Communicated on 27 September 2017
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 5415/08
Mehmet Emin SABAZ
against Turkey
lodged on 21 January 2008
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mehmet Emin Sabaz, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Diyarbakır.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 21 January 2002 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of being a member of Hizbullah, an illegal organisation. He was allegedly interrogated under torture and denied access to legal assistance during this period. He did not provide medical reports in support of his allegations of ill-treatment.
On 24 January 2002 the judge at the Batman Magistrates’ Court ordered his pre-trial detention.
On 8 March 2002 the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant charging him with membership of Hizbullah.
On 9 May 2002 the criminal proceedings against the applicant and five others commenced before the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
On 24 October 2002 the applicant stated before the court that he had been tortured in police custody. He further stated that his statements before the judicial authorities had been taken under duress.
By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was subsequently resumed before the Diyarbakır Assize Court.
On 24 April 2007 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant of attempting to undermine the constitutional order and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
On 17 February 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 24 April 2007.
B. Relevant domestic law
A description of the relevant domestic law concerning the right of access to a lawyer may be found in Salduz v. Turkey ([GC] no. 36391/02, §§ 27‑31, ECHR 2008).
On 15 July 2003 Law no. 4928 repealed Section 31 of Law no. 3842, thus the restriction on an accused’s right of access to a lawyer in proceedings before the State Security Courts was lifted.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody.
He maintained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair trial as his conviction was based on the statements he had made to the police under duress. He also claimed under Article 6 § 3 of the Convention that he had been denied the assistance of a lawyer during the initial stages of the criminal proceedings.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in lodging his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Was the applicant subjected to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention during the police custody?
3. 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, has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, as a result of the lack of legal assistance available to the applicant during the preliminary investigation (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008, and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016)?
4. Did the use of statements taken under alleged duress and in the absence of a lawyer violate the applicant’ s right to a fair hearing (see Özcan Çolak v. Turkey, no. 30235/03, §§ 47-50, 6 October 2009)? Did the trial court sufficiently assess their reliability before admitting these statements to the case file?
The Government are invited to submit the copies of the relevant medical reports, the Diyarbakır Assize Court’s judgment of 24 April 2007, written submissions of the applicant and his lawyer, the minutes of all the hearings, and the Court of Cassation’s decision upholding the judgment of 24 April 2007.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy