## Facts

- In June 1993, Turkish security forces detained Şükran Aydın (age 17) and other villagers from a village in Mardin province and took them to the Derik gendarmerie headquarters.
- Aydın was separated from her family, blindfolded, and held for about three days.
- During detention, she was stripped, sprayed with high-pressure cold water, placed in a tyre and spun, beaten, threatened, and humiliated.
- She was raped during interrogation by a man wearing military clothing; the Court accepted this was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- After release, Aydın complained to the public prosecutor; a medical exam noted a torn hymen and bruising but was brief and inconclusive on timing and cause.
- The domestic investigation was limited, did not meaningfully pursue suspects or corroborating evidence, and was discontinued.
- Turkey raised non-exhaustion and abuse-of-process objections for the first time before the Court; the Court rejected them as barred because they were not raised at the admissibility stage.

## Issues

1. Whether the applicant’s treatment in custody, including rape, violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights as torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.
2. Whether the alleged investigative failures required separate examination under Article 6 § 1 (access to a court) or were more appropriately assessed under Article 13 (effective remedy).
3. Whether the State failed to provide an effective remedy under Article 13 by not conducting a thorough and effective investigation capable of identifying and punishing those responsible.
4. Whether the State hindered the right of individual petition in violation of Article 25 § 1 (now Article 34) by pressuring the applicant and witnesses.

## Decision

- The Court found a violation of Article 3, holding that the acts inflicted, especially rape in custody, amounted to torture.
- The Court found a violation of Article 13 because the authorities failed to conduct a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to identification and punishment of perpetrators.
- The Court found a violation of Article 25 § 1 due to pressure and intimidation directed at the applicant and witnesses in connection with the application.
- The Court held it was not necessary to decide the Article 6 § 1 complaint because its substance was addressed under Article 13.
- The Court awarded just satisfaction (non-pecuniary damages and costs and expenses).

## Legal Principles

- Facts may be established “beyond reasonable doubt” through strong, clear, and consistent inferences and unrebutted presumptions.
- Rape of a detainee by a State agent is an especially grave form of ill-treatment and can, by itself, meet the Article 3 threshold for torture.
- Where there is an arguable claim of torture or serious ill-treatment by State agents, an effective remedy under Article 13 requires a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible, in addition to compensation where appropriate.
- A perfunctory medical examination and an incomplete inquiry that fails to secure evidence or pursue leads can constitute an Article 13 violation independent of the underlying Article 3 breach.
- States must not hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual petition; intimidation or pressure on applicants or witnesses violates that obligation.

## Conclusion

The Court held that rape and associated abuse in State custody constituted torture under Article 3 and that Turkey separately violated Article 13 by failing to investigate effectively and Article 25 § 1 by interfering with the individual petition process.


Aydin v. Turkey, 25 Eur. H.R. Rep. 251 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 1997)