CASE OF SEVEN v. TURKEY
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström
5. The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Ankara. 6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows. 7. At the time of the events giving rise to the application the applicant was serving as a chief police officer in Ankara. 8. On 12 April 2002 a woman named S.K. filed a criminal complaint with officers at Demirfırka police station, alleging that she had been taken into a police car by two officers on the pretext of her being a suspect. Afterwards, they had driven her around in the car and finally had taken her to an empty plot of land where she had been raped in the car by one of the police officers. He had been wearing glasses and had held a police radio in his hand. She identified the vehicle’s licence plate. 9. The applicant and the other police officer were immediately called into the police station for questioning as they had been assigned to the vehicle which had the licence plate identified by S.K. 10. In his statement to the police, made in the presence of his lawyer, the applicant said that he had picked up S.K. around 2 a.m. while he was patrolling with his colleague, S.A., on Talatpaşa Boulevard. He submitted that S.K., who had looked intoxicated, had hailed them, stopped their car, and told them that she worked as a “konsomatris”, a bar hostess who entertains male guests by keeping them company. She had asked for their help to go to a safe place and the applicant had offered to take her to her home, which she had declined. According to the applicant they had also offered to take her to the police station, which she had also declined. Finally, they had taken her to S.A.’s home with the intention of sobering her up. The applicant stated that when S.A. was in the kitchen preparing something to eat, S.K. had started behaving strangely, taking off her clothes and acting in a sexually inviting manner. The applicant said that as a result of being aroused he had simply ejaculated in his own hand but had not touched her. He had then called S.A. and told him that they had to leave immediately. The applicant stated that they had left S.K. in front of a hotel at 3 a.m. and had continued with their patrol until they had been called into the police station for questioning. 11. S.A. confirmed the applicant’s version of events in his statement to the police on the same day. 12. In an additional statement to the police, also made on the same day, S.K. told the police that she could not remember whether the police officers had taken her to an apartment or some other place as she had been very intoxicated. 13. A forensic medical examination of S.K. was carried out on the same day, showing that she had no bruises on her body. 14. A forensic expert report drafted on 15 April 2002 stated that the underwear that the applicant had been wearing on the night in question had S.K.’s and his own DNA on it. Furthermore, napkins found in the rubbish bin on the balcony of S.A.’s apartment had traces of the applicant’s semen. 15. On 6 June 2002 the Ankara governor decided to authorise the prosecution of the applicant and S.A. for alleged rape and abuse of authority. The applicant lodged an objection with the Ankara District Administrative Court seeking annulment of the governor’s decision, but it was dismissed. 16. On 15 November 2002 the Ankara public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance, charging the applicant and S.A. with abuse of public authority and the unlawful use of a public vehicle under Article 240 of the former Turkish Criminal Code and section 16 of the Law on Vehicles (Law no. 237). 17. In her statement in the first-instance proceedings, S.K. said that she had flagged down a police car that day to ask for help. As she had been intoxicated, she could not remember exactly what had happened later or which officer had raped her. 18. The chief public prosecutor submitted an opinion on the merits and stated that the applicant’s conduct should be reclassified as rape and unlawful detention and that of S.A. as having aided and abetted those acts. He therefore argued that the case should be referred to the Ankara Assize Court, which has jurisdiction to hear such charges. 19. On 13 July 2004 the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. It found that the offences committed by the applicant while performing his official duties were rape and the unlawful detention of an adult, which were governed, inter alia, by Articles 251, 416 § 1 and 429 § 1 of the former Criminal Code, and the unlawful use of a public vehicle, which came under section 16 of Law no. 237. It stated that those offences had to be tried by assize courts and it therefore referred the case to the Ankara Assize Court. 20. At a hearing held on 24 March 2005, the Ankara Assize Court heard S.K. who, contrary to her previous statements, submitted that the officers had not raped her and had not taken her anywhere without her consent. She then submitted that she wished to withdraw her complaint. 21. On 13 September 2005 the Ankara Assize Court acquitted the applicant and S.A. of all charges, holding that there was no evidence of force on S.K.’s body, one of the constituent elements of the offences of rape and unlawful detention. The court further held that despite S.K.’s statement of 24 March 2005, the forensic report of 15 April 2002 had established that the applicant had had intercourse with her. In the absence of evidence that corroborated the fact of the applicant having forced himself on S.K., it could not be established beyond doubt that the act of sexual intercourse itself had not been consensual. The court stated in that connection that even if S.K. had been drunk that night, her allegations of rape and of being held against her will needed to be supported by some sign of resistance. In the light of the conclusion that there had been no indication of a criminal offence committed by the police officers, the court then held that the applicant and S.A. could not be deemed to have committed the separate offence of the unlawful use of a public vehicle. It therefore acquitted them of all the charges. 22. On 21 September 2005 the acquittal became final as no appeals had been made. 23. In the aftermath of the events of 12 April 2002 a preliminary disciplinary investigation was launched against the applicant and S.A. on 24 April 2002. 24. On 2 and 29 May 2002 the applicant was questioned in relation to the allegations of rape against him. He submitted that he had not had sexual intercourse with S.K. He repeated his earlier statements that S.K. had seduced him to the point where he had had to ejaculate in his own hand. The applicant was also requested to submit a written defence statement. He wrote that he had taken S.K. into the police car with the intention of helping her and had not forced himself on her, as alleged by S.K. He pointed out that the forensic expert evidence had established that there had been no traces of violence, whether on S.K.’s body or in the form of any other type of evidence, such as damage to property or blood stains at S.A.’s apartment or inside the police car. 25. An investigation report dated 6 June 2002, prepared by the police investigator, concluded that the applicant had committed the offence of rape, while S.A. was guilty of the offence of conduct unbecoming and incompatible with the civil service and therefore recommended that the applicant be sanctioned with a deferral of advancement to a higher rank for a period of twenty-four months. The report further stated that a recommendation for a separate criminal investigation against the applicant and S.A. had already been submitted to the governor’s office for authorisation. 26. On 28 November 2002, the Supreme Disciplinary Council found the applicant guilty of abuse of his authority as a police officer and of sexually assaulting S.K. Noting that the applicant’s appraisal scores had only been average for the years 1999 and 2000, and taking account of the shameful nature of the act he had committed, it found that the applicant could not be given a penalty that was less severe than the one decided on. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows: “... the victim complained to the police and confirmed the event by giving the licence plate number of the vehicle and accurately describing the officer as wearing glasses and holding a police radio in his hand. The applicant, on the other hand, hid the facts by denying that he had had intercourse with S.K. [D]espite the fact that the vaginal examination of the victim did not reveal the presence of any active or passive semen, the victim’s statement that she was menstruating on the night in question and the forensic evidence finding traces of both the applicant’s and S.K.’s DNA on the applicant’s underwear and the two napkins found in S.A.’s apartment containing the applicant’s DNA, point to the conclusion that the applicant must have ejaculated prematurely before sexual intercourse. He has therefore committed the offence of ‘sexual assault’ and he furthermore used his position as a police officer by calling the victim a ‘suspect’ in order to lure her into the police car ... Criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant on charges of abuse of authority under Article 240 of the Turkish Criminal Code. ... It has been decided unanimously to dismiss the accused from the police force, in accordance with section 8(6) and (7) of the Disciplinary Regulation of the Security Forces on the grounds that it has been proven that he has committed the offence of sexual assault and of using his position as a police officer for personal ... advantage.” 27. On an unspecified date the applicant objected to the Supreme Disciplinary Council’s decision before the Ankara Administrative Court. The applicant argued that his dismissal on the basis of a finding that he had committed sexual assault, although he had not been found guilty of that offence by a criminal court, had violated his right to the presumption of innocence. 28. On 4 July 2003 the Ankara Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s case, holding that the decision to dismiss the applicant from the police force had been in accordance with the law. The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows: “Acts, conduct and behaviour of the kind listed in section 8(6), ‘... rape, sexual assault, ... or attempting to commit any of those offences’ and in section 8 (7), ‘using his position as a police officer for his own or another person’s advantage’, are sanctioned with dismissal from the police force. After examination of the file, it appears that the case concerns the applicant’s dismissal from the police force on the basis of a disciplinary investigation which established that he had intercourse with a woman without her consent on the pretext of calling her a suspect .., by asking her to get into a police car so that he could verify her identity at the police station, although in the end he took her to a piece of empty land and had intercourse with her without her consent. On the basis of the case file, statements, the forensic report and other information, the veracity of the accusation is reinforced and therefore the decision to dismiss the applicant is in accordance with the law.” 29. On 13 March 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal by a majority by endorsing the reasons provided by the Ankara Administrative Court. One judge out of the five expressed a dissenting opinion, reasoning that the applicant had been acquitted of the charges in the parallel criminal proceedings, including of rape, and that therefore the disciplinary decision to dismiss him from the police force on those grounds could no longer be upheld. The dissenting judge further argued that the courts should have reclassified the applicant’s conduct as conduct that was incompatible with the reputation and trust inherent in the functions of an official and sanctioned him with the corresponding penalty of the deferral of moving to a higher rank for a period of sixteen months. 30. On 23 June 2006 the applicant submitted a request to rectify the decision of 13 March 2006, arguing in the main that the fact that he had been acquitted in the criminal proceedings and had been found innocent of the allegations of rape had not been taken into account in the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision. He further argued that the contradictory conclusions of the criminal and administrative courts in relation to what had happened on the night in question had cast doubt on his innocence. 31. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request on 17 June 2008, holding that none of the reasons for rectification he had put forth fell within the exhaustive list of permissible grounds for such a decision in section 54 (1) of the Administrative Procedure Act (Law no. 2577). 32. In their observations the Government submitted that on 26 November 2008 the applicant had brought proceedings against the Ministry of the Interior and had requested that the reopening of the proceedings for his dismissal from the police force. The applicant relied on the Ankara Assize Court’s final judgment of 13 September 2005, acquitting him of the charges of, inter alia, attempted rape and abuse of authority. He argued before the Ankara Administrative Court that the establishment of his innocence should be regarded as new grounds for reopening the dismissal proceedings. On 27 May 2009 the applicant’s request was dismissed. The Court was not provided with a copy of that decision; however, the Government provided a summary of parts of it, which was not contested by the applicant. According to the Government, the administrative court held that “the decision of the Assize Court was available on the dates the Supreme Administrative Court examined the applicant’s appellate review and request for rectification of the decision, and that accordingly the court in question made an assessment of the decision rendered by the Assize Court”. 33. According to the information submitted by the Government, the applicant did not appeal against that decision.