Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Salman v. Turkey

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Human Rights Case Digest

Where a person was taken into custody in good health and died, the obligation on the authorities to account for his treatment was particularly stringent. The burden of proof was on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the death. In the case of the death of the applicant's husband who was taken into custody in apparent good health, without any pre-existing injuries or active illness, no plausible explanation had been provided by the Turkish Government for his injuries and death. Further, the Turkish authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of the death. While a proper autopsy investigation was of critical importance in determining the facts surrounding the death, this procedure was defective and no efforts appeared to have been made to identify those officers who did or could have ill-treated the applicant's husband prior to his death. Moreover, having regard to the nature and degree of the ill-treatment and to the strong inferences that it occurred during interrogation, it involved very serious and cruel suffering that could be characterised as torture. The applicant had therefore been denied an effective remedy in respect of the death of her husband and thereby access to any other available remedies at her disposal, including a claim for compensation.


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Human Rights Case Digest — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation