The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) declared their verdict on the appeal of Veli Saçılık, whose arm was torn off in the operation dated 5 July 2000 in Burdur Prison.
Found guilty of violating “prohibition of torture and maltreatment” in 24 applicants’ appeals of about the same incident, Turkey was denied the right to recall the indemnity paid Saçılık. If Turkey receives Saçılık’s severance pay, it has to pay it back in three months with interest.
Regarding as sufficient the amount of severance pay enacted by the local court, the ECHR ruled that Turkey should only pay Saçılık 10,000 Euros for court charges he has paid since 2010.
The government had recalled the severance pay
The pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages worth 150,000 TL paid to Saçılık after he won the case he filed against the Ministries of the Interior and of Justice was recalled once the Council of State reversed the judgment, finding Saçılık whose right arm was torn off by construction equipment, to be guilty. Saçılık was obligated to pay the litigation costs of the entire process.
Afterwards, Saçılık applied again to the ECHR about his case held in abeyance at the court, and reported the final development. The ECHR gave a ruling today as domestic remedies had been exhausted.
A decision to affect other cases
Turkey Human Rights Foundation Attorney Senem Doğanoğlu told bianet that there are two other important points in the verdict given about her client Saçılık:
“In the ECHR decision, it is said that the statement in the local court’s decision pronouncing Saçılık to be ‘at fault’ is invalid. The final decision dated 2011 already states that this debate is over and that Saçılık cannot be impeached."
"The ECHR also underscores that the Council of State, by ruling for Saçılık to pay back his indemnity, has shown that it does not take the ECHR’s verdicts into consideration. This is a very important decision that could apply to everyone else that the ECHR decides to retry. The ECHR clearly states that courts need to take its verdicts into consideration. And it expresses its reaction against courts in Turkey holding retrials only to pronounce the same ruling, saying this itself is a violation."
Attorney Doğanoğlu said the Council of State is also handling a separate case Saçılık filed against the Ministry of Health, regarding doctors’ negligence and that the Supreme Court of Appeals is working on another case also filed in Burdur province about “the inmates being asked to pay for the wall demolished by construction equipment”.
The court had regarded the ECHR verdict on the Burdur case to be nonbinding, and ruled for the 61 inmates to pay the cost of the wall, 20,000 TL with interest.
Doğanoğlu stated that today’s ECHR verdict is binding for these cases, in fact for all cases on prison operations.
Counter vote: Turkey should pay extra indemnity
There are also two counter votes in the ECHR verdict. One reason for a counter vote is, “the fact that giving a verdict about an uncertain amount is against ECHR practices.”
The two dissenting judges also stated just as the decision made in 2011 had to do with lack of effective investigation in domestic law, here too a decision regarding criminal investigation ought to be made and that Saçılık should be paid extra indemnity for the same reason. (AS/PU)
Click here to read this article in Turkish.
