Fundamento destacado: 98. El Tribunal observa que en el caso Kurt (sentencia Kurt citada anteriormente, pp. 1187-88, §§ 130-34), que se refería a la desaparición del hijo de la demandante durante una detención no reconocida, consideró que la demandante había sufrido una violación del artículo 3 teniendo en cuenta las circunstancias particulares del caso. Se refirió en particular al hecho de que era la madre de una víctima de una grave violación de los derechos humanos y ella misma la víctima de la complacencia de las autoridades ante su angustia y desamparo. Sin embargo, el caso Kurt no establece ningún principio general según el cual un familiar miembro de una «persona desaparecida» sea por ello víctima de un trato contrario al artículo 3.
Que un familiar sea una víctima dependerá de la existencia de factores especiales que confieran al sufrimiento del solicitante una dimensión y un carácter distintos de la angustia emocional que puede considerarse inevitablemente causada a los familiares de una víctima de una violación grave de los derechos humanos. Los elementos relevantes incluirán la proximidad del vínculo familiar —en este contexto, se concederá cierto peso al vínculo paterno-filial—, las circunstancias particulares de la relación, la medida en que el miembro de la familia presenció los hechos en cuestión, la implicación del miembro de la familia en los intentos de obtener información sobre la persona desaparecida y la forma en que las autoridades respondieron a dichas indagaciones. El Tribunal subraya además que la esencia de tal violación no reside tanto en el hecho de la «desaparición» del familiar sino que se refiere a las reacciones y actitudes de las autoridades ante la situación cuando se pone en su conocimiento. Es especialmente con respecto a esto último que un familiar puede alegar directamente ser víctima de la conducta de las autoridades.
[Traducción de LP]
98. he Court observes that in the Kurt case (Kurt judgment cited above, pp. 1187-88, §§ 130-34), which concerned the disappearance of the applicant’s son during an unacknowledged detention, it found that the applicant had suffered a breach of Article 3 having regard to the particular circumstances of the case. It referred particularly to the fact that she was the mother of a victim of a serious human rights violation and herself the victim of the authorities’ complacency in the face of her anguish and distress. The Kurt case does not however establish any general principle that a family member of a “disappeared person” is thereby a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3.
Whether a family member is such a victim will depend on the existence of special factors which gives the suffering of the applicant a dimension and character distinct from the emotional distress which may be regarded as inevitably caused to relatives of a victim of a serious human rights violation. Relevant elements will include the proximity of the family tie —in that context, a certain weight will attach to the parent-child bond—, the particular circumstances of the relationship, the extent to which the family member witnessed the events in question, the involvement of the family member in the attempts to obtain information about the disappeared person and the way in which the authorities responded to those enquiries. The Court would further emphasise that the essence of such a violation does not so much lie in the fact of the “disappearance” of the family member but rather concerns the authorities’ reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention. It is especially in respect of the latter that a relative may claim directly to be a victim of the authorities’ conduct.
[Idioma original]
CASE OF ÇAKICI v. TURKEY
(Application no. 23657/94)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 July 1999
In the case of Çakıcı v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 27 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”), as amended by Protocol No. 111, and the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court2, as a Grand Chamber composed of the following judges:
Mr L. WILDHABER, President,
Mrs E. PALM,
Mr L. FERRARI BRAVO,
Mr L. CAFLISCH,
Mr J.-P. COSTA,
Mr W. FUHRMANN,
Mr K. JUNGWIERT,
Mr M. FISCHBACH,
Mr B. ZUPANČIČ,
Mrs N. VAJIĆ,
Mr J. HEDIGAN,
Mrs W. THOMASSEN,
Mrs M. TSATSA-NIKOLOVSKA,
Mr T. PANŢÎRU,
Mr E. LEVITS,
Mr K. TRAJA,
Mr F. GÖLCÜKLÜ, ad hoc judge, and also of Mrs M. DE-BOER-BUQUICCHIO, Deputy Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 24 March and 17 June 1999, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last- mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case was referred to the Court, as established under former Article 19 of the Convention3, by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) on 14 September 1998, within the three-month period laid down by former Articles 32 § 1 and 47 of the Convention. It originated in an application (no. 23657/94) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Commission under former Article 25 by a Turkish national, Mr İzzet Çakıcı, on 2 May 1994.
The Commission’s request referred to former Articles 44 and 48 and to the declaration whereby Turkey recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (former Article 46). The object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Articles 2, 3, 5, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention.
2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 § 3 (d) of former Rules of Court A1, the applicant stated that he wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who would represent him (former Rule 30).
[Continúa…]
, que se refería a la desaparición...){kind=link}