04 Jan Impunity of the police for excessive use of force has led to violation of the Convention

The European Court on Human Rights found a violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case of Hasan Köse v. Turkey (application no. 15014/11, 18/12/2018). The applicant, Hasan Köse, is a Turkish national who and lives in İzmir (Turkey). The case concerned his complaint that a police officer had shot and seriously injured him without subsequently being punished.

Mr Köse alleges that he was shot in January 2007 by one of a number of police officers who had stopped him and his brother while they were driving their van to work. According to him, the police officers became agitated when the brothers asked to see the officers’ identity papers. They started hitting his brother and sprayed the applicant with tear gas. When the applicant grabbed a wooden stick to defend himself, one of the officers fired three shots at him, hitting him in the abdomen. The hospital doctors considered his injury to be lifethreatening.

In 2008 the applicant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and severe depression as a result of being shot, while a 2010 report issued by a hospital in İzmir declared that his ability to work had been reduced by 27%. The trial court found the police officer guilty of using excessive force and causing a lifethreatening injury. The court sentenced the officer to five months’ imprisonment, but suspended pronouncement of the judgment, as permitted under domestic law (namely Article 231 of the Criminal Code of Procedure).

Mr Köse’s objection to suspending the conviction was rejected in 2010. Proceedings against the Ministry of the Interior for compensation are still pending. Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), Mr Köse complained that the police officer who had shot and injured him had been given a very light sentence, which, in any event, had never been 3 enforced. He emphasised that the officer had not been punished despite the fact that he had been found guilty by a criminal court.

The Court considered that the criminal-law system, as applied in the present case, proved to be far from rigorous and had little deterrent effect capable of ensuring the effective prevention of unlawful acts, such as those complained of by the applicant. Therefore, the Court found a violation of Article 2 of the Convention.

References from the official website of the European Convention on Human Rights