British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
ULU AND OTHERS v. TURKEY - 29545/06 [2010] ECHR 1962 (7 December 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1962.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 1962
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF ULU AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
(Applications
nos. 29545/06, 15306/07, 30671/07, 31267/07, 21014/08 and 62007/08
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7
December 2010
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Ulu and others v.
Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
President,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Işıl
Karakaş,
Kristina
Pardalos,
Guido
Raimondi,
judges,
and Stanley
Naismith, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 16 November 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in six applications (nos. 29545/06, 15306/07,
30671/07, 31267/07, 21014/08 and 62007/08) 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 six Turkish nationals, Turgay Ulu, Sedat Hayta,
Kamil Yaman, Metin Yamalak, Tamer Tuncer and Kamil Görkem,
born in 1973, 1973, 1977, 1980, 1971 and 1981 respectively. The dates
of introduction of the applications and the names of the applicants'
representatives are indicated in the appended table. The Turkish
Government (“the Government”) were represented by their
Agent.
On
19 May 2009 the Court decided to give notice of the applications to
the Government. It also decided to examine the merits of the
applications at the same time as their admissibility (former Article
29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicants are Turkish nationals who were arrested and subsequently
detained pending judicial proceedings. They were either released or
convicted on various dates, except for the applicant Kamil Yaman
(no. 30671/07) who is still in pre-trial detention. The details of
the dates of the arrests, the dates of the orders for the applicants'
pre trial detention, the dates of the indictments, the dates of
the domestic court decisions, the total periods of pre-trial
detention, the total periods of the criminal proceedings where
relevant, the dates of release and the grounds for continued
detention are set out in the appendix hereto.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A description of the relevant domestic law and practice
prior to the entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure
(Law no. 5271) (“the CCP”) on 1 June 2005
may be found in Çobanoğlu and Budak v. Turkey
(no. 45977/99, §§ 29-31, 30 January 2007). The
current practice under the CCP is outlined in Şayık and
Others v. Turkey (nos. 1966/07, 9965/07, 35245/07,
35250/07, 36561/07, 36591/07 and 40928/07, §§ 13 15,
8 December 2009).
THE LAW
I. JOINDER
Having
regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court
finds it appropriate to join them.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION
The
applicant in application no. 15306/07 complained under Article 5
§ 3 of the Convention that he had not been brought promptly
before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise
judicial power.
The
applicants complained under Articles 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 5
and 6 § 2 of the Convention that the length of their
pre-trial detention had been excessive. The applicant in application
no. 31267/07 submitted under Article 6 § 3 (b) of
the Convention that he had not had adequate time and facilities for
the preparation of his defence on account of the excessive pre trial
detention. He contended under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention that he had been denied the right to education due to his
pre-trial detention. The applicant in application no. 21014/08
claimed under Article 2 of the Convention that his excessive
pre-trial detention had breached his right to life. He further
claimed that the postponement by Law no. 5320 of the date of
enforcement of Article 102 of the CCP, which regulates the maximum
authorised length of pre-trial detention, to 31 December 2010
for certain types of offences including his own, violated Articles 6,
13 and 14 of the Convention. The applicant in application
no. 62007/08 also submitted that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
to the Convention had been breached on account of his excessive
pre-trial detention. The Court deems it appropriate to examine all
these complaints from the standpoint of Article 5 § 3 alone, as
they mainly concern the length of the applicants' pre-trial detention
(see Ayhan Işık v. Turkey (dec.), no. 33102/04,
16 December 2008, and Can v. Turkey (dec.), no. 6644/08,
14 April 2009).
The
applicant in application no. 15306/07 complained under Article 6 § 3
(b) and (c) of the Convention that he had had no effective remedy to
challenge the lawfulness of the length of his pre-trial detention.
The Court considers that this complaint must be examined under
Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
In
their submissions of 21 December 2009, the applicants in applications
nos. 29545/06, 31267/07 and 21014/08 also complained under
Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that they had had
no effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of the length of
their pre-trial detention.
A. Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
1. As regards the length of the detention in police
custody concerning Sedat Hayta (no. 15306/07)
The
Court observes that the applicant's police custody ended on
19 December 1999, whereas the application was lodged with the
Court on 10 May 2006 – that is, more than six months later
(see Ege v. Turkey (dec.), no. 47117/99, 10 February
2004, and Doğan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 67214/01,
7 June 2005).
It follows that this complaint has been lodged
out of time and must therefore be rejected in accordance with
Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the
Convention.
2. As regards the length of pre-trial detention
The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
The
Government maintained that the applicants' detention had been based
on the existence of reasonable grounds of suspicion of them having
committed an offence, and that their detention had been reviewed
periodically by a competent authority, with special diligence, in
accordance with the requirements laid down by applicable law. They
pointed out that the offences with which the applicants had been
charged had been of a serious nature, and that their continued remand
in custody had been necessary to prevent crime and to preserve public
order.
The
Court notes that the shortest duration of pre-trial detention in the
present case is more than four years (in application no. 62007/08).
In the remaining applications, it is over seven years (see appended
table).
The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 5 § 3 of the
Convention in cases disclosing comparable lengthy periods of
pre-trial detention (see, for example, Tutar v. Turkey, no.
11798/03, § 20, 10 October 2006, and Cahit Demirel v.
Turkey, no. 18623/03, § 28, 7 July 2009). Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
Having regard to its case-law on the subject and the length of the
applicants' pre-trial detention in the present case (see appended
table), the Court finds that in the instant case the length of the
applicants' pre-trial detention was excessive.
There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the
Convention.
B. Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
1. As regards applications nos. 29545/06, 31267/07 and
21014/08
The
Court notes that the applicants' pre-trial detention ended on 22 May
2009 in applications nos. 29545/06 and 21014/08 and on 7 May
2007 for the applicant in application no. 31267/07 when the İstanbul
Assize Court convicted them, whereas the complaint at issue was
raised before the Court for the first time on 21 December 2009 –
that is, more than six months later (Canevi and Others v.
Turkey (dec.), no. 40395/98, 30 May 2000). It follows that
this part of the application was introduced out of time and must
therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§1 and
4 of the Convention.
2. As regards application no. 15306/07
The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It
further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It
must therefore be declared admissible.
As
regards the merits of the case, the Government submitted that the
applicant had in fact had the possibility of challenging his
continued detention by lodging objections. They further stated that
the applicant could have sought compensation under Article 141
of the CCP following its entry into force on 1 June 2005.
The
applicant maintained his complaint.
The
Court has already examined the possibility of challenging the
lawfulness of pre-trial detention in Turkey in other cases and
concluded that the Government has failed to show that the
above-mentioned remedies provided for a procedure that was genuinely
adversarial for the accused (see, for example, Koşti and
Others v. Turkey, no. 74321/01, §§ 19 24,
3 May 2007, and Şayık and Others v. Turkey,
cited above, §§ 28-32). The Court notes that the Government
have not put forward any argument or material in the instant case
which would require the Court to depart from its previous findings.
In
the light of the foregoing the Court concludes that there has been a
breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of the
applicant in application no. 15306/07.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 and 13 OF
THE CONVENTION
A. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
1. As regards the independence and impartiality of the
İstanbul State Security Court and the İstanbul Assize Court
The
applicant in application no. 21014/08 complained under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention that he had not been tried by an independent and
impartial tribunal. He submitted, in particular, that the judges had
been appointed by the Supreme Council of Judges and Prosecutors
(Hakimler ve Savcılar Yüksek Kurulu), which had been
presided over by the Minister of Justice.
The
Court observes that the criminal proceedings against the applicant
are still pending. The applicant's complaint under this provision is
therefore premature. Consequently, this part of the application must
be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the
Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see, for example,
Koç v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36686/07, 26 February
2008).
2. As regards the length of criminal proceedings
The
applicants in applications nos. 15306/07, 31267/07, 21014/08 and
62007/08 complained that the length of the criminal proceedings
against them was incompatible with the reasonable time requirement,
laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The
Government disputed this contention.
The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
As
regards the merits of the applications, the Government submitted that
the length of the proceedings could not be considered to have been
unreasonable in view of the complexity of the cases, the number of
the accused and the nature of the offences with which the applicants
were charged.
The
Court notes that the shortest duration of the criminal proceedings in
the present case is over nine years (see appended table).
The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in applications raising issues similar to the one in the
present case (see Bahçeli v. Turkey, no. 35257/04, §
26, 6 October 2009, and Er v. Turkey, no. 21377/04,
§ 23, 27 October 2009). Having examined all the material
submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put
forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a
different conclusion in the present case. The Court therefore
considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed
to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. There has
accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
B. Article 13 of the Convention
In
his submission of 21 December 2009, the applicant in application
no. 31267/07 complained that he had not had an effective remedy
in domestic law whereby he could have challenged the excessive length
of the criminal proceedings against him.
The
Court notes that the criminal proceedings against the applicant ended
on 7 May 2009 when the Court of Cassation upheld the relevant
judgment of the first-instance court, whereas the complaint in issue
was raised before the Court for the first time on 21 December 2009 –
that is, more than six months later. It follows that this part of the
application was introduced out of time and must therefore be rejected
in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of
the Convention.
IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE CONVENTION
The
applicant in application no. 31267/07 claimed under Article 1 of
Protocol No. 12 to the Convention that he had been
discriminated against on account of the fact that he had been held in
detention during judicial proceedings for an excessive length of
time.
The
Court considers that, as Protocol No. 12 has not been ratified by the
respondent State, the applicant's complaint in this regard is
incompatible ratione personae with the Convention and must
therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§
3 and 4 of the Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
The
applicant in application no. 29545/06 claimed 100,000 euros
(EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The
applicant in application no. 15306/07 claimed 60,000 Turkish
Liras (TRY) (approximately EUR 30,550) in respect of pecuniary
damage. He further claimed TRY 75,000 (approximately EUR 38,185) for
non pecuniary damage.
The
applicant in application no. 30671/07 claimed EUR 20,000 for
non pecuniary damage.
The
applicant in application no. 31267/07 claimed EUR 30,000 for
non pecuniary damage.
The
applicant in application no. 21014/08 claimed EUR 5,000 for
non pecuniary damage.
The
applicant in application no. 62007/08 claimed EUR 50,000 for
non pecuniary damage and EUR 139,000 for pecuniary damage.
The
Government contested these claims.
The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects the relevant
claims. However, the Court considers that the applicants must have
sustained non-pecuniary damage. In the light of the Court's
jurisprudence and ruling on an equitable basis, it makes the
following awards under this head in respect of the applicants'
non-pecuniary damage:
(i) EUR
14,500 to the applicant in application no. 29545/06;
(ii) EUR
11,700 to the applicant in application no. 15306/07;
(iii) EUR
15,600 to the applicant in application no. 30671/07;
(iv) EUR
12,700 to the applicant in application no. 31267/07;
(v) EUR
5,000 to the applicant in application no. 21014/08; and
(vi) EUR
6,400 to the applicant in application no. 62007/08.
Furthermore,
according to the information submitted by the parties, the criminal
proceedings against the applicant in application no. 62007/08
are still pending and the applicant in application no. 30671/07 is
still detained. In these circumstances, the Court considers that an
appropriate means for putting an end to the violations which it has
found would be to conclude the criminal proceedings at issue as
speedily as possible, while taking into account the requirements of
the proper administration of justice (see Yakışan v.
Turkey, no. 11339/03, § 49, 6 March 2007).
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant in application no. 29545/06 claimed TRY 12,637
(approximately EUR 6,400) for costs and expenses. In support of his
claims the applicant submitted his lawyer's engagement letter, a
receipt for legal fees incurred, a time sheet and a table of costs
and expenses.
Referring
to the İstanbul Bar Association's scale of fees, the applicant
in application nos. 15306/07 claimed TRY 185,625 (approximately EUR
94,500) for costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts
and before the Court, which included expenditure such as telephone
calls, mail, translation fees, stationery, and travel costs. He also
submitted receipts for legal fees incurred.
The
applicant in application no. 30671/07 claimed TRY 300 (approximately
EUR 155) for costs and expenses. He also claimed EUR 2,000 in
respect of his lawyer's fees. In support of his claims he submitted a
time-sheet prepared by his lawyer, his lawyer's engagement letter and
a table of costs and expenses.
The
applicant in application no. 31267/07 claimed EUR 640 for costs and
expenses and EUR 1,160 in respect of legal fees. In support of his
claims he submitted the Turkish Bar Association's scale of fees, a
table of costs and expenses, and a receipt for the legal fees
incurred.
The
applicant in application no. 21014/08 claimed EUR 350 for costs and
expenses. He also claimed EUR 3,000 in respect of his lawyer's fees.
In support of his claims he submitted his lawyer's engagement letter,
a table of costs and expenses and invoices for postal expenses and
stationery.
The
applicant in application no. 62007/08 claimed EUR 20,000 for costs
and expenses incurred before the domestic courts. He submitted a
receipt for legal fees incurred.
The
Government contested these claims.
According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are
reasonable as to quantum. Regard being had to the documents in its
possession and the above criteria, the Court makes the following
awards under this head:
(i) EUR
1,500 to the applicant in application no. 29545/06;
(ii) EUR
1,300 to the applicant in application no. 15306/07;
(iii) EUR
500 to the applicant in application no. 30671/07;
(iv) EUR
1,160 to the applicant in application no. 31267/07;
(v) EUR
1,000 to the applicant in application no. 21014/08; and
(vi) EUR
1,000 to the applicant in application no. 62007/08.
C. Default interest
The
Court considers it appropriate that default interest should be based
on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which
should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the complaints concerning the length of
pre-trial detention in respect of all applicants, the complaint
concerning the lack of a remedy to challenge the lawfulness of the
pre-trial detention brought by the applicant in application no.
15306/07, and the complaints concerning the length of criminal
proceedings brought by the applicants in applications nos. 15306/07,
31267/07, 21014/08 and 62007/08 admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of the applicant in
application no. 15306/07;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicants in
applications nos. 15306/07, 31267/07, 21014/08 and 62007/08;
Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on
the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the
applicants:
(i) to
Mr Turgay Ulu, EUR 14,500 (fourteen thousand five hundred euros) for
non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros)
for costs and expenses;
(ii) to
Mr Sedat Hayta, EUR 11,700 (eleven thousand seven hundred euros) for
non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,300 (one thousand three hundred euros)
for costs and expenses;
(iii) to
Mr Kamil Yaman, EUR 15,600 (fifteen thousand six hundred euros) for
non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 (five hundred euros) for costs and
expenses;
(iv) to
Mr Metin Yamalak, EUR 12,700 (twelve thousand seven hundred euros)
for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,160 (one thousand one hundred and
sixty euros);
(v) to
Mr Tamer Tuncer, EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) for non-pecuniary
damage and EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) for costs and expenses;
(vi) to
Mr Kamil Görkem, EUR 6,400 (six thousand four hundred euros)
for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)
for costs and expenses;
(b) that,
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement,
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 December 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stanley Naismith Ireneu Cabral
Barreto
Registrar President
|
Information concerning the
application
|
Date of the arrest
|
Date of the order for pre-trial detention
|
Date of the indictment
|
Date of the judgment(s) of the
first-instance court
|
Date of the decision(s) of the Court
of Cassation
|
Objections to the pre-trial
detention or continued pre-trial detention where relevant
|
Total period of pre-trial detention
and of proceedings where relevant (on the basis of the
information in the case file)
|
Grounds for continued detention
|
|
1 - 29545/06
introduced on 6 July 2006 by Turgay ULU,
represented by Nermin Kaplan
|
29/05/1996
|
07/06/1996
|
11/10/1996
|
1.
İstanbul State Security Court -26/04/2002 (E: 1997/127,
K:2002/84)
2. İstanbul Assize Court –
22/05/2009 (E: 2003/178, K: 2009/121)
|
1.
12/05/2003 (E:2002/2311, K: 2003/816)
(set
aside)
2. Pending
|
|
11 years
and 11 months (length of pre-trial detention)
|
- the
state of the evidence
- the
nature of the offence
- strong
suspicion of having committed the offence in question
- danger
of flight
- the
overall period of pre-trial detention
- persistence of the grounds for
continued detention indicated in Article 100 of the CCP
|
|
2 - 15306/07
introduced on 19 February 2007 by Sedat
HAYTA, represented by Ercan Kanar
|
12/12/1999
|
19/12/1999
|
30/12/1999
|
1. İstanbul
Assize Court -24/08/2005 (E:2000/6, K:2005/346)
2. İstanbul Assize Court –
12/03/2008 (E:2006/202, K:2008/53)
|
1.
30/05/2006 (E:2006/1276, K:2006/2927) (set aside)
2. 10/02/2009 (E:2008/14070, K:
2009/1341) (upheld)
|
Lodged on:
27/12/2006
Dismissed
on: 05/01/2007
(2007/4)
|
7 years and
5 months (length of pre-trial detention)
Released
on: 04/03/2008
9 years and 2 months (length of
proceedings)
|
- the
nature of the offence
- the
state of the evidence
- danger
of flight
- the
overall period of pre-trial detention
- gravity
of the offence charged
- persistence
of the grounds for continued detention indicated in Article 100
of the CCP
- strong suspicion of having
committed the offence charged
|
|
3 - 30671/07
introduced on 6 July 2007 by Kamil
YAMAN, represented by Filiz Kılıçgün
|
5/02/1997
|
19/02/1997
|
20/05/1997
|
1. İstanbul
State Security Court - 8/02/2002 (E: 1997/253, K: 2002/13)
2. Pending
before the İstanbul Assize Court (E: 2002/319)
|
1.
15/10/2002
(E:
2002/1241, K: 2002/2023)
(set aside)
|
|
13 years
(length of pre-trial detention)
|
- the
content of the case file
- the
state of the evidence
- the
nature of the offence
- the
overall period of pre-trial detention
- strong
suspicion of having committed the offence in question
- danger
of flight
|
|
4 - 31267/07
introduced on 3 July 2007 by Metin
YAMALAK
|
30/03/1999
|
6/04/1999
|
26/04/1999
|
İstanbul Assize Court -
7/05/2007 (E: 1999/153, K: 2007/275)
|
7/05/2009
(E: 2008/19686, K: 2009/5404)
(upheld)
|
|
8 years and
1 month (length of pre-trial detention)
10 years and 1 month (length of
proceedings)
|
- the
nature of the offence
- the
state of the evidence
- the
overall period of detention
- danger
of flight
- content
of the case file
- gravity
of the offence charged
- strong
suspicion of having committed the offence in question
- persistence
of the grounds for continued detention indicated in Article 100
of the CCP
|
|
5
- 21014/08
introduced on 25 March 2008 by Tamer
TUNCER, represented by Sevim Akat
|
3/03/1997
|
14/03/1997
(the applicant escaped on 7/08/ 1997
and was detained again on 23/05/1998)
|
8/06/1998
|
1. İstanbul
State Security Court -26/04/2002 (E: 1997/127, K:2002/84)
2. İstanbul
Assize Court – 22/05/2009 (E: 2003/178, K: 2009/121)
|
1.
12/05/2003 (E:2002/2311, K: 2003/816)
(set aside)
2. Pending
|
|
10 years
and 4 months (length of pre-trial detention)
13 years and 7 months (length of
proceedings)
|
- the
state of the evidence
- the
nature of the offence
- strong
suspicion of having committed the offence in question
- danger
of flight
- the
overall period of pre-trial detention
- persistence
of the grounds for continued detention indicated in Article 100
of the CCP
|
|
6 - 62007/08
introduced on 5 December 2008 by
Kamil GÖRKEM
|
10/06/2001
|
14/06/2001
|
25/06/2001
|
1. Siverek
Assize Court - 11/04/2003 (E: 2001/134, K: 2003/54)
2. Siverek
Assize Court - 14/12/2005 (E: 2004/168, K:2005/273)
3. Siverek Assize Court - 20/07/2009
(E: 2008/179, K: N/A)
|
1.
4/11/2004 (E:2004/693, K: 2004/3727)
2.
9/05/2008 (E: 2007/4617, K: 2008/3867)
3.
Pending
|
|
4 years and
1 month (length of pre-trial detention)
9 years and 4 months (length of
proceedings)
|
- the
state of the evidence
- the
nature of the offence
- length of
the sentence envisaged for the crime in issue
- danger of
flight
|
