Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T03:35:57.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ӧcalan v. Turkey. App. No. 46221/99

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Mirja Trilsch  and
Alexandra Rüth
Mirja Trilsch
Affiliation:
University of Düsseldorf
Alexandra Rüth
Affiliation:
University of Düsseldorf
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 100 , Issue 1 , January 2006 , pp. 180 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 App. No. 46221/99 (Eur. Ct. H.R. May 12,2005). The judgments and other decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are available online at <http://www.echr.coe.int>.

2 Öcalan v. Turkey, App. No. 46221/99 (Eur. Ct. H.R. March 12, 2003).

3 November 4, 1950, ETS No. 5,213 UNTS 222. The Convention and its protocols are available at <http://www.echr.coe.int>.

4 Citing the October 12, 1989, report (para. 167) of the European Commission on Human Rights in Stocké v. Germany, App. No. 11755/85 (annexed to Stocké v. Germany, 199 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1991)).

5 Brogan v. United Kingdom, 145-B Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at para. 62 (1988).

6 On the same grounds, the Court dismissed the government’s preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies with regard to all the Article 5 complaints.

7 See Incalv. Turkey, 1998-IVEur. Ct. H.R. at para. 68, and Ciraklarv. Turkey, 1998-VII Eur. Ct. H.R. at para. 39, which were specifically followed by the Grand Chamber in Öcalan (para. 112).

8 The Grand Chamber expressly observed (para. 118) that, insofar as this conclusion could be regarded as inconsistent with the holdings in Imrek v. Turkey, Admissibility, App. No. 57175/00 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jan. 28, 2003), it would not follow those holdings.

9 The applicant’s lawyers received the 17,000-page file approximately two weeks before the beginning of the trial. The applicant himself was not able to consult the case file until the hearings had actually started.

10 Article 2(1) provides: “Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.” Article 3 provides: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

11 Soering v. United Kingdom, 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1989), discussed in Richard, B. Lillich Case Report: The Soering Cast , 85 AJIL 128 (1991).Google Scholar

12 Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty, opened for signature April 28, 1983,ETS No. 114 (entered into force March 1, 1985). The Protocol entered into force in Turkey on December 1, 2003.

13 See Soering, paras. 103-04.

14 Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty in All Circumstances, opened for signature May 3, 2002, ETS No. 187 (entered into force July 1, 2003).

15 Incal v. Turkey; Çiraklarv. Turkey; Findlay v. United Kingdom, 1997-1 Eur. Ct. H.R.; Hauschildtv. Denmark, 154 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1989).

16 The chamber judgment (para. 203) refers, inter alia, to Article 5 of the UN Economic and Social Council’s Resolution 1984/50 (May 25,1984) (Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty).

17 Soering, para. 104.

18 As the Court notes (para. 49), the Turkish Court of Cassation attributed the deaths of 4,472 civilians, 3,874 soldiers, 247 police officers, and 1,225 village guards to acts of violence carried out by the PKK from 1978 until the applicant’s arrest.

19 State v. Makwanyane, 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC).

20 Opsahl, Torkel The Right to Life, in The European System for the Protection of Human Rights 207, 211 (Macdonald, Ronald Matscher, Franz Petzold, Herbert eds., 1993)Google Scholar (referring to Fawcett, J. E. S. The Application of The European Convention on Human Rights 34 (1987))Google Scholar.

21 Article 1 in both protocols provides: “The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.”

22 See 1969 Y.B. Eur. Conv. H.R. 501 (Eur. Comm’n on H.R.); Ireland v. United Kingdom, 25 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1978); see also P. Van, Dijk & G. J. H. Van, Hoof Theory and Practice of The European Convention on Human Rights 312 (3d ed. 1998)Google Scholar; Louis-Edmond, Pettiti Decaux, Emmanuel & Imbert, Pierrehenri La Convention Europèenne des Droits de l’Homme 160 (1995).Google Scholar