either direct or indirect, of a police or institution official.”
Despite the many changes to legislation in recent years, certain weaknesses remain as regards formal safeguards against ill treatment. Perhaps the most important shortcoming is that persons detained on suspicion of collective offences falling under the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts are still not entitled to access to a lawyer during the first four days of their custody. Further, despite earlier affirmations to the contrary, the Turkish authorities made clear in their response to the report on the February/March 1999 visit that such persons are being denied during the first four days of their custody the possibility to inform a relative of their situation. Such incommunicado detention can only facilitate the infliction of ill treatment.
The implementation of the above recommendation will require legislative measures. However, in the meantime, immediate steps should be taken to ensure that existing legal provisions are complied with. Indeed, the information gathered during the July 2000 ad hoc visit clearly indicates that even after the first four days of police custody, access to a lawyer for persons suspected of State Security Court offences is in practice the exception rather than the rule. The CPT recommends that the officials responsible for carrying out checks and inspections under the previously-mentioned compliance monitoring procedure be instructed to pay particular attention to whether persons suspected of collective offences falling under the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts are being informed of their right to have access to a lawyer after the first four days of their custody and are being placed in a position effectively to exercise that right.
The amendments made to Article 16 of the Law on the Organisation and Trial Procedures of State Security Courts have also introduced an improvement as regards access to a lawyer for persons detained on suspicion of collective offences falling under the jurisdiction of State Security Courts. For such persons, the right of access to a lawyer becomes operative after the prosecutor has issued a written order for the extension of police custody beyond 48 hours; in other words, they are now denied access to a lawyer only for two days as compared to four days under the previous law.
Reference has been made earlier to recent positive legislative developments concerning the rights of access to a lawyer and to have one's custody notified to a relative (cf. paragraphs 12 to 14). They have further improved an already impressive legal and regulatory framework to combat torture and ill-treatment. Nevertheless, the CPT remains very concerned by the fact that persons detained on suspicion of collective offences falling under the jurisdiction of State Security Courts are still denied access to a lawyer during the first two days of their custody; its position on this point has been made clear in paragraph 12.
Further, the actual content of the right of access to a lawyer for persons suspected of State Security Court Offences remains less well developed than in the case of ordinary criminal suspects. In particular, as far as the CPT can ascertain, it is still the case that such suspects are not entitled to have the lawyer present when making a statement to the police and that the procedure allowing for the appointment of a lawyer by the Bar Association is not applicable to them. Similarly, the provision making obligatory the appointment of a lawyer for persons under 18 still does not apply to juveniles who are detained on suspicion of State Security Court offences. In this regard, the CPT reiterates the recommendation already made in the report on the October 1997 visit, that the relevant provisions of Articles 135, 136 and 138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be rendered applicable to persons suspected of offences falling under the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts.
Allegations that persons in police custody have been denied prompt and adequate access to legal and medical assistance and that family members have not been promptly notified of their detention;
Ensure that detainees, including those held for offences under the jurisdiction of State Security Courts, benefit fully in practice from the available safeguards against ill-treatment and torture, particularly by guaranteeing their right to medical and legal assistance and to contact with their families;
Certain basic guarantees apply to all persons deprived of liberty. Some of these specified in the Convention, and the Committee consistently calls upon the States parties to use them. The Committee's recommendations concerning effective measures aim to clarify the current baseline and are not exhaustive. Such guarantees include, inter alia, .... the right promptly to receive independent legal assistance....
to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require.
The Government asked the Grand Chamber to endorse the Chamber's finding that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention. They stated, firstly, that the legislation had been changed in 2005. Furthermore, in their submission, the restriction imposed on the applicant's access to a lawyer had not infringed his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention. Referring to the case-law of the Court (in particular, Imbrioscia v Switzerland, 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275; John Murray v The United Kingdom, 8 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 I; Averill v The United Kingdom, no. 36408/97, ECHR 2000 VI; Magee v The United Kingdom, no. 28135/95, ECHR 2000 VI, and Brennan v The United Kingdom, no. 39846/98, ECHR 2001 X), they maintained that in assessing whether or not the trial was fair, regard should be had to the entirety of the proceedings. Thus, as the applicant had been represented by a lawyer during the proceedings before the İzmir State Security Court and the Court of Cassation, his right to a fair hearing had not been violated. The Government further drew attention to several Turkish cases (Saraç v Turkey (dec.), no. 35841/97, 2 September 2004; Yurtsever v Turkey (dec.), no. 42086/02, 31 August 2006; Uçma and Uçma v Turkey (dec.), no. 15071/03, 3 October 2006; Ahmet Yavuz v Turkey (dec.), no. 38827/02, 21 November 2006, and Yıldız and Sönmez v Turkey (dec.), nos. 3543/03 and 3557/03, 5 December 2006), in which the Court had declared similar complaints inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded on the ground that, since the police statements had not been the only evidence to support the convictions, the lack of legal assistance during police custody had not constituted a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.
The Court further reiterates that although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, is one of the fundamental features of fair trial (Poitrimol v France, 23 November 1993, § 34, Series A no. 277 A, and Demebukov v Bulgaria, no. 68020/01, § 50, 28 February 2008). Nevertheless, Article 6 § 3 (c) does not specify the manner of exercising this right. It thus leaves to the Contracting States the choice of the means of ensuring that it is secured in their judicial systems, the Court's task being only to ascertain whether the method they have chosen is consistent with the requirements of a fair trial. In this respect, it must be remembered that the Convention is designed to “guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective” and that assigning counsel does not in itself ensure the effectiveness of the assistance he may afford an accused (Imbrioscia, cited above, § 38).
In this respect, the Court underlines the importance of the investigation stage for the preparation of the criminal proceedings, as the evidence obtained during this stage determines the framework in which the offence charged will be considered at the trial (Can v Austria, no. 9300/81, Commission's report of 12 July 1984, § 50, Series A no. 96). At the same time, an accused often finds himself in a particularly vulnerable position at that stage of the proceedings, the effect of which is amplified by the fact that legislation on criminal procedure tends to become increasingly complex, notably with respect to the rules governing the gathering and use of evidence. In most cases, this particular vulnerability can only be properly compensated for by the assistance of a lawyer whose task it is, among other things, to help to ensure respect of the right of an accused not to incriminate himself. This right indeed presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused (see Jalloh v Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 100, ECHR 2006 ...., and Kolu v Turkey, no. 35811/97, § 51, 2 August 2005). Early access to a lawyer is part of the procedural safeguards to which the Court will have particular regard when examining whether a procedure has extinguished the very essence of the privilege against self-incrimination (see, mutatis mutandis, Jalloh, cited above, § 101). In this connection, the Court also notes the recommendations of the CPT (paragraphs 39 40 above), in which the committee repeatedly stated that the right of a detainee to have access to legal advice is a fundamental safeguard against ill-treatment. Any exception to the enjoyment of this right should be clearly circumscribed and its application strictly limited in time. These principles are particularly called for in the case of serious charges, for it is in the face of the heaviest penalties that respect for the right to a fair trial is to be ensured to the highest possible degree by democratic societies.
The Court further recalls that neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 6 of the Convention prevents a person from waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to the guarantees of a fair trial (see Kwiatkowska v Italy (dec.), no. 52868/99, 30 November 2000). However, if it is to be effective for Convention purposes, a waiver of the right to take part in the trial must be established in an unequivocal manner and be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate to its importance (see Sejdovic v Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 86, ECHR 2006 ....; Kolu, cited above, § 53, and Colozza v Italy, 12 February 1985, § 28, Series A no. 89). Thus, in the present case, no reliance can be placed on the assertion in the form stating his rights that the applicant had been reminded of his right to remain silent (see paragraph 14 above).
The Court reiterates that the most appropriate form of redress for a violation of Article 6 § 1 would be to ensure that the applicant, as far as possible, is put in the position in which he would have been had this provision not been disregarded (see Teteriny v Russia, no. 11931/03, § 56, 30 June 2005; Jeličić v Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 41183/02, § 53, ECHR 2006 ...., and Mehmet and Suna Yiğit v Turkey, no. 52658/99, § 47, 17 July 2007). The Court finds that this principle applies in the present case as well. Consequently, it considers that the most appropriate form of redress would be the retrial of the applicant in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, should the applicant so request (see, mutatis mutandis, Gençel v Turkey, no. 53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003).
According to the Court's established case-law, costs and expenses will not be awarded under Article 41 unless it is established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and are also reasonable as to quantum. Furthermore, legal costs are only recoverable in so far as they relate to the violation found (see, among other authorities, Beyeler v Italy (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 33202/96, § 27, 28 May 2002, and Sahin v Germany [GC], no. 30943/96, § 105, ECHR 2003 VIII).
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of the non-communication of the written opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation;
that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into New Turkish liras at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
Judge Bratza
Judges Rozakis, Spielmann, Ziemele and Lazarova Trajkovska
We would, however, have liked the reasoning set out in paragraph 72 of the judgment, on account of its importance, to have been included in the operative provisions as well, for reasons which have already been explained to a certain extent in the joint concurring opinion of Judges Spielmann and Malinverni in Vladimir Romanov v Russia, (no. 41461/02, judgment of 24 July 2008) as well as the concurring opinion of Judge Spielmann in Polufakin and Chernyshev v Russia, (no. 30997/02, judgment of 25 September 2008), and are now repeated here.
The principle of restitutio in integrum has its origin in the judgment of 13 September 1928 of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the case concerning the Factory at Chorzów (claim for indemnity) (merits), where the Court held as follows (Series A, no. 17, p. 47):
The essential principle is .... that reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed.
In Papamichalopoulos v Greece ((Article 50), 31 October 1995, Series A no. 330 B) the Court held:
The Court points out that by Article 53 of the Convention the High Contracting Parties undertook to abide by the decision of the Court in any case to which they were parties; furthermore, Article 54 provides that the judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers which shall supervise its execution. It follows that a judgment in which the Court finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to the breach and make reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach.
The Contracting States that are parties to a case are in principle free to choose the means whereby they will comply with a judgment in which the Court has found a breach. This discretion as to the manner of execution of a judgment reflects the freedom of choice attaching to the primary obligation of the Contracting States under the Convention to secure the rights and freedoms guaranteed (Article 1). If the nature of the breach allows of restitutio in integrum, it is for the respondent State to effect it, the Court having neither the power nor the practical possibility of doing so itself. If, on the other hand, national law does not allow - or allows only partial - reparation to be made for the consequences of the breach, Article 50 empowers the Court to afford the injured party such satisfaction as appears to it to be appropriate.
The State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to compensate the damage caused thereby, insofar as such damage is not made good by restitution ....
It is therefore right that, wherever possible, the Court should seek to restore the status quo ante for the victim. However the Court should also take into consideration that “Wiping out all the consequences of the wrongful act may .... require some or all forms of reparation to be provided, depending on the type and extent of the injury that has been caused” (see J. Crawford, The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility. Introduction, Text and Commentaries, Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 211, (2)) and in view of the remedies available at the domestic level (Article 41).
Moreover, the Court has already included directions of this nature in the operative provisions of judgments. For example, in Claes v Belgium (nos. 46825/99, 47132/99, 47502/99, 49010/99, 49104/99, 49195/99 and 49716/99, 2 June 2005) it held in point 5 (a) of the operative provisions of its judgment that “unless it grants a request by [the] applicants for a retrial or for the proceedings to be reopened, the respondent State is to pay, within three months from the date on which the applicant in question indicates that he does not wish to submit such a request or it appears that he does not intend to do so, or from the date on which such a request is refused”, sums in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. Similarly, in Lungoci v Romania (no. 62710/00, 26 January 2006) the Court held in point 3 (a) of the operative provisions of its judgment that “the respondent State is to ensure that, within six months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the proceedings are reopened if the applicant so desires, and at the same time is to pay her EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount, to be converted into Romanian lei at the rate applicable at the date of settlement”.
By virtue of Article 46 § 2 of the Convention, supervision of the execution of the Court's judgments is the responsibility of the Committee of Ministers. That does not mean, however, that the Court should not play any part in the matter and should not take measures designed to facilitate the Committee of Ministers' task in discharging these functions. In fact, there is nothing in Article 41 or anywhere else in the Convention that would prevent the Court from assessing the issue of full reparation in accordance with the principles outlined above. Since the Court has jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Convention, it also has jurisdiction to assess “the form and quantum of reparation to be made” (see J. Crawford, p. 201). As was explained by the PCIJ in the Factory at Chorzów case: “Reparation .... is the indispensable complement of a failure to apply a convention ....” (p. 21).
(with whom Judges Casadevall and Türmen joined, concurring)
The Court found a violation “of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, on account of the lack of legal assistance to the applicant while he was in police custody” (point 1 of the operative provisions). It thus replied to the applicant's complaint “that his defence rights had been violated in that .... he had been denied access to a lawyer while in police custody”. That complaint, raised by the applicant under Article 6 § 3 (c), was rightly formulated more precisely by the Court, which linked it with Article 6 § 1.
To my mind the meaning of the Court's judgment is quite clear. If there is any doubt at all, what the Court says in paragraph 53, referring back to paragraph 37, makes things clearer still. The generally recognised international standards, which the Court accepts and which form the framework for its case-law, provide: “An untried prisoner shall be entitled, as soon as he is imprisoned, to choose his legal representation .... and to receive visits from his legal adviser with a view to his defence and to prepare and hand to him and to receive, confidential instructions....”