Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
[ ] ORAK v. TURKEY Right to life – violation Article 2 Prohibition of torture – violation Article 3 Right to an effective remedy – violation Article 13 The authorities had failed to discharge their duty to protect the life of the applicant’s son when he was subject to State supervision while in police custody. Moreover they had failed to adequately investigate his death, by merely accepting the version of events given by the accused and the other gendarmes present in the barracks, given that no explanation of the radical difference between the two versions of events had been forthcoming and in view of the nature of the injuries found on the various parts of the deceased’s body. The Government had not supplied any plausible explanation for the areas of bruising found, among other places, on the applicant’s son’s arms and thigh, the soles of his feet and the crown and sides of his head or of the scratches on his genitals, whereas he had been in good health before he was taken into police custody. The way applicant’s son had been treated when in police custody constituted treatment prohibited by Article 3. In
Human Rights Case Digest – Brill
Published: Jan 1, 2002
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.