Communicated on 18 December 2019
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 28359/08
Hisar İNAL
against Turkey
lodged on 5 June 2008
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of the domestic courts’ alleged failure to observe the principle of equality of arms concerning the collection and examination of evidence.
The applicant was convicted of arms trafficking under Article 12 § 2 of Law no. 6136 and was sentenced to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment and a fine in the amount of 750 TL.
The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (d) of the Convention that his requests that the police officers who carried out the covert surveillance measures and those officers who made the transcripts of telephone conversations be heard were dismissed by the national courts without any reason being given. The applicant also complains of the national court’s refusal, without giving any reasons, to grant his further requests that the person designated as “X” be identified and summoned to give evidence and the audio recordings of the telephone conversations be examined with a view to clarifying the discrepancies between the transcripts of the telephone recordings and the original audio recordings.
Lastly, the applicant also complains of the national courts’ rejection of his objections as regards the authenticity and lawfulness of the transcripts of the telephone recordings, which were used to secure his conviction.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular;
Was the principle of equality of arms respected in connection with the collection and examination of evidence? Did the domestic courts duly examine and provide reasons in respect of the applicant’s requests by which he asked the domestic courts to collect and examine further evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§ 139‑168, 18 December 2018, and Mirilashvili v. Russia, no. 6293/04, 11 December 2008)? In this respect;
a) Was the applicant able to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention (see, for instance, Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, § 139-168, 18 December 2018)? Did the domestic courts provide relevant reasons for dismissing his requests to call witnesses, including the person designated as “X” and the police officers who had made the transcripts of telephone conversations as well as those officers who had carried out the covert surveillance measures (see, for instance, Bašić v. Croatia, no. 22251/13, § 46, 25 October 2016, and Topić v. Croatia, no. 51355/10, § 42, 10 October 2013)?
b) Was the applicant given an opportunity to compare the transcripts of the telephone recordings with the original audio recordings? Were the applicant’s objections concerning the alleged discrepancies between the transcripts and the audio recordings duly attended to (see Matanović v. Croatia, no. 2742/12, § 164, 4 April 2017, and Cevat Soysal v. Turkey, no. 17362/03, 23 September 2014; and compare Niţulescu v. Romania, no. 16184/06, § 53, 22 September 2015)?
The Government are further invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the criminal proceedings against the applicant, including but not limited to the minutes of all the hearings, the reasoned judgments of the trial court, evidence against the applicant including the transcripts of the telephone recordings and the written submissions of the applicant throughout the proceedings.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy