Aksoy v Turkey [1996] ECHR 68

Mr Aksoy was detained by Turkish police for at least fourteen days without judicial supervision and subjected to 'Palestinian hanging' torture, causing bilateral arm paralysis. The Court found Turkey violated Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 5(3) (right to prompt judicial review), and Article 13 (right to effective remedy). This landmark case established that torture victims must have access to thorough investigations.

Facts

Mr Zeki Aksoy, a Turkish metal worker, was taken into police custody in November 1992 in the state of emergency region of South-East Turkey on suspicion of PKK involvement. He was detained for at least fourteen days without being brought before a judge. During detention, he was subjected to ‘Palestinian hanging’ – stripped naked, with arms tied behind his back and suspended by his arms. Upon release on 10 December 1992, he was brought before a public prosecutor who observed but ignored his visible injuries. Five days later, Mr Aksoy was admitted to hospital with bilateral radial paralysis (paralysis of both arms). The prosecutor initiated no investigation. Mr Aksoy was shot dead on 16 April 1994, allegedly after receiving death threats related to his application to the Commission.

Issues

Preliminary Objection: Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies

Whether Mr Aksoy was required to exhaust domestic remedies before bringing his complaint to Strasbourg.

Article 3 – Prohibition of Torture

Whether the treatment suffered by Mr Aksoy constituted torture.

Article 5(3) – Right to Prompt Judicial Review

Whether detention for fourteen days without judicial supervision violated the Convention, and whether Turkey’s derogation under Article 15 was valid.

Article 13 – Right to Effective Remedy

Whether Mr Aksoy was denied an effective remedy for his torture allegations.

Judgment

Preliminary Objection

The Court dismissed the Government’s preliminary objection. Special circumstances absolved the applicant from exhausting domestic remedies. The Court noted:

“the injuries he had sustained must have been clearly visible during their meeting. However, the prosecutor chose to make no enquiry as to the nature, extent and cause of these injuries, despite the fact that in Turkish law he was under a duty to investigate.”

The Court found that Mr Aksoy’s vulnerability after fourteen days of incommunicado detention without legal or medical assistance, combined with the prosecutor’s failure to act despite observing his injuries, justified his belief that national legal channels would be futile.

Article 3 Violation

The Court found a violation of Article 3, concluding the treatment constituted torture. The Court emphasised:

“Article 3, as the Court has observed on many occasions, enshrines one of the fundamental values of democratic society. Even in the most difficult of circumstances, such as the fight against organised terrorism and crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Regarding the specific treatment:

“this treatment could only have been deliberately inflicted; indeed, a certain amount of preparation and exertion would have been required to carry it out. It would appear to have been administered with the aim of obtaining admissions or information from the applicant… The Court considers that this treatment was of such a serious and cruel nature that it can only be described as torture.”

Article 5(3) Violation

Despite acknowledging Turkey faced a genuine public emergency threatening the life of the nation, the Court found the derogation did not justify fourteen days’ detention without judicial control. The Court held:

“the Court cannot accept that it is necessary to hold a suspect for fourteen days without judicial intervention. This period is exceptionally long, and left the applicant vulnerable not only to arbitrary interference with his right to liberty but also to torture.”

The Court also noted insufficient safeguards: denial of access to lawyers, doctors, relatives or friends left the applicant “completely at the mercy of those holding him.”

Article 13 Violation

The Court established important principles regarding effective remedies for torture victims:

“Given the fundamental importance of the prohibition of torture and the especially vulnerable position of torture victims, Article 13 imposes, without prejudice to any other remedy available under the domestic system, an obligation on States to carry out a thorough and effective investigation of incidents of torture.”

The prosecutor’s failure to investigate despite visible evidence of torture was “tantamount to undermining the effectiveness of any other remedies that may have existed.”

Implications

This judgment significantly developed European human rights jurisprudence in several respects. It established that ‘Palestinian hanging’ constitutes torture under Article 3. It confirmed that even during genuine public emergencies, extended detention without judicial oversight cannot be justified without adequate safeguards. Crucially, it established that Article 13 requires States to conduct thorough investigations into credible torture allegations, creating a procedural obligation that has influenced subsequent case law. The case demonstrated the Court’s willingness to scrutinise derogations under Article 15 and reinforced that the prohibition on torture is absolute and non-derogable.

Verdict: The Court held by eight votes to one: (1) dismissed the preliminary objection on exhaustion of domestic remedies; (2) found a violation of Article 3 (torture); (3) found a violation of Article 5(3) (right to be brought promptly before a judge); (4) found it unnecessary to consider Article 6(1); (5) found a violation of Article 13 (right to effective remedy); (6) unanimously found no violation of Article 25(1) established. Turkey was ordered to pay compensation of 4,283,450,000 Turkish liras for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, plus costs and expenses.

Source: Aksoy v Turkey [1996] ECHR 68