PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 24829/03) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Fikret Çetin (“the applicant”), on 7 April 2003.

The applicant was represented by Mr Mahmut Vefa, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The applicant alleged, in particular, that the criminal proceedings brought against him had not been fair.

On 6 March 2008 the President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Diyarbakır.

A. The first trial

In 1994 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant before the Diyarbakır State Security Court (“the trial court”) for the offence of membership of an illegal organisation. On 15 April 1999 he was acquitted of the charges. When acquitting him, the trial court considered that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the applicant was a member of the illegal organisation. It found, however, that there was sufficient evidence to show that he had aided and abetted the organisation. Nevertheless, considering that the applicant had been coerced to aid and abet the organisation by its members, the trial court concluded that the applicant did not have the requisite mens rea and acquitted him.

Before the appeal lodged by the prosecutor against the applicant's acquittal was examined by the Court of Cassation, the statute of limitations for the offence in question had been reached. Accordingly, on 1 February 2000 the Court of Cassation discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant.

B. The second trial

On 2 June 2000 the applicant was arrested once more and was examined by a doctor before he was placed in police custody in Diyarbakır. According to the report of the medical examination, there were no injuries on the applicant's body.

According to the applicant, during his time in police custody he was subjected to ill-treatment.

On 5 June 2000 police officers took the applicant to a café and two shops in the nearby town of Ergani, which had been bombed in 1993. According to the statements drawn up pertaining to those visits, the applicant told the police officers that he had carried out the bombings with the assistance of a number of other persons.

In a statement taken from the applicant in police custody the same day, the applicant was reported as having detailed his activities within the PKK.

On 6 June 2000 the applicant was released from police custody and was brought before a prosecutor and then before a judge, who questioned him further. The applicant denied the statements taken from him by police officers the previous day, and added that he had not been involved in any bombing. The applicant told the judge that he had signed the statements in police custody because he had thought that he would be ill-treated by the police officers if he refused to sign them. He added that in 1993 he had collected money by making threats on behalf of the PKK, taken part in demonstrations and distributed leaflets in support of that organisation, but that he had already been tried and spent time in prison for those activities (see paragraphs 6-7 above). The judge remanded the applicant in custody pending the introduction of criminal proceedings against him. The same day the applicant was examined by a doctor, who reported that there were no injuries on the applicant's body.

When questioned by the police officers and subsequently by the prosecutor and the judge, the applicant was not represented by a lawyer.

On 1 August 2000 the prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, accusing the applicant of activities carried out for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory.

In the proceedings before the trial court the applicant was represented by a lawyer. During the trial the applicant repeatedly denied his police custody statements and told the trial court that the statements had been taken from him under “intense pressure”.

On 6 November 2001 the trial court found the applicant guilty of offences of membership of an illegal organisation and planting explosives. He was sentenced to seventeen years, four months and ten days' imprisonment. In convicting the applicant the trial court relied on the statements taken from him in police custody (see paragraph 11 above). In response to the applicant's lawyer's submissions that the applicant was being tried twice for the same offence, the trial court stated in its judgment that the previous trial had not concerned the bombing incidents.

On 13 November 2001 the applicant appealed against his conviction and argued, inter alia, that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody and that he had been forced to sign a number of documents.

In his written observations submitted to the Court of Cassation the prosecutor referred to the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment and drew the Court of Cassation's attention to the trial court's failure to take into account a video recording which had apparently been made at the time when the police officers took the applicant to the café. The prosecutor's observations were not communicated to the applicant.

As requested by the applicant, the Court of Cassation held a hearing before it rendered its decision on the appeal. Nevertheless, neither the applicant nor his lawyer attended the hearing. On 20 June 2002 the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal and upheld the applicant's conviction. The decision was deposited with the registry of the trial court on 16 December 2002.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e1
001-94977_a10_em1
CODE
DIRECT
24829/03
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-94977_a10_e2
001-94977_a10_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Republic of Turkey
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e3
001-94977_a10_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
Turkish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e4
001-94977_a10_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Fikret Çetin
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e5
001-94977_a10_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
7 April 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e6
001-94977_a10_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Mahmut Vefa
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-94977_a10_e7
001-94977_a10_em7
LOC
QUASI
Diyarbakır
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e2
001-94977_a10_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
001-94977_a10_em2
Turkish Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e8
001-94977_a10_em9
DATETIME
QUASI
6 March 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e9
001-94977_a10_em10
DATETIME
QUASI
1969
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e7
001-94977_a10_em11
LOC
QUASI
Diyarbakır
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e10
001-94977_a10_em12
DATETIME
QUASI
1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e11
001-94977_a10_em13
ORG
QUASI
Diyarbakır State Security Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e12
001-94977_a10_em14
DATETIME
QUASI
15 April 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e13
001-94977_a10_em15
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e14
001-94977_a10_em16
DATETIME
QUASI
1 February 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e13
001-94977_a10_em17
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e15
001-94977_a10_em18
DATETIME
QUASI
2 June 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e7
001-94977_a10_em19
LOC
QUASI
Diyarbakır
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e16
001-94977_a10_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
5 June 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-94977_a10_e17
001-94977_a10_em21
LOC
NO_MASK
café
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-94977_a10_e18
001-94977_a10_em22
LOC
NO_MASK
two shops
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-94977_a10_e19
001-94977_a10_em23
LOC
QUASI
Ergani
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e20
001-94977_a10_em24
DATETIME
QUASI
1993
POLITICS
check
001-94977_a10_e21
001-94977_a10_em25
ORG
QUASI
PKK
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e22
001-94977_a10_em26
DATETIME
QUASI
6 June 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e20
001-94977_a10_em27
DATETIME
QUASI
1993
POLITICS
check
001-94977_a10_e21
001-94977_a10_em28
ORG
QUASI
PKK
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e23
001-94977_a10_em29
DATETIME
QUASI
1 August 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e11
001-94977_a10_em30
ORG
QUASI
Diyarbakır State Security Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e24
001-94977_a10_em31
DATETIME
QUASI
6 November 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-94977_a10_e25
001-94977_a10_em32
DATETIME
QUASI
seventeen years, four months and ten days
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e26
001-94977_a10_em33
DATETIME
QUASI
13 November 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e13
001-94977_a10_em34
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-94977_a10_e13
001-94977_a10_em35
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e17
001-94977_a10_em36
LOC
NO_MASK
café
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e13
001-94977_a10_em37
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e27
001-94977_a10_em38
DATETIME
QUASI
20 June 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e13
001-94977_a10_em39
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-94977_a10_e28
001-94977_a10_em40
DATETIME
QUASI
16 December 2002
Fikret Çetin
TUR
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Fikret Çetin