Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 6291/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,68931
EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 6291/05 (https://dejure.org/2009,68931)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16.07.2009 - 6291/05 (https://dejure.org/2009,68931)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16. Juli 2009 - 6291/05 (https://dejure.org/2009,68931)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,68931) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

    Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 6291/05
    Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

    KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 6291/05
    A description of the relevant domestic law at the material time can be found in Batı and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, §§ 96-100, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

    AVSAR c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 6291/05
    In assessing evidence, the Court has generally applied the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (see Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001).
  • EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

    BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 6291/05
    A description of the relevant domestic law at the material time can be found in Batı and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, §§ 96-100, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 32347/02

    MEHMET EREN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 6291/05
    Further, every detained person should be examined on his or her own and the results of that examination, as well as relevant statements by the detainee and the doctor's conclusions, should be formally recorded by the doctor (see Akkoç, § 118, cited above, and Mehmet Eren v. Turkey, no. 32347/02, § 40, 14 October 2008).
  • EGMR, 17.03.2009 - 15828/03

    SALMANOGLU AND POLATTAS v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 6291/05
    Firstly, the Court reaffirms that evidence obtained during forensic examinations plays a crucial role during investigations conducted against detainees and in cases where the latter raise allegations of ill-treatment (see SalmanoÄ?lu and Polattas v. Turkey, no. 15828/03, § 79, 17 March 2009[1]).
  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

    RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 6291/05
    The Court reiterates that where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured by the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused and to produce evidence casting doubt on the victim's allegations, particularly if those allegations were corroborated by medical reports, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V, Aksoy v. Turkey, § 62, 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, Tomasi v. France, §§ 108-111, 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, and Ribitsch v. Austria, § 34, 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336).
  • EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

    TOMASI c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 6291/05
    The Court reiterates that where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured by the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused and to produce evidence casting doubt on the victim's allegations, particularly if those allegations were corroborated by medical reports, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V, Aksoy v. Turkey, § 62, 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, Tomasi v. France, §§ 108-111, 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, and Ribitsch v. Austria, § 34, 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336).
  • EGMR, 11.04.2019 - 38089/12

    SARWARI ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

    Les extraits pertinents du Protocole d'Istanbul peuvent être trouvés dans l'arrêt Bati et autres c. Turquie, nos 33097/96 et 57834/00, § 100, CEDH 2004-IV (extraits) (voir aussi, Yananer c. Turquie, no 6291/05, 16 juillet 2009, Üzer c. Turquie, no 9203/03, 21 septembre 2010, et Musa Yilmaz c. Turquie, no 27566/06, 30 novembre 2010).

    Ces examens doivent être effectués par des médecins dûment qualifiés, en dehors de la présence de la police, et le rapport d'examen doit faire état non seulement de toutes les lésions corporelles relevées, mais aussi des explications fournies par le patient quant à la façon dont elles sont survenues, et de l'avis du médecin sur la compatibilité des lésions avec ces explications (Mehmet Emin Yüksel c. Turquie, no 40154/98, § 29, 20 juillet 2004, Yananer c. Turquie, no 6291/05, § 41, 16 juillet 2009, Özgür Uyanik c. Turquie, no 11068/04, § 38, 23 mars 2010, Musa Yilmaz c. Turquie, no 27566/06, § 54, 30 novembre 2010, et Davitidze c. Russie, no 8810/05, § 115, 30 mai 2013).

  • EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 38305/07

    DASLIK c. TURQUIE

    Ces examens doivent être effectués par des médecins dûment qualifiés, en dehors de la présence de la police, et le rapport d'examen doit faire état non seulement de toutes les lésions corporelles relevées, mais aussi des explications fournies par le patient quant à la façon dont elles sont survenues, et de l'avis du médecin sur la compatibilité des lésions avec ces explications (Mehmet Emin Yüksel c. Turquie, no 40154/98, § 29, 20 juillet 2004, Yananer c. Turquie, no 6291/05, § 41, 16 juillet 2009, Özgür Uyanik c. Turquie, no 11068/04, § 38, 23 mars 2010, Musa Yilmaz c. Turquie, no 27566/06, § 54, 30 novembre 2010, et Davitidze c. Russie, no 8810/05, § 115, 30 mai 2013).
  • EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 27566/06

    MUSA YILMAZ v. TURKEY

    Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Yananer v. Turkey, no. 6291/05, § 35, 16 July 2009).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht