European Court of Human Rights

SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 1991/04
by Ali GÜNEŞ
against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 18 November 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 September 2003,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ali Güneş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Kahramanmaraş. He is represented before the Court by Mr F. Kılınç, a lawyer practising in Kahramanmaraş.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 10 April 1993 the applicant’s brother allegedly killed a certain A.D.

On the same day, the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of having incited his brother to kill A.D.

On 12 April 1993 a single judge at the Pazarcık Magistrate’s Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand and issued an arrest warrant in absentia in respect of the applicant’s brother, who had absconded.

On 30 April 1993 the Kahramanmaraş Principal Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and his brother, accusing the latter of committing murder and the former of incitement to murder.

On 10 June 1993 the Kahramanmaraş Assize Court commenced the proceedings.

Between 10 June 1993 and 14 September 1993 the first-instance court held five hearings, at which it heard statements from the applicant and witnesses.

In the meantime, on 12 August 1993, the first-instance court ordered the applicant’s release pending trial.

From 14 September 1993 until 12 August 2002 the first-instance court postponed the hearings pending the outcome of the arrest warrant regarding the applicant’s fugitive brother.

On 12 August 2002 the applicant’s brother was arrested.

On 9 September 2002 the applicant was arrested.

On 16 September 2002 the Kahramanmaraş Assize Court found the applicant and his brother guilty as charged and sentenced them both to death, commuted to life imprisonment.

On 28 April 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.

On 23 June 2003 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s request for rectification of the decision of the Court of Cassation.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him.

The applicant contended under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 that his conviction had been based on witness statements which had been extracted under duress and which had insufficient evidentiary value. He further maintained under the same head that the judgments of the domestic courts had been erroneous and thus had breached his presumption of innocence. Finally, the applicant alleged under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic authorities had erred in the identification and classification of the crime with which he had been charged.

THE LAW

1.  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the length of the criminal proceedings against him.

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, 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 complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 that the witness statements used against him in the proceedings had been obtained by duress; that these statements were not sufficient for his conviction; that the domestic courts’ judgments had been erroneous; and that the domestic authorities had erred in the identification and classification of the charge against him.

The Court considers that the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 essentially concern the first-instance court’s evaluation of the facts and evidence before it and should therefore be examined from the standpoint of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention alone.

The Court recalls that it is not its task to act as a court of appeal or, as is sometimes said, as a court of fourth instance, for the decisions of domestic courts. According to the case-law, the latter are best placed to assess the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, amongst many authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 235-B; Edwards v. the United Kingdom, § 34, 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B).

In the present case, it is observed that the national courts’ decisions were given on the basis of domestic law and the particular circumstances of the case. The Court finds no element which might lead it to conclude that the domestic courts acted in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner in establishing the facts or interpreting the domestic law. The Court further notes that the applicant has not provided any substantial evidence in support of his claim that the witness statements against him were obtained by pressure.

In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that this complaint should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to 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 excessive length of the criminal proceedings;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President