Cestaro v. Italy (application no. 6884/11) (AİHS md. 3)

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’ne göre, polis şiddeti yönünden “İtalyan ceza hukuku yetersizdir ve etkili caydırıcılıktan yoksundur.”

Cestaro v. Italy başvurusu, 2001 Temmuz’unda Genoa’daki G8 Zirvesinin sonundaki olaylar ile ilgilidir. Yerel otoriteler, göstericiler için gece konaklayabilecekleri bir okul göstermiştir. Bir polis ekibi, gece yarısı arama yapmak üzere binaya girmiş; bu da, şiddet eylemlerine yol açmıştır. Mahkeme, bu problemin yapısal niteliğini vurguladıktan sonra, alınması gerekli telafi edici önlemler yönünden, AİHS md. 3 uyarınca devletin pozitif yükümlülüğünün –etkili ceza hukuku hükümleri dahil olmak üzere– uygun bir hukuki çerçeveyi getirme yükümlülüğünü içerebileceğine karar vermiştir.

Cestaro v. Italy kararı, “http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/” adresinden erişilebilirdir.

Cestaro v. Italy kararının basın duyurusu, “http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-5056783-6219425” adresinden erişilebilirdir.

Bu basın duyurusunun özeti, İngilizce haliyle, aşağıdaki gibidir:

Police violence: Italian criminal law inadequate and not an effective deterrent

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Cestaro v. Italy (application no. 6884/11) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of ill-treatment sustained by the applicant, and

a further violation of Article 3 on account of the criminal legislation applied in the present case.

The case concerned events which occurred at the end of the G8 summit in Genoa in July 2001, in a school made available by the municipal authorities to be used as a night shelter by demonstrators.

An anti-riot police unit entered the building around midnight to carry out a search, leading to acts of violence.

The Court found, in particular, that, having regard to all the circumstances presented, the illtreatment sustained by the applicant when the police stormed the Diaz-Pertini school amounted to “torture” within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. It noted that the failure to identify the

actual perpetrators of the ill-treatment could partly be explained by the objective difficulty of the public prosecutor’s office in establishing definite identifications but also by a lack of poliçe cooperation.

The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of illtreatment sustained by Mr Cestaro and of inadequate criminal legislation concerning the punishment of acts of torture which was not an effective deterrent to prevent the repetition of such acts.

After emphasising the structural nature of the problem, the Court pointed out that, as regards the remedial measures to be taken, the State’s positive obligations under Article 3 might include the duty to introduce a properly adapted legal framework, including, in particular, effective criminal-law provisions.