The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 23 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of: Mrs F. TULKENS, President, Mr A.B. BAKA, Mr I. CABRAL BARRETO, Mr R. TÜRMEN, Mr M. UGREKHELIDZE, Mr V. ZAGREBELSKY, Mrs A. MULARONI, judges, and Mrs F. ELENS-PASSOS, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 February 2002, 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, Mr Zikri Yorganlı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mr E. Cinmen, a lawyer practising in İstanbul. The Turkish Government...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 18364/02 by Zikri YORGANLI against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 23 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of: Mrs F. TULKENS, President, Mr A.B. BAKA, Mr I. CABRAL BARRETO, Mr R. TÜRMEN, Mr M. UGREKHELIDZE, Mr V. ZAGREBELSKY, Mrs A. MULARONI, judges, and Mrs F. ELENS-PASSOS, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 February 2002, 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, Mr Zikri Yorganlı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mr E. Cinmen, a lawyer practising in İstanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court.
2 YORGANLI v. TURKEY DECISION The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 19 December 1995 the applicant and H.D. were arrested and taken to the Gayrettepe Security Directorate in İstanbul on suspicion of embezzlement. During his police custody, the applicant was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment. On 20 December 1995 the applicant was examined by a medical expert, Dr Bilgen, at the Beyoğlu branch of the Forensic Medical Institute. The medical expert noted that there was no sign of ill-treatment on the applicant's body. The applicant was released on the same day. Without submitting any medical reports, the applicant states that, following his release, he went to the Şişli Etfal Hospital. On 26 December 1995 the applicant filed a petition with the Beyoğlu public prosecutor's office, stating that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his police custody at the Gayrettepe Security Directorate, and requested to be referred to the Forensic Medical Institute for an examination. In his petition, he maintained that he had been subjected to falaka (beating of the soles of the feet), that he had been hung from his arms, and that electric shocks had been administered to his body through his right toe, feet and his sexual organ. The applicant further maintained that he had also been forced to jump up and down and clean the floors in the Security Directorate Building. On the same day, the Beyoğlu Public Prosecutor sent the applicant to the Beyoğlu branch of the Forensic Medical Institute. The applicant was examined once again by Dr Bilgen, who noted the following: “... A 1 x 1 cm old scabbed wound on the proximal phalanx of the right toe, a 3 x 1 cm old scabbed wound on the inner side of the malleol...