BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF NURETTİN ALDEMİR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
(Applications
nos. 32124/02, 32126/02, 32129/02, 32132/02,
32133/02,
32137/02 and 32138/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18
December 2007
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Nurettin Aldemir and others v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mrs F. Tulkens, President,
Mr I.
Cabral Barreto,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mr M.
Ugrekhelidze,
Mr V. Zagrebelsky,
Mrs A.
Mularoni,
Mr D. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S.
Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 20 November 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in seven applications (nos. 32124/02, 32126/02,
32129/02, 32132/02, 32133/02, 32137/02 and 32138/02) against the
Republic of Turkey lodged on 12 April 2002 with the Court under
Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by eight
Turkish nationals, Mr Nurettin
Aldemir, Mrs Arzu Doğan, Mrs Şehrinaz Artar, Mr Ömer
Buzludağ, Mr Sami Evren, Mr Ali Rıza Özer, Mr Tacettin
Yağdıran and Mrs Elif Akgül (“the applicants”).
The applicants were born in 1958, 1964, 1958, 1961, 1958, 1958, 1964
and 1968 respectively, and Mr Aldemir, Mrs Artar, Mr Buzludağ,
Mr Yağdıran and Mrs Akgül live in Ankara, while
Mrs Doğan, Mr Evren and Mr Özer live in Istanbul.
- The
applicants were represented by Mr F. Gümüş, Mr M.
Ayhan and Mr A. Sayılır, lawyers practising in Ankara. The
Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not
designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the
Court.
- The
applicants complained, in particular, that they had been subjected to
ill-treatment and that their right to freedom of assembly had been
breached by police officers from the Ankara Security Directorate.
They alleged a violation of Articles 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14
and 17 of the Convention.
- On
31 May 2006 the Court decided to give notice of the applications to
the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the applications at
the same time as their admissibility.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicants are members of “EĞİTİM-SEN”
(Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası –
The Education Workers' Trade Union), a trade union which is a member
of “KESK” (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları
Konfederasyonu – The Confederation of Public Employees'
Trade Unions).
- In
2001 the Turkish Parliament prepared a draft bill to amend the Act on
Trade Unions. While this bill was being discussed in the Parliament,
“KESK” decided to organise meetings in Ankara to protest
the bill. The aim was to draw public attention to and achieve the
withdrawal of this bill, which in their view did not meet
international standards.
- In
the meantime, on 18 December 2000, the Governorship of Ankara had
issued a circular, providing guidelines on meetings and
demonstrations organised in the city of Ankara, in accordance with
the Law on Meetings and Demonstration Marches (Law no. 2911).
According to this circular, the meeting place chosen by KESK was not
among the permitted areas.
- On
7 June 2001 Nurettin Aldemir, Şehrinaz Artar, Ömer
Buzludağ, Sami Evren and Ali Rıza Özer, and on 25 June
2001 Arzu Doğan, Tacettin Yağdıran and Elif Akgül,
gathered in Kızılay together with other persons.
- On
both occasions, while the president of “KESK” was reading
out press statements, police officers warned the demonstrators that
their action was contrary to the law and that they had to disperse.
The demonstrators blocked the main street of the Kızılay
district (Atatürk Avenue) and attempted to march towards the
Prime Minister's Office. The police officers then intervened and used
truncheons, sticks and tear gas with a view to dispersing the crowds.
Some of the demonstrators attacked the security forces using pavement
stones and sticks which caused the injury of seven police officers
and the destruction of a police vehicle. The applicants were also
wounded during the incidents.
- On
7 June 2001 Şehrinaz Artar and Ömer Buzludağ were
examined by a doctor from the Hacettepe University Hospital. The
doctor noted an ecchymosis of 2x2 cm on the left eyebrow of Şehrinaz
Artar. As regards Ömer Buzludağ, he noted an abrasion of 3
cm on his right eyebrow. Nurettin Aldemir, Sami Evren and Ali Rıza
Özer did not submit any medical evidence to the Court in support
of their subsequent allegations of ill-treatment.
- On
25 June 2001 Arzu Doğan was examined by a forensic medical
expert from the Ankara Forensic Medicine Institute who observed an
ecchymosis on her lip, a hyperaemic graze on her left wrist and
superficial abrasions on her right wrist and arm. The expert
concluded that the injuries rendered Arzu Doğan unfit for work
for one day.
- On
the same day, Tacettin Yağdıran was examined by a forensic
medical expert from the Ankara Forensic Medicine Institute. The
doctor observed a sutured injury on the occipital lobe of his head
and a haematoma under the injury, and considered that his injuries
rendered the applicant unfit for work for seven days.
- Also
on the same day, Elif Akgül was examined by a doctor from the
Ankara Forensic Medicine Institute. The doctor observed abrasions on
the skin on the left scapula and on the back, and a haematoma of 2x2
cm on the right frontal lobe. He concluded that the injuries rendered
Elif Akgül unfit for work for five days.
- On
an unspecified date, the applicants filed a complaint with the Ankara
public prosecutor's office against the Ankara Governor, the director
of the Ankara Security Directorate, the director of the Rapid
Intervention Force branch of the Ankara Security Directorate and the
police officers who were involved in the incidents.
- In
the meantime, on 26 June 2001 the Ankara public prosecutor brought
charges against twenty-seven demonstrators, including Arzu Doğan
and Sami Evren, for violation of the Law on Meetings and
Demonstration Marches.
- On
23 July 2001, pursuant to Law no. 4483 on the prosecution of civil
servants, the Ankara public prosecutor transferred the file to the
Ministry of Interior seeking an authorisation to initiate criminal
proceedings.
- On
9 October 2001 the Ministry of the Interior, relying on Article 4 of
Law no. 4483, decided not to take an action against the officials and
officers accused by the applicants as it found that the allegations
were of an “abstract nature”. The Ministry considered
that the force used by the police was lawful and justified in the
circumstances of the case and that the officers had been under an
obligation to disperse the demonstrators who had organised an illegal
meeting. This decision was sent to the Ankara public prosecutor's
office on 19 December 2001.
- In
a decision of 14 November 2001 the Ankara Criminal Court acquitted
the applicants Arzu Doğan and Sami Evren, as well as other
demonstrators, of the charges. The court decided that the
demonstrators enjoyed a right to hold unarmed and peaceful meetings
and demonstrations without prior permission.
- On
29 January 2002 the Ankara public prosecutor issued a decision of
non-prosecution as regards the applicants' complaints.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A. Constitutional guarantees
- Article
34 of the Constitution provides:
“Everyone has the right to hold unarmed and
peaceful meetings and demonstration marches without prior permission.
...
The formalities, conditions, and procedures governing
the exercise of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches
shall be prescribed by law.”
B. The Meetings and Demonstration Marches Act
- At
the material time section 10 of the Meetings and Demonstration
Marches Act (Law no. 2911) was worded as follows:
“In order for a meeting to take place, the
governor's office or authorities of the district in which the
demonstration is planned must be informed, during opening hours and
at least seventy-two hours prior to the meeting, by a notice
containing the signature of all the members of the organising
board...”
- Section
22 of the same Act prohibited demonstrations and processions on
public streets, in parks, places of worship and buildings in which
public services were based. Demonstrations organised in public
squares had to comply with security instructions and not disrupt
individuals' movement or public transport. Finally, section 24
provided that demonstrations and processions which did not comply
with the provisions of this law would be dispersed by force on the
order of the governor's office and after the demonstrators had been
warned.
According
to a circular issued by the Governorship of Ankara on 18 December
2000, which provides guidelines on meetings and demonstrations,
Kızılay avenue is not among the permitted areas for
demonstrations.
C. Law no. 2559 on the Duties and Powers of the Police
Article 16
“The police may use firearms in the event of:
(a) self defence, ...
(h) if a person or a group resists the police
and prevents them from carrying out their duties or if there is an
attack against the police.”
Additional Article 6 (dated 16 June 1985)
“In cases of resistance by persons whose arrest is
necessary or by groups whose dispersal is necessary or of their
threatening to attack or carrying out an attack, the police may use
violence to subdue these actions.
Use of violence refers to the use of bodily force,
physical force and all types of weapons specified in the law and it
gradually increases according to the nature and level of resistance
and attack in such a way as to restore calm.
In cases of intervention by group forces, the extent of
the use of force and the equipment and instruments to be used are
determined by the commander of the intervening force.”
D. Code on Criminal Procedure
- According
to Article 165 of the now defunct Code on Criminal Procedure, a
complainant may file an appeal against the decision of a public
prosecutor not to institute criminal proceedings. This appeal must be
lodged, within fifteen days from the day of notification of the
decision to the complainant, with the president of the assize court
in whose jurisdiction the public prosecutor works.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
- In
view of the similarity of the three applications, the Court finds it
appropriate to join them.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 7, 10 AND 11 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicants alleged that the police interference in the meetings
constituted a breach of their rights guaranteed by Articles 7, 10 and
11 of the Convention.
- The
Court considers that the applicants' complaints should be examined
from the standpoint of Article 11 alone, which reads insofar as
relevant as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom
of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others,
including the right to form and to join trade unions for the
protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the
exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of ... public
safety [or] for the prevention of disorder...”
A. Admissibility
- The
Government maintained that the applicants did not have requisite
victim status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.
They argued that the applicants Arzu Doğan and Sami Evren had
been acquitted of the charges by the Ankara Criminal Court and that
no proceedings had been brought against the other five applicants for
participating in the demonstrations.
- The
applicants disputed the Government's contention.
- The
Court considers that the Government's objection concerning the victim
status of the applicants raises a question which is closely linked to
the merits of the complaint. It therefore joins the preliminary
objection of the Government to the merits (Bączkowski and
Others v. Poland, no. 1543/06, §§ 45-48, 3 May
2007).
- The
Court further notes that this part of the application is not
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of
the Convention. It is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Existence of any interference with the applicants'
rights
- The
Government contended that there had been no interference with the
exercise of the applicants' right to freedom of assembly. They noted
that the security forces had forcibly dispersed the demonstrators
since the latter had not abided by the warning given to them about
the location of the demonstration and had carried on their illegal
march.
- The
applicants claimed that the security forces had unlawfully interfered
with the exercise of their right to peaceful assembly.
- The
Court reiterates that the word “victim” of a breach of
rights or freedoms denotes the person directly affected by the act or
omission which is in issue (see Bączkowski and Others,
cited above, § 65; Doğan and Others v. Turkey, nos.
8803-8811/02, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02, § 93, ECHR 2004 VI
(extracts)).
- The
Court notes that the applicants took part in demonstrations with a
view to protesting a draft bill proposed in the Turkish Parliament
which would amend the Act on Trade Unions. Their aim was to draw
public attention to and achieve the withdrawal of this bill, which in
their view did not meet international standards. However, their
meetings were forcibly ended by the security forces on the ground
that the location was not permitted by law. Although two applicants
were acquitted of charges and no proceedings were brought against the
others, the interference in the meetings and the force used by the
police to disperse the participants, as well as the subsequent
prosecution, could have had a chilling effect and discouraged the
applicants from taking part in similar meetings (see Bączkowski
and Others, cited above, § 67-68).
- Against
this background, the Court considers that the applicants were
negatively affected by the police intervention and that there has
therefore been an interference with the exercise of their right to
freedom of peaceful assembly.
2. Justification for the interference
- The
Government contended that the interference in question was prescribed
by law, namely Law no. 2911, and that it had pursued the legitimate
aims of preventing disorder and protecting public safety. They
further claimed that the measure imposed by the security forces
should be regarded as answering a pressing social need and was
proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued.
- The
applicants alleged that the interference in question was
disproportionate.
- The
Court reiterates that an interference will constitute a breach of
Article 11 unless it is “prescribed by law”, pursues one
or more legitimate aims under paragraph 2 and is “necessary in
a democratic society” for the achievement of those aims.
- In
this connection, the Court observes that the interference in the
present case had a legal basis, namely section 22 of Law no. 2911
(the Meetings and Demonstration Marches Act), and was thus
“prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 11 §
2 of the Convention. As concerns legitimate aims, the Government
submitted that the interference pursued the legitimate aims of
preventing disorder and protecting public safety, and the Court finds
no reason to differ.
- Turning
to the question of whether the interference was “necessary in a
democratic society”, the Court refers in the first place to the
fundamental principles underlying its judgments relating to Article
11 (see Djavit An v. Turkey, no. 20652/92, §§
56 57, ECHR 2003 III; Piermont v. France,
judgment of 27 April 1995, Series A no. 314, §§ 76 77;
and Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben” v.
Austria, judgment of 21 June 1988, Series A no. 139, p. 12, §
32). It is clear from this case-law that the authorities have a duty
to take appropriate measures with regard to lawful demonstrations in
order to ensure their peaceful conduct and the safety of all citizens
(see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, §
35, ECHR 2006 ...).
- The
Court also notes that States must not only safeguard freedom of
peaceful assembly, but must also refrain from applying unreasonable
indirect restrictions upon that right. Finally, it considers that,
although the essential object of Article 11 is to protect the
individual against arbitrary interference by public authorities in
the exercise of the rights protected, there may also be positive
obligations to secure their effective enjoyment (see Djavit An,
cited above, § 57; Oya Ataman, cited above, § 36).
- The
Court considers that these principles are also applicable with regard
to demonstrations and processions organised in public areas. It
notes, however, that it is not contrary to the spirit of Article 11
if, for reasons of public order and national security, a priori,
a High Contracting Party requires that the holding of meetings be
subject to authorisation and regulates the activities of associations
(see Djavit An, cited above, §§ 66 67).
- Having
regard to the domestic legislation, the Court observes that at the
material time no authorisation was required for the holding of public
demonstrations; however, notification was required seventy-two hours
prior to the event. In principle, regulations of this nature should
not represent a hidden obstacle to the freedom of peaceful assembly
as protected by the Convention. It goes without saying that any
demonstration in a public place may cause a certain level of
disruption to ordinary life and encounter hostility. This being so,
it is important that associations and others organising
demonstrations, as actors in the democratic process, respect the
rules governing that process by complying with the regulations in
force (see Oya Ataman, cited above, § 38).
- In
the instant case, it appears that KESK organised two demonstrations,
on 7 and 25 June 2001 respectively. On both occasions, while the
president of KESK was making press statements, police officers
intervened in the demonstrations and asked the participants to
disperse (see paragraph 9 above). Since the applicants and other
demonstrators did not comply with these orders and attempted to force
their way through, the police officers used truncheons and tear gas
to disperse the crowd. Some demonstrators responded violently and
turmoil ensued, resulting in the injury of five of the applicants,
together with a number of police officers and other demonstrators
(see paragraphs 9-13 above).
- The
Court observes that there is no evidence to suggest that the group in
question initially presented a serious danger to public order.
Nevertheless, it is likely that they would have caused some
disruption in a particularly busy square in central Ankara. It
transpires that the demonstrators, including the applicants, wished
to draw attention to a sensitive bill proposed in the Parliament and
that their rally was initially peaceful. However, the authorities'
intervened swiftly with considerable force in order to disperse them,
thereby causing tensions to rise, followed by clashes.
- In
the Court's view, where demonstrators do not engage in acts of
violence, it is important for the public authorities to show a
certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the
freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not
to be deprived of all substance.
- Accordingly,
the Court considers that in the instant case the forceful
intervention of the police officers was disproportionate and was not
necessary for the prevention of disorder within the meaning of the
second paragraph of Article 11 of the Convention.
- In
view of the above, the Court therefore dismisses the Government's
preliminary objection regarding the applicants' alleged lack of
victim status and concludes that there has been a violation of
Article 11 of the Convention.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3, 6 AND 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicants complained that the force used against them during their
demonstrations on 7 and 25 June 2001 was disproportionate and
amounted to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the
Convention. They further alleged that they had been denied an
effective remedy in respect of their complaint of ill treatment.
Articles
3 reads:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Article 6 provides, in so far as relevant:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a
reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established
by law.”
Article 13 reads:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has
been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
- The Government submitted that the applicants had not
exhausted domestic remedies since they had not filed an objection
against the Ankara public prosecutor's decision dated 29 January 2002
before the nearest assize court, as required by Article 165 of the
now defunct Code of Criminal Procedure. Relying on the Court's
jurisprudence in similar cases (see, among others, Selal Saraç
v. Turkey, no. 35841/97, 2 September 2004, Ete v. Turkey,
no. 29315/02, 13 June 2006 and Uçma v. Turkey,
no. 15071/03, 3 October 2006), the Government claimed that the
remedy contained in Article 165 was an effective one and that it had
provided a prospect of success.
- The applicants did not respond to the Government's
plea on non exhaustion.
- The
Court recalls that it has already found in a number of Turkish cases
that an appeal against decisions of public prosecutors not to
prosecute constitutes, in principle, an effective and accessible
remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention
(see, in particular, Pad and others v. Turkey, no. 60167/00,
28 June 2007, § 67; Hıdır Durmaz v. Turkey,
no. 55913/00, 5 December 2006, § 29; Epözdemir v. Turkey
(dec.), no. 57039/00, 31 January 2002).
- This
being so, the Court observes that the applicants did not avail
themselves of this remedy by lodging an appeal against the
Ankara public prosecutor's decision of 29 January 2002.
Furthermore, the applicants did not indicate any circumstances which
would dispense them from the obligation to object to the public
prosecutor's decision of non-prosecution in order to exhaust domestic
remedies (see, Hıdır Durmaz, cited above, §§ 29-31).
- Against
this background, the Court upholds the Government's objection that
the applicants have failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of
their grievances under Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention.
- It
follows that this part of the application must be rejected in
accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the
Convention.
IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicants further complained that the police intervention in the
demonstration had also breached their rights guaranteed by Articles
1, 5, 14 and 17 of the Convention.
- However,
the Court finds nothing in the case file which might disclose any
appearance of a violation of these provisions. It follows that this
part of the application is manifestly-ill founded and must be
rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the
Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
- The
applicants did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly,
the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sum on
that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT
- Joins unanimously the applications;
- Joins to the merits unanimously the Government's
objection concerning the alleged lack of the applicants' victim
status and dismisses it;
- Declares unanimously the complaint concerning
the alleged violation of the applicants' right to freedom of assembly
admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
- Holds by 5 votes to 2 that there has been a
violation of Article 11 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 December 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
S. Dollé F. Tulkens
Registrar President
In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74
§ 2 of the Rules of Court, the joint dissenting opinion of Mr
Türmen and Mrs Mularoni is annexed to this judgment.
F.T.
S.D.
JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES TÜRMEN
AND
MULARONI
We
regret that we are unable to share the majority's opinion that there
has been a violation of Article 11.
The
case is about a demonstration organised by KESK (the Confederation of
Public Employees' Trade Unions) in Kzlay Square to
protest against a draft bill which was before Parliament in 2001.
Law
no. 2911 requires prior notification to organise demonstrations in
public places and prohibits demonstrations in certain locations. We
also learn from the facts of the case that the Governorship of Ankara
issued a circular on 18 December 2000 providing guidelines on
meetings and demonstrations to be held in Ankara. According to this
circular, it was not permitted to hold demonstrations in Kzlay
Square. However, the case file does not contain the text of the
circular which constitutes the legal basis for the interference by
the security forces. In our opinion, it would have been more prudent
to obtain the text of the circular before taking a decision.
The
majority accept that the interference in the present case had a legal
basis and pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and
protecting public safety (paragraph 39 of the judgment). Furthermore,
they note, in compliance with the Court's case-law (see, for
example Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, ECHR
2006 ...), that it is not contrary to the spirit of Article 11
if, for reasons of public order and national security, a priori,
a High Contracting Party requires that the holding of meetings be
subject to authorisation (paragraph 42 of the judgment). They add
that in view of the fact that any demonstration in a public place may
cause a certain level of disruption to ordinary life, it is important
that associations and other entities organising demonstrations, as
actors in the democratic process, respect the rules governing that
process by complying with the regulations in force (paragraph 43 of
the judgment). We agree with such statements. We add that, as the
majority recognise, at the material time no authorisation was
required in the respondent State for the holding of public
demonstrations. Only seventy-two hours' prior notification was
necessary (ibid.).
Having
said the above, the majority fail, rendering prior notification
meaningless, to provide any guidelines as to the circumstances under
which non-compliance with the regulations may justify intervention by
the security forces.
The
majority assert that there is no evidence that the demonstrators
initially presented a danger to public order, apart from possibly
blocking a particularly busy square in central Ankara (paragraph 45
of the judgment).
Kzlay
Square is the heart of Ankara, the capital of Turkey. Blocking the
square means blocking the traffic along the four main arteries of the
city,
leading to and from Ulus, Çankaya, Maltepe and Dikimevi. It
also blocks the traffic to the Prime Minister's office, the General
Staff and Ministry of Defence and other ministries. Moreover, owing
to the failure of the applicants to give prior notification, the
authorities were deprived of the possibility of taking any measures
that would minimise the disruption to public order and that would be
required for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, as
provided for in Article 11 § 2 of the Convention.
The
majority also assert that the demonstrators did not engage in acts of
violence and that the forceful intervention of the security forces
was therefore disproportionate. The facts of the case hardly justify
such a conclusion. According to the facts of the case, the police
officers warned the demonstrators that their action was contrary to
the law and that they had to disperse. The demonstrators did not
comply with the warning. They blocked the main street and tried to
march to the Prime Minister's office. The police officers were then
compelled to use force, whereupon “the demonstrators attacked
the security forces using pavement stones and sticks which caused the
injury of seven police officers and the destruction of a police
vehicle” (paragraph 9 of the judgment).
Furthermore,
we observe that the applicants' complaint concerning the
disproportionate use of force used against them is dismissed by the
Court for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see paragraphs 49 to
55 of the judgment).
Under
such circumstances, where both sides resort to violence, it is
impossible to assess whether the force used was proportionate or not.
In
view of all these considerations, we cannot come to the conclusion
that there was a violation of Article 11 of the Convention.
