European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Cemal SUNBUL and Others v Turkey - 19430/05 [2010] ECHR 1376 (14 September 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1376.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1376
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
19430/05
by Cemal SÜNBÜL and Others
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14 September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens, President,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Dragoljub
Popović,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Işıl
Karakaş,
Kristina
Pardalos,
Guido
Raimondi, judges,
and
Stanley Naismith, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 May 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Cemal Sünbül, Mr Haydar Sünbül and Mr Turan Sünbül, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1971, 1977 and 1974 respectively and live in Erzurum. They are represented before the Court by Mr İ. Akmeşe, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 21 March 1999 the applicants were arrested on suspicion of throwing Molotov cocktails at a bank during an illegal demonstration, and of being members of the PKK (Kurdish Workers' Party), an illegal organisation.
On 25 March 1999 the applicants were taken for a medical examination where they alleged before the doctor that they had been beaten by the police. In the case file, the applicants submitted only the first pages of the medical reports. However, the subsequent pages, where the doctor's observations had been stated as regards to the applicants' health, were not provided.
On 25 March 1999 the applicants were brought before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, where they denied the veracity of their statements to the police and alleged that they had been forced to sign them without reading them. On the same day, the applicants were placed in pre-trial detention by the investigating judge.
On 5 April 1999 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicants, charging them with membership of an illegal organisation.
In their defence submissions to the trial court on 23 June 1999 and on 21 April 2004, the applicants submitted that they had been pressured into signing statements in police custody without being allowed to read them.
On 25 September 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicants of membership of an illegal organisation and sentenced them to twelve years and six months' imprisonment.
On 17 April 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision on account of inadequate reasoning in the judgment, and remitted the case to the first-instance court.
On 23 July 2004 the applicants were released pending trial.
Following the abolition of State Security Courts by Law no. 5190, the criminal proceedings against the applicants were resumed by the 11th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court.
Basing its decision on a range of evidence, namely the on-site investigation, ballistics and other expert reports, medical reports indicating that no injuries had been found on the applicants' person, statements taken from the witnesses, applicants and other accused persons, on 7 September 2007 the first-instance court convicted the applicants of membership of an illegal organisation and throwing explosives, and sentenced them to ten years' imprisonment in total.
On 15 April 2010 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention, the applicants contended that the trial court had relied on statements allegedly taken from them in police custody under duress.
The applicants complained under Articles 6 §§ 1, 3(c) and 14 of the Convention that they had been subjected to an unfair hearing on account of the absence of legal assistance in police custody and the judicial authorities' alleged discrimination against them in the course of the proceedings, due to their Kurdish origin.
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they had been denied a fair trial by an impartial court due to the special jurisdiction of the Istanbul State Security Court and the assignment procedure of the judges.
Under the same provision of the Convention, the applicants further alleged that the criminal proceedings against them had not been concluded within a reasonable time.
Lastly, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants complained that there had been no effective domestic remedy for the alleged breach of their rights under Article 6.
THE LAW
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of these complaints to the respondent Government.
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.
The Court considers that these complaints should be examined from the standpoint of Article 3 of the Convention.
The Court observes that the applicants alleged before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge that they had been forced to sign self-incriminating statements in police custody. In their defence submissions to the trial court, they had simply denied the veracity of those statements. However, no details of the acts of alleged ill-treatment had been given by the applicants to the authorities. Moreover, in their submissions to the Court, the applicants did not submit any evidence, in the form of a medical report, demonstrating that they had been subjected to any physical or psychological pressure during their detention in police custody. Nor did they challenge the reliability of the medical reports obtained in the criminal proceedings, which the first-instance court referred to in its decision. The Court accordingly considers that even assuming that the applicants attempted to exhaust domestic remedies, in any event they failed to substantiate their complaints of having been subjected to a treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Tanrıkolu and Others v. Turkey, no. 45907/99, 20 October 2005, and Yılmaz v. Turkey, no. 50743/99, 30 May 2000). Consequently, in the absence of any concrete proof, the Court finds that the applicants have also failed to lay the basis of an arguable claim that their conviction was based on evidence obtained through ill treatment. It therefore considers that this part of the application should be rejected as being manifestly ill founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
The Court notes that the criminal proceedings against the applicant commenced before the Istanbul State Security Court, composed of three civilian judges, and continued by the Istanbul Assize Court following the abolition of the former. On the basis of the case file, the Court observes that the applicants were provided with all the procedural safeguards of an accused person throughout the criminal proceedings. In the light of the Court's case-law on this matter, this complaint must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention for being manifestly ill-founded (see Yaşar v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46412/99, 31 March 2005, and Tarlan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 31096/02, 30 March 2006).
The Court observes that the complaint was submitted in a very general manner and the applicants did not provide any evidence suggesting that they had been treated discriminatorily during the criminal proceedings against them. Therefore, the Court considers that the applicants' allegation under this head has been unsubstantiated.
It follows declaring this complaint 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 applicants' complaints concerning the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them, the alleged absence of a domestic remedy to challenge undue delays in the proceedings, as well as the alleged denial of legal assistance in police custody;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Stanley Naismith Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
