European courts: Human rights roundup
01 March 1995
Selected cases dealt with at Strasbourg October 1994-February 1995:
The Commission declared the following cases admissible:
* Aksoy v Turkey (19.10.94): Applicant complained of torture contrary to Art 3, and was allegedly killed as a result of his complaint. The Turkish government disputed the right of the Commission to continue its investigation since his heirs had not indicated that they wished the complaint pursued. The Commission decided that in view of the serious nature of the complaints and their connection with events in SE Turkey the application is of general public interest and should proceed.
* Akduvar and others v Turkey (19.10.94): Complaints of forced evacuation and destruction of Applicants' village in SE Turkey contrary to Art 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment), Art 5 (security of person), Art 8 (respect for homes and family life) because of their Kurdish origin, contrary to Art 14 (non-discrimination). The government argued that they should have exhausted domestic remedies by way of civil or criminal proceedings in the Turkish courts. The Commission found no evidence that remedies in the Turkish courts would be effective and absolved the Applicants from the obligation to pursue them.
* Findlay v UK: Allegation that court-martial system operated by the army and the RAF violates rights to fair trial, because the same officer directs where the trial is to be held, which charges should be put, who should prosecute and who should try the case. There is no independent appeal, no jury, the burden of proof is lower than in civilian trials and little discretion in sentencing. The applicant was jailed for two years after holding colleagues at gunpoint, despite medical evidence that following his duty in the Falklands he suffered a serious nervous breakdown.
The Commission reported on the following cases, which it referred to the Court:
* Benham v UK (29.11.94): imprisonment for non-payment of poll tax of an unemployed man with no means to pay, after an inadequate inquiry into his means and his reasons for non-payment violated rights to liberty and security of person under Art 5; failure to compensate him for wrongful detention violated Art 5(5); and absence of legal aid at the hearing where he risked imprisonment violated his right to a fair trial (Art 6(1)).
* Abed Hussein and Prem Singh v UK (21928/93; 23389/94): juveniles detained at "Her Majesty's Pleasure" and parole repeatedly denied: increase in their sentence by the Home Secretary breached Art 5 (liberty and security of person), which requires judicial, not executive control of release.
* Remli v France (26.1.95): Refusal by court to take formal notice of racist remarks of juror directed at French citizen of Algerian origin on trial for murder violated his right to be tried by an impartial tribunal (Art 6(1)).
The Court heard the following cases:
* McCann, Savage and Farrell v UK (20.2.95): Alleged violation of the right to life (Art 2) by the killing of three IRA members in Gibraltar 1988. The families allege that MI5 recklessly misinformed police who killed the three, and that the inquest was an inadequate inquiry into the deaths, in which the government constructed "an apparatus of deceit" to mislead the jury. Last year the Commission ruled by a majority that there had been no violation of Art 2.
* Nasri v France (21.2.95): proposed deportation of deaf, dumb and illiterate Algerian citizen from France, where he had lived since age five, for criminal offences: alleged violation of Arts 3 (freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) and 8 (respect for family and private life).
* Vogt v Germany (22.2.95): dismissal from civil service because of political activities of member of German Communist Party: alleged violation of Arts 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of association) and discrimination in the exercise of those rights contrary to A