CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 janvier 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     Communicated on 16 January 2014   SECOND SECTION Application no. 58038/11 Erdal SÜSEM against Turkey lodged on 23 August 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Erdal Süsem, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Edirne. He is represented before the Court by Mr   F.   Tamer, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. On 21 March 2000 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation. On 24 March 2000 the applicant was questioned by police in the absence of a lawyer, allegedly under duress. On 25 March 2000 he also gave a statement to the public prosecutor, still in the absence of a lawyer. In both of his statements, the applicant confessed to being a member of the illegal organisation and gave a detailed account of his acts within that organisation. On the same day, he was brought before the investigating judge, where he retracted his statements and complained that his statements before the police and the public prosecutor had been extracted under duress. On the same day, the applicant was taken to the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute for a medical examination. Before the doctor, the applicant alleged that he had been subjected to ill-treatment whilst in police custody. In particular, he stated that he had been beaten and that electric shocks had been administrated on him. The doctor, who examined the applicant, noted the presence of several minor wounds that had scabbed on both his arms and indicated that the applicant described chest pain. The doctor further stated that a final report would be issued once the results of further consultations were received. On 29 March 2000 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, accusing the applicant under Article 146 of the former Criminal Code of membership of an armed illegal organisation and of involvement in activities which undermined the constitutional order of the State. In his defence submissions, the applicant denied the charges against him and argued that his police statement had been taken under duress. He also stated that his police statement should not be taken into account by the trial court, as it had been extracted from him under duress. Whilst the proceedings were pending, State Security Courts were abolished in accordance with Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004. Therefore, the Istanbul Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the case. On 20 April 2009 the Istanbul Assize Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. In convicting the applicant, the first-instance court relied on the police statement of the applicant and the statements of the other co-accused person. On 15 February 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. This decision was pronounced on 23 February 2011. COMPLAINTS   Invoking Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, the applicant argues that he was denied legal assistance during the preliminary investigation stage. The applicant further maintains under Article 6 of the Convention that he was convicted on the basis of unlawful evidence. In this connection, he maintains that in convicting him, the domestic court relied on his police statement which had been taken under duress.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention as a result of the lack of legal assistance available to the applicant during his detention in police custody (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, §§ 45-63, 27   November 2008)?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, to what extent was the applicant’s conviction based on his statements extracted allegedly under duress? Did the trial court sufficiently assess their reliability before admitting these statements to the case file?