Suheyla Aydin vs.

Turkey

Facts:

Applicant in the case is a Turkish national and the wife of Nacati Aydin. The spouses were
detained by the Turkish police. The applicant suffered degrading treatment at the same time, her
husband was subjected to torture. Her husband was brought before a judge who ordered his
release and upon the order, Nacati never physically came out of the court room and found tied up
and buried with three others in a grave with a bullet wound through his head.

Several documentary and oral evidence were submitted by the applicant.

The applicant alleged that she had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment while in
police custody. She also contends that her husband was a victim of torture which is in violation
of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This provision is about the freedom
from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment.

The applicant submitted that her husband had been killed by agents of the State. She also alleged
that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation with regard to the killing
which is in violation of Article 2, the right to life.

The applicant claimed a violation of Article 11 which is the freedom of association and she
submitted that she and her husband were targeted on account of the authorities' suspicion that
they were involved in a trade union.
.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a violation on Article 2, 3 and 13 of the ECHR.

RULING:

Yes. The Court held that the Turkish Government had violated Mr. Aydin’s rights under Article
2 because they failed to account for his death and did not provide for any investigation regarding
the killing.

The Court found that there were sufficient evidence to establish that the extensive injuries
inflicted upon the applicant amounted to ill-treatment prior to his death attributable to the
authorities which is clearly contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR. Article 3 is about the freedom
from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment.

Lastly, the Court found a violation of Article 13 which is the right to remedy. It was proved as
the applicant had been denied an effective remedy on account of the ineffective criminal
investigation subsequent to her husband’s death.