At a preparatory hearing held on 7 October 2013, it was decided that the main hearing would be held on 27 November 2013.

       On 17 February 1994 there was a first hearing before the State Security Court. Arzu and imam Sahin as well as other defendants were released on the same day.

During the hearings the applicant was placed in a metal cage in the hearing room.

During the hearing of 21 May 2009 the applicant’s lawyer challenged the impartiality of the judge, requested the court to recuse the prosecutor and also asked to have the hearings recorded.

The hearing scheduled for 19 December 1995 was adjourned at the request of the applicant’s counsel. A hearing was held on 30 January 1996.

The applicant attended all hearings. 5.     On 18 June 2012 another hearing took place, from which the applicant and his representative were absent.

Furthermore, the appellate court conducted its hearing in the absence of the applicant and allegedly without having notified him of the time of that hearing.

On 1 August 1996 the court adjourned a hearing because the parties had not been properly summoned to the hearing.

date for the hearing would be March 2011. 34 .

Court H.R., Hennings judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-A, p. 11 para. 25).

   The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal immediately after the hearing on 4 June 1980.

A decision to hold hearings entirely or partly in private must contain reasons.

It also stated in its minutes that the hearing was public. Moreover, the mere fact that the hearing was conducted on Garsten prison premises does not suffice to show that it was not public.

hearing. 9.

According to the applicant, the hearings were “essentially” closed to the public, as his relatives, the journalists and other persons were not allowed to attend the hearings.

He stated that the reasons for his request for an oral hearing concerning the factual issues were complex, that an oral hearing was not unnecessary and that there was no reason not to hold an oral hearing

The entitlement to a “public hearing” in Article 6 § 1 necessarily implies a right to an “oral hearing”. However, the obligation under Article 6 § 1 to hold a public hearing is not an absolute one.

to participate in the hearing.

reasons against holding a hearing.”

The next hearing took place on 24 August 1993.