The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10 October 2006 as a Chamber composed of: Sir Nicolas BRATZA, President, Mr J. CASADEVALL, Mr R. TÜRMEN, Mr K. TRAJA, Mr S. PAVLOVSCHI, Mr L. GARLICKI, Ms L. MIJOVIĆ, judges, and Mr T.L. EARLY, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 August 2000, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Kenan Kahramanoğlu, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Istanbul. He is represented before the Court by Mr Ö. Kılıç, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 61933/00 by Kenan KAHRAMANOĞLU against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10 October 2006 as a Chamber composed of: Sir Nicolas BRATZA, President, Mr J. CASADEVALL, Mr R. TÜRMEN, Mr K. TRAJA, Mr S. PAVLOVSCHI, Mr L. GARLICKI, Ms L. MIJOVIĆ, judges, and Mr T.L. EARLY, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 August 2000, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Kenan Kahramanoğlu, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Istanbul. He is represented before the Court by Mr Ö. Kılıç, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court.
2 KAHRAMANOĞLU v. TURKEY DECISION A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 27 August 1996 police officers from the Beyoğlu Police Department in Istanbul arrested the applicant and transferred him to the Anti-Terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate. He was accused of membership of an illegal organisation called the Revolutionary Left (THKP-C Devrimci Sol). It was alleged that he had been involved in armed attacks organised by the said organisation in 1992. In particular, the applicant, whose code name was ‘Yusuf’ within the organisation, allegedly took part in the killing of a police superintendent. On 28 August 1996 the applicant was questioned by two police officers from the Anti-Terrorism branch in relation to his involvement in the organisation. He confessed to being a member of the THKP-C and to having taken part in the killing of the police superintendent. He claimed, however, that he had not been involved in the organisation since 1994. On 2 September 1996 the applicant was examined by a doctor from the Istanbul State Security Court Forensic Medicine Institute. The doctor, MD Cahit Alkış, reported that the applicant had described to him a sensation of pain in his right shoulder and testicles as well as numbness in his right arm. It was also noted in the report that the applicant had complained of pain when urinating. The doctor concluded that the applicant should be transferred to a State hospital for a further neurological and urological examination. Following his examination in the State Hospital, the applicant was again examined on 3 September 1996 by Dr Alkış from the Forensic Medicine Institute. Referring to the applicant’s examination by the urology d...