Quick answer
In Aksoy v. Turkey (18 December 1996, application no. 21987/93), the European Court of Human Rights for the first time in its history found that a State had committed torture. It held (by eight votes to one) that the treatment of the applicant in detention violated Article 3, that his detention for around fourteen days without judicial control violated Article 5 § 3, and that the absence of an effective remedy violated Article 13.
Background and facts
Zeki Aksoy was detained by security forces in south-east Turkey, a region then under a state of emergency. He alleged that during his detention he was subjected to a form of ill-treatment known as “Palestinian hanging” — being strung up by his arms, which were tied behind his back — leaving him with paralysis in both arms. He was held for approximately fourteen days without being brought before a judge. After bringing his case to the Convention institutions, he was killed; his father pursued the application, which also raised the question of hindrance of the right of individual petition.
The complaint
- Article 3 — torture in detention;
- Article 5 § 3 — detention without being brought promptly before a judge; and
- Article 13 — lack of an effective remedy and effective investigation.
The Court’s reasoning
On Article 3, the Court found that the “Palestinian hanging” could only have been deliberately inflicted; it required a certain amount of preparation and exertion and caused severe pain and lasting paralysis. Treatment of such a serious and cruel nature could only be described as torture.
On Article 5 § 3, the Court accepted that the investigation of terrorist offences presented special problems, but held that detention for fourteen days without any judicial oversight was not compatible with the requirement of promptness; even the exigencies of the emergency could not justify so long a period without the safeguard of judicial control. On Article 13, the failure to carry out any effective investigation into the applicant’s arguable claim of torture, and the resulting absence of an effective remedy, breached the Convention.
The judgment
- by eight votes to one, a violation of Article 3 (torture);
- by eight votes to one, a violation of Article 5 § 3; and
- a violation of Article 13.
Why this case matters
- The first “torture” finding. Aksoy marked the first time the Court characterised a State’s conduct as torture within the meaning of Article 3.
- Limits on emergency detention. Even in a genuine emergency, prolonged detention without judicial control breaches Article 5 § 3.
- The duty to investigate. An arguable claim of torture requires an effective official investigation as an aspect of Article 13.
What this means for applicants
- Deliberate, severe custodial violence is torture under Article 3.
- Emergencies do not suspend the essential safeguards of prompt judicial control under Article 5.
- The State must investigate arguable torture allegations effectively.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Aksoy v. Turkey decide?
The Court held, for the first time, that a State had committed torture, in violation of Article 3, and also found violations of Article 5 § 3 (14 days’ detention without judicial control) and Article 13 (no effective remedy).
Why is Aksoy historically important?
It was the first case in which the European Court of Human Rights characterised a respondent State’s conduct as “torture” under Article 3.
Can a state of emergency justify prolonged detention?
The Court accepted that emergencies create special difficulties, but held that detaining someone for around fourteen days without any judicial control was too long and breached Article 5 § 3.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey
- Del Río Prada v. Spain
- Kudła v. Poland
- Navalnyy v. Russia
- Winterwerp v. the Netherlands
- Guzzardi v. Italy
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, or check the admissibility criteria.