SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 7987/07
by Sedat ATSIZ and Others
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10 June 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Antonella Mularoni,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 January 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Sedat Atsız, Mr Mehmet Emin Türk, Mr Şerafettin Türk, Mr Mahfuz Sığınç and Mr Orhan Sakcı, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1970, 1970, 1966, 1974 and 1970 respectively. They are represented before the Court by Mr S. Yurtdaş, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants were taken into custody on the following dates: the fifth applicant on 6 January 1994, the first three applicants on 9 March 1994, and the fourth applicant on 19 March 1994, on suspicion of membership of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party), an illegal organisation.
On 20 January 1994 a single judge at the Muş Magistrates' Court remanded the fifth applicant in custody.
On 31 March 1994 a single judge at the Muş Magistrates' Court remanded the other applicants in custody.
On 16 March 2004 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicants of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code, and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
On 6 June 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 16 March 2004 in respect of some of the accused, including the applicants, and remitted the case to the first-instance court.
On 16 November 2007 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicants under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code and again sentenced them to life imprisonment.
On 20 January 2008 the applicants appealed to the Court of Cassation.
According to the information in the case file, the case is still pending before the Court of Cassation.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were subjected to ill-treatment during their detention in police custody and that statements were taken from them under duress.
The applicants maintain under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that their detention exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement.
The applicants claim under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against them was in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement.
The applicants further claim under Article 6 § 1 that they were denied a fair trial as their convictions were based on evidence extracted under torture and their witnesses were not heard by the domestic courts.
The applicants maintain under Article 7 of the Convention that their punishment was outside the law.
The applicants contend under Article 13 that they were not provided with an effective domestic remedy.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that their detention, which lasted over twelve years in total, had exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicants maintained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings against them, which was already over fourteen years, had been excessive.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
3. The applicants contended that they had been subjected to ill-treatment during their detention in police custody and that statements had been taken from them under duress.
The Court observes that the applicants have failed to give any details or provide any supporting documents, such as medical reports, to substantiate their allegations of ill-treatment. The limited information in the case file, however, indicates that the applicants raised their complaint under Article 3 before the single judge at the Muş Magistrates' Court. It appears that no investigation of the applicants' complaints was initiated by the national authorities.
The Court considers that the failure of the judicial authorities to act must have become gradually apparent to the applicants up until 16 March 2004, when the Diyarbakır State Security Court gave its judgment on the matter, and that therefore the applicants should have been aware of the ineffectiveness of remedies in domestic law by that date at the latest. Accordingly, the six-month period provided for in the Article 35 § 1 of the Convention should be considered to have started running not later than 16 March 2004 (see İçöz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003). This complaint should therefore have been introduced no later than September 2004, whereas it was introduced on 26 January 2007.
It follows that this part of the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
4. The applicants alleged that they had been denied a right to a fair trial on account of the admission of unlawfully obtained evidence and a failure of the domestic courts to hear their witnesses.
The Court notes that the criminal proceedings against the applicants are still pending before the domestic courts. Accordingly, this part of the application is premature.
It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
5. As regards the applicant's remaining complaints under Articles 7 and 13 of the Convention, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence.
It follows that this part of the application should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants' complaints concerning their right to be released pending trial and the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Sally DolléFrançoise Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy