Published on 21 July 2025
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 53446/20
Burhan KUŞ
against Türkiye
lodged on 1 December 2020
communicated on 3 July 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings owing to the domestic courts’ failure to assess the admissibility and reliability of certain evidence against the applicant, which was allegedly obtained under torture and in the absence of a lawyer. It further pertains to the applicant’s complaint concerning the allegedly excessive length of the domestic proceedings.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that in convicting him, the domestic courts failed to assess the admissibility and reliability of key pieces of evidence used against him. In particular, he alleges that his conviction was based on his statements taken in the absence of a lawyer and under torture in Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq, where systematic torture and ill-treatment had been committed against detainees, as well as on the statements of a witness who had also allegedly been forced into giving testimonies incriminating him. In the same vein, the applicant further complains that his right to a hearing within a reasonable time was breached.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair trial in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the admission of evidence, including statements allegedly obtained under torture and in the absence of a lawyer in Abu Ghraib Prison, as well as testimonies from a witness who was allegedly coerced into incriminating the applicant, constitute a violation of his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, El Haski v. Belgium, no. 649/08, §§ 81-89, 25 September 2012; Aydın Çetinkaya v. Turkey, no. 2082/05, § 104, 2 February 2016; Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, § 42, 23 October 2018; and Belugin v. Russia, no. 2991/06, §§ 69-71 and 81-82, 26 November 2019)? In this connection, did the domestic courts address the applicant’s allegations that the statement obtained in Abu Ghraib Prison had been taken from him under torture and in the absence of a lawyer, and that the witness was coerced into incriminating him? Did they assess whether the circumstances in which the impugned evidence had been obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy?
2. Was the length of the domestic proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II)?
The Government are invited to submit copies of all relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case before the Fifth Division of the Istanbul Assize Court, including, but not limited to, the minutes of the interrogations of the applicant in Abu Ghraib Prison along with the minutes of all the hearings, statements of the applicant, the evidence against him, and the written submissions submitted in respect of him throughout the proceedings.
The Government are further requested to send copies of all relevant documents concerning the criminal proceedings before the former Tenth Division of the Istanbul Assize Court (2004/64 E. 2007/21 K.) in so far as they pertain to the applicant’s complaints regarding the use of unlawful evidence based on the statements of a witness who had also allegedly been tortured, including, but not limited to, any medical reports and other relevant materials.
The Government are further invited to submit the translation of the relevant pages of the Fifth Division of the Istanbul Assize Court’s reasoned judgment dated 21 April 2015 pertaining to the above complaints.