I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in A.K. v. TURKEY.

Information

• Judgment date: 2018-10-09
• Communication date: 2013-11-14
• Application number(s): 27607/11
• Country:   TUR
• Relevant ECHR article(s): 3
• Conclusion:
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation
  Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect)
• Result: Violation
SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

• Probability: 0.88593
• Prediction: Violation

• Consistent

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, A.K., is a Turkish national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Istanbul.
He is represented before the Court by Mr I. H. Bozat, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a transvestite.
On 26 May 2000, he met with a certain B.B.
and invited him to his home.
B.B.
came with two of his friends, and after dinner his two friends left.
Subsequently, B.B.
attempted to take drugs with alcohol, but the applicant prevented him and threw away the drugs.
B.B.
then took a knife from the kitchen and stabbed the applicant several times.
Furthermore, he violently snapped the gold necklace from the applicant’s neck and grabbed his wallet.
The applicant called for help and his neighbours came and took him to the hospital.
In the medical report, dated 1 June 2000, the doctor noted the presence of several knife wounds, mainly on the left shoulder (4 cm long), on the left elbow (3 cm deep), two other 5 cm and 3 cm wounds on the left arm, 3-4 cm vertical wounds on the chest and 3 cm wound on the left side of his waist, and at 4 cm flesh wound on the shoulder.
He opined that these injuries were not life-threatening but would render the applicant unfit for work for ten days.
On 7 June 2000 the Beyoğlu public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Beyoğlu Magistrates’ Court, charging B.B.
with knife assault.
Upon the request of the applicant’s lawyer a second medical report was issued on 10 July 2000, according to which the injuries sustained by the applicant would render him unfit for work for fifteen days.
On 11 July 2000, the Beyoğlu Magistrates’ Court gave a decision of non‐jurisdiction having regard to the nature of the offence and transferred the case-file to the Beyoğlu Criminal Court.
On 29 January 2001 the Criminal Court heard the accused, who admitted that he had assaulted the applicant with a knife.
On 9 May 2001 the Criminal Court also heard witness statements, which concurred with the applicant’s allegations.
The applicants’ neighbours stated that while B.B.
was running away, he was half naked and held a gold necklace in his hand.
Another medical report issued on 27 September 2001 noted that the knife wounds had not left a permanent scar on the applicant’s face.
During the hearing dated 28 November 2002, the applicant’s representative complained about the aggravated theft and requested the public prosecutor to investigate this issue, in addition to the assault and battery.
On 25 December 2002, another set of proceedings was instituted against B.B.
for aggravated theft before the Assize Court.
On 18 December 2003, the Beyoğlu Criminal Court decided that both proceedings be joined.
As a result, the proceedings before the Criminal Court were transferred to the Assize Court.
During the hearings, the Assize Court heard B.B.
on 12 October 2006.
In the meantime, it further requested a new medical report to determine whether or not the wounds had left a permanent scar on the applicant’s face.
The medical report issued by the Forensic Medicine Institute on 4 March 2005 established that the scar on the applicant’s face was permanent.
On 30 November 2006 the Assize Court found B.B.
guilty of assault and battery and sentenced him to three years and four months’ imprisonment.
The applicant appealed.
While the case was pending before the Court of Cassation, on 22 October 2009, the applicant filed a petition with the Court of Cassation and drew the court’s attention to the fact that the police officers had not conducted an effective investigation on account of the fact that he was a transvestite.
He further stated that, as a result of the length of the proceedings, the case risked being out of time according to Article 102 of the Turkish Criminal Code.
At the time when the application was introduced, the case was still pending before the Court of Cassation.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the Turkish authorities failed to conduct effective criminal proceedings within a reasonable time and his physical or psychological suffering caused by the assault remained unpunished.