Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OSMAN KARADEMIR v. TURKEY

  (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 30009/03
• EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 30009/03

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 30009/03

  Failing this, a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Çolak and Filizer v. Turkey, nos. 32578/96 and 32579/96, § 30, 8 January 2004; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; Aksoy v. Turkey, cited above, § 61; and Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, p. 26, § 34).

  In so far as the burden of proof is concerned, I find this conclusion erroneous having regard to the Court's established case-law which states that "where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V, and Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, p. 26, § 34).

• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 30009/03

  Failing this, a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Çolak and Filizer v. Turkey, nos. 32578/96 and 32579/96, § 30, 8 January 2004; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; Aksoy v. Turkey, cited above, § 61; and Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, p. 26, § 34).

  In so far as the burden of proof is concerned, I find this conclusion erroneous having regard to the Court's established case-law which states that "where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V, and Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, p. 26, § 34).

• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 30009/03

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human rights requires that these provisions be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 390, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 32578/96

  Folterverbot; unmenschliche Behandlung (Anwendung auf den Terrorismus: PKK; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 30009/03

  Failing this, a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Çolak and Filizer v. Turkey, nos. 32578/96 and 32579/96, § 30, 8 January 2004; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; Aksoy v. Turkey, cited above, § 61; and Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, p. 26, § 34).
• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99

  OKKALI c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 30009/03

  It also considers that the criminal-law system, as applied in the applicant's case, has proved to be far from rigorous and has had no deterrent effect capable of ensuring the effective prevention of unlawful acts such as those complained of by the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 78, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 30009/03

  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).