The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 May 2014 as a Chamber composed of: Guido Raimondi, President, Işıl Karakaş, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, Egidijus Kūris, Robert Spano, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 August 2008, Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Ms Mahsume Şedal, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1977 and is currently serving a prison sentence in İzmir. She was represented before the Court by Mr K. Bayazıt, a lawyer practising in Hakkari, Turkey. The Government were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 2 ŞEDAL v. TURKEY DECISION 3. On 28 August 2004, at...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 38802/08 Mahsume ŞEDAL against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 May 2014 as a Chamber composed of: Guido Raimondi, President, Işıl Karakaş, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, Egidijus Kūris, Robert Spano, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 August 2008, Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Ms Mahsume Şedal, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1977 and is currently serving a prison sentence in İzmir. She was represented before the Court by Mr K. Bayazıt, a lawyer practising in Hakkari, Turkey. The Government were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
2 ŞEDAL v. TURKEY DECISION 3. On 28 August 2004, at around 4 p.m., the applicant was arrested on suspicion of involvement in the armed operations of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal armed organisation. 4. Following her arrest, at 6 p.m., she underwent a medical examination at the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute. The report drawn up there noted no injuries on her body. 5. Later on the same day, the applicant was taken to the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Security Headquarters, where she was placed in custody. 6. According to the records held, that day the applicant met with her lawyer. The document was signed by both the applicant and her lawyer. 7. The next day, on 29 August 2004, the applicant was questioned by the police. Before the questioning, she was reminded of her rights, including the right to benefit from legal assistance. According to the official statement, she refused legal assistance and proceeded to give certain information about her training within the PKK and the structure of the illegal organisation. She signed both the official statement and an additional document indicating her refusal of legal assistance. 8. On 30 August 2004 the applicant consulted with her lawyer in person once again. Both the applicant and her lawyer signed the police records noting that meeting. 9. On 1 September 2004 the applicant underwent a second medical examination at the Forensic Medicine Institute. She complained that during her police custody she had been slapped, had her hair pulled, been pushed to the ground and been deprived of sleep. The report drawn up following the examination noted no indication of physical violence on the applicant’s body. 10. On the same day the applicant was brought before the Istanbul public prosecutor, when she gave her statements in the presence of a lawyer. She reiterated her allegations of ill-treatment and denied her previous statements, indicating that they had been taken under duress. The applicant’s lawyer also maintained before the public p...