MOSCOW, February 12 - RAPSI, Ingrid Burke. In a Chamber judgment issued Tuesday, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) held unanimously that Turkey violated its obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights (Convention) by failing to effectively investigate acts of violence attributed to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s bodyguards, according to a press release issued by the ECHR Registry.

The present claim was filed in 2009 by Necati Yilmaz – a nearly blind 50-year-old Turkish national – after the prime minister’s bodyguards allegedly roughed him up for publicly insulting the prime minister at a road-opening ceremony held in April 2007. Yilmaz claimed Turkey had violated Article 3 of the Convention, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and Article 5, which protects the rights of liberty and security.

Yilmaz claims specifically that Erdogan’s bodyguards punched him in the face while in the process of taking him into custody. 

Four days later, Yilmaz filed a complaint for ill treatment in connection with the incident. Prosecutors initially declined to accept the case, claiming that he had not produced sufficient evidence or any eyewitnesses.

A local court then set aside the prosecutorial decision based on the existence of medical records confirming that Yilmaz had sustained an injury to his right ear. The court held that sufficient evidence to support Yilmaz’ claim of the bodyguards’ indiscretions did, in fact, exist.

The ECHR found that Yilmaz had been arrested on the day at issue, and that he had sustained an injury – as evidence by the medical records. Finding further the Yilmaz had not acted in such a way that should have warranted the use of abnormal police restraints, the ECHR “considered that the way the Prime Minister’s bodyguards had treated Mr. Yilmaz at the time of his arrest went well beyond the requirements of a normal arrest,” thus concluding that Turkey had violated Article 3 of the Convention.

Furthermore, the fact that Yilmaz’ complaint had essentially been ignored for five years posed a violation of Article 3 on procedural grounds.
The ECHR emphasized the imperative of ensuring against police immunity in such cases, in order to retain the faith of Turkish citizens in the Rule of Law.

The ECHR did not consider Yilmaz’ Article 5 claim as the statute of limitations had passed. According to the ECHR admissibility criteria, “The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken.”

For violating Yilmaz’ Article 3 rights, Turkey was ordered to pay €12,000 in damages.

As this is a Chamber judgment, it is not yet final and is subject to appeal for the next three months. Any of the parties may request consideration of the case by the Grand Chamber. If the right to review is granted, the Grand Chamber will issue a final decision. If it is not granted, this Chamber judgment will become final.