CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mars 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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s28F5597F { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s70A7D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:7pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt }     Communicated on 31 March 2014   SECOND SECTION Application no. 45064/10 Cihan YEŞİL against Turkey lodged on 24 June 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Cihan Yeşil, is a Turkish national, who was born in   1976 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Diyarbakır Prison. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 14 March 2000 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the Hizbullah. During his police custody, the applicant was allegedly ill-treated. According to the submissions of the applicant, he was stripped naked, hosed with cold water, subjected to electric shocks, hung by his arms, sexually harassed and raped with a truncheon. On 24 March 2000, upon the order of the investigating judge, the applicant was placed in detention on remand and sent to the Diyarbakır Prison. According to the applicant, as a result of the ill-treatment he had been subjected to, he temporarily lost his memory. His mother, who came to visit him in prison, noticed that the applicant had suffered from ill-treatment and lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor. The applicant has not been able to obtain a copy of this petition or a copy of the file of the investigation initiated by the prosecutor’s office. During his detention, the applicant was taken to the Elazığ Psychiatric Hospital, where he allegedly underwent treatment for three months. In the meantime, criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant before the Diyarbakır State Security Court. At the first hearing, held on 6 June 2000, the applicant stated that he had been ill-treated during his police custody and gave a detailed description of the treatment he had been subjected to. He further stated that M.I., who had shared the same cell during his police custody, would be able to testify in his favour. On 5 December 2000 the trial court heard the applicant’s witness, M.I. According to this statement, M.I. was held in the same cell with the applicant during his police custody, which lasted for ten days. He explained that the applicant was taken from the cell every night for interrogation. M.I. had seen that the applicant was trying to memorise a text from a piece of paper and also heard police officers tell the applicant that he had to memorise all they had written down. M.I. explained that they were all subjected to ill-treatment at night and slept during the day. By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. Therefore, the Diyarbakır Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the case. On 10 April 2008 the Diyarbakır Assize Court found the applicant guilty of being a member of an illegal organisation and being involved in activities which undermined the constitutional order of the State and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On 26 January 2010 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. During his trial, the applicant requested the authorities to send him copies of the medical reports that were issued during his police custody. In reply, the authorities stated that there was no record of a criminal investigation. In the documents sent by the applicant to the Court a medical report dated 17 February 2011, issued by the Diyarbakır Prison doctor, notes that the applicant had treatment in the orthopædic department of the Dicle   University Hospital on 16 March 2000 for a fractured right arm. COMPLAINTS The applicant alleged that he had been subjected to torture while in police custody. He further complained about the manner in which the ensuing criminal investigation was conducted by the domestic authorities. In this respect, he relied on Article 3 of the Convention. He furthermore complained under Article 6 § 3 (d) that his defence witnesses were not heard by the trial court.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies and complied with the six-month time-limit in respect of his ill-treatment allegations, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Has the applicant been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment (see Labita v.   Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   4.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, were any defence witnesses not heard by the trial court despite the applicant’s request? If so, was the applicant put at an unfair disadvantage, in breach of Article 6 § 3 (d), in conducting his defence (see   Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no.   235-B, §§   33 ‑ 35)?   The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the investigation file in respect of the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment and copies of all medical reports issued in respect of the applicant during his police custody and detention period. The Government are further invited to submit a list of witnesses requested by the applicant to be heard, and all the witness statements used in his conviction as well as a copy of the applicant’s appeal petition to the Court of Cassation.