On September 25, 1997, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of Aydin v. Turkey holding the government of Turkey in violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Europeann Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The case arose from the rape and ill-treatment of the applicant while she was being detained for questioning, and the subsequent failure of the Turkish prosecutors to sufficiently investigate the applicant's allegations, thus effectively denying her the opportunity to obtain reparations before the Turkish civil or administrative courts.

Interpreting Articles 3 and 13 of the European Human Rights Convention

The Court reiiterated its belief that Article 3 "enshrines one of the fundamental values of democaratic societies and as such it prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The Court noted that there exists no exception to this fundamental rule "even having regard to the imperatives of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation or to any suspicion, however well-founded, that a person may be involved in terrorist or other criminal activities." In regard to Article 13 of the Convention, the Court recalled that the Article "guarantees the availability at the national level of a remedy to enforce te substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happen to be secured in the domestic legal order." The effect of the Article is to "require the provision of a domestic remedy allowing the competent national authority both to deal with the substance of the relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief," while allowing the State some discretion as to how it conforms to its obligations. However, the Court has concluded that Artcle 13 imposes an obligation on States to execute "a thorough and effective investigation of incidents of torture" because of the "fundamental importance of the prohibition of torture and the especially vulnerable position of torture victims."

Court Findings:

Applying the obligations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, the Court found that the evidence proved beyong a reasonable doubt that the applicant was raped and ill-treated while in custody by an official of the State in violation of Article 3. By failing to carry out a thorough and complete inquiry into applicant's allegations, the State was also in violation of Article 13 of the Convention. The Court found that the State authorities failed to take "meaningful measures" in order to establish the truthfulness of applicant's allegations. No corroborating evidence was sought, and the medical reports were not focused on whether the applicant was raped. The Court concluded that "a thorough and effective investigation into an allegation of rape in custody implies also that the victim be examined by competent, independant medical professionals," and that requirement was not met in this case. The Court held that Turkey was to pay the applicant damages in the amount of 25,000 pounds within three months of the judgment, as well as to pay the applicant's legal representatives.

***********

For a copy of the judgment, please see the European Court of Human Rights website. For more information on the European Court of Human Rights, please see the International Law: European Human Rights System Section of this website.

On December 4, 2003, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the Case of M.C. v. Bulgaria holding the government of Bulgaria in violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.  The case arises from the failure of Bulgarian prosecutors to investigate sufficiently rape allegations because there was no direct evidence of significant physical resistance.  M.C., the applicant in this case, alleges that this is reflective of a predominant practice of prosecuting rape perpetrators only in the presence of significant physical resistance in contravention of the European Human Rights Convention, the policy of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and established principles of international criminal law.

Interpreting Articles 3 and 8 of the European Human Rights Convention:

The Court has interpreted Article3's prohibition of torture to require States to "take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdication are not subjected to ill-treatment, including ill-treatment administered by private individuals."  The Court has interpreted Article 8's protection of the right to respect for private and family life to require "efficient criminal-law provisions" to deter "grave acts such as rape, where fundamental values and essential aspects of private life are at stake."

Interpreting Articles 3 and 8 together, "[t]he Court considers that States have a positive obligation ... to enact criminal-law provisions effectively punishing rape and to apply them in practice through effective investigation and prosecution." 

Court Findings:

Applying this obligation to the facts of the case of M.C., and without making a determination on the guilt of the alleged perpetrators, the Court today found "that the effectiveness of the investigation of the applicant's case and, in particular, the approach taken by the investigator and the prosecutors in the case fell short of the requirements inherent in the States' positive obligations--viewed in light of the relevant modern standards in comparative and international law--to establish and apply effectively a criminal-law system punishing all forms of rape and sexual abuse", including in cases where there is no evidence of resistance.  The Court awarded to the applicant damages, costs and expenses in the amount of 12,110 Euros. 

Execution of the Judgment:

The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers will be supervising the execution of the Court's judgment in this case and will soon complete the case with a final resolution detailing steps Bulgaria will take to comply with the judgment.

*****

For a copy of the judgment, please see the European Court of Human Rights website.  For more information on the European Court of Human Rights, please see the International Law: European Human Rights System Section of this website.

 

On April 11, 2000, the European Court of Human Rights held in the case of Sevtap Veznedaroglu v. Turkey that Turkey had violated Article 3 of the Convention for failure to investigate the applicant's complaint of torture. This case arose form the arrest and detention of the claimant on suspicion of membership in the Kurdistan Workers Party ("PKK"). During interrogation, the claimant was submitted to various forms of torture and ill-treatment, and was forced to sign documents that said the bruised upon her body were the result of an accidental fall.

 Interpreting Article 3 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1: The Court reiterates that "where an individual raises an arguable claim that he has been seriously ill-treated by the police or other such agents of the State unlawfully and in breach of Article 3...requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible.

Court Findings: The court found that there was a violation of Article 3 of the Convention due to the failure of authorities to investigate the allegations of torture. The court held that Turkey was to pay the claimant within three months from the date on which the judgment became final in accordance with Article 44 section 2 of the Convention.

                                            ****************

For a copy of the Court's opinion, please visit the European Court of Human Rights website. For more information on the European Court of Human Rights, please visit the International Law: European Human Rights System section of this website.