Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YAZICI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (No. 2)

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2013 - 45046/05

  In that respect, 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 these injuries were caused and to produce evidence casting doubt on the victim's allegations, particularly if those allegations are corroborated by medical reports, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, § 108-111, Series A no. 241-A; Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336; Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 62, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2013 - 45046/05

  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-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2013 - 45046/05

  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, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2013 - 45046/05

  In that respect, 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 these injuries were caused and to produce evidence casting doubt on the victim's allegations, particularly if those allegations are corroborated by medical reports, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, § 108-111, Series A no. 241-A; Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336; Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 62, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).

• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

  Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

  The Court has already found in a number of cases where the authorities" failure to show diligence resulted in the prosecution becoming time-barred that the effectiveness of the investigation was irreparably damaged and the purpose of effective protection against acts of ill-treatment was frustrated (see, among many other authorities, V.K. v. Russia, no. 68059/13, § 189, 7 March 2017; Izci v. Turkey, no. 42606/05, § 72, 23 July 2013; Yazici and Others v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 45046/05, § 27, 23 April 2013; Ablyazov v. Russia, no. 22867/05, §§ 57 and 59, 30 October 2012; Nikiforov v. Russia, no. 42837/04, § 54, 1 July 2010; and Beganovic v. Croatia, no. 46423/06, § 85, 25 June 2009).