Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Orak v. Turkey

Orak v. Turkey    [  ] 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 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Human Rights Case Digest Brill

Orak v. Turkey

Human Rights Case Digest , Volume 13 (1-2): 69 – Jan 1, 2002

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/orak-v-turkey-12Qh5c3QlM

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 2002 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0965-934X
eISSN
1571-8131
DOI
10.1163/157181302760446401
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

   [  ] 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

Journal

Human Rights Case DigestBrill

Published: Jan 1, 2002

There are no references for this article.