SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 39420/08
by Hasan TİLKİ
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6 July 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Danutė Jočienė,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 August 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Hasan Tilki, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1967. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Muş E-type prison.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 30 January 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of Hizbullah, an illegal organisation. However, according to the submissions in the case file, the applicant was taken into police custody on 10 February 2000.
On 10 February 2000 the applicant was examined by a doctor who observed that he was in good health.
When questioned in police custody, the applicant did not make any comments to the police with regard to the charges against him. He simply answered questions about his identity.
On 17 February 2000 a medical report drawn up by the Adana Forensic Medicine Institute indicated that the applicant had sustained a bruise on his left arm, and had a 3x3 cm scab on his right knee.
On the same date the applicant was taken before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, who subsequently ordered his pre-trial detention. Before those authorities, the applicant did not raise any allegation that he had been ill-treated in police custody.
On 3 July 2000 the public prosecutor at the Adana State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and nine other persons on the charge of attempting to undermine the constitutional order by force.
On 28 July 2000, in his defence submissions to the trial court, the applicant reaffirmed the statements he had made before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge. In the course of the criminal proceedings, the applicant did not complain to the trial court of ill-treatment allegedly inflicted on him in police custody.
Following the abolition of State Security Courts by Law no. 5190, the criminal proceedings against the applicant were resumed by the 7th Division of the Adana Assize Court.
In the light of the evidence before it, on 18 October 2004 the first-instance court convicted the applicant of attempting to undermine the constitutional order and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
On 20 June 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed that judgment both on the merits and on procedural grounds, and remitted the case to the first-instance court for further examination.
On 8 October 2007 the public prosecutor at the Adana Assize Court filed a new bill of indictment against the applicant on charges of murder and abduction.
On 10 October 2007 the first-instance court once more convicted the applicant as charged.
On 30 April 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant's conviction.
COMPLAINTS
Without relying on any Article of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his detention in police custody.
Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant submitted that the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive.
He next alleged that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair as the trial court had convicted him without taking into consideration the evidence or provisions of domestic law in his favour.
Finally, the applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had not been concluded within a reasonable time.
THE LAW
1. Without relying on any Article of the Convention, the applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive.
The Court considers that this complaint must be examined from the standpoint of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It further considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case files, 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 applicant alleged that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody.
The Court considers that the applicant's complaint must be examined under Article 3 of the Convention.
The Court notes at the outset that in his application, the applicant submitted his allegation of ill-treatment in police custody in very general terms, without giving any details of the alleged acts. Moreover, the Court observes that the applicant did not bring his complaint of ill-treatment to the attention of the national authorities, either in form or in substance, despite the fact that he had a number of opportunities to do so. Following his release from police custody, he did not bring his allegation before the public prosecutor or investigating judge. Nor did he pursue this complaint before the trial court at any time in the course of the proceedings. Additionally, the applicant has not submitted any reasons for failing to comply with the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies (see Nuray Şen v. Turkey, no. 41478/98, 17 June 2003, and Aslan and Demir v. Turkey, nos. 38940/02 and 5197/03, 17 February 2009).
The Court therefore declares this part of the application inadmissible, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention, for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
3. Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the length of his pre-trial detention.
The Court observes that the applicant's pre-trial detention ended on 10 October 2007 with the first-instance court's decision convicting him. From that time on, the applicant was detained “after conviction by a competent court”, which falls within the scope of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention. As the applicant did not lodge his application with the Court until 1 August 2008, this complaint must be declared inadmissible for non‑compliance with the six-month rule, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
4. Without relying on any Article of the Convention, the applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair as the domestic courts had failed to take into account any evidence or provisions of domestic law in his favour. .
The Court considers that this complaint must be examined from the standpoint of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The Court recalls that the assessment of facts, the evaluation of evidence and the interpretation of the domestic law are matters that fall within the appreciation of the domestic courts and cannot be reviewed by the Court in the absence of any indication of manifest arbitrariness (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96 §§ 28-29, ECHR 1999‑I). In his submissions to the Court, the applicant has not sufficiently established any arbitrary conduct on the part of the domestic courts that prejudiced the fairness of the proceedings.
The Court therefore considers that this complaint is manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant's complaint concerning the allegedly excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Stanley NaismithFrançoise Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy