CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 septembre 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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 }     Communicated on 5 September 2014   SECOND SECTION Application no. 47079/06 Abdurrahim Haşimi GÜNEŞ against Turkey lodged on 30 May 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Abdurrahim Haşimi Güneş, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1974 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Ordu Prison. On 8 March 1995 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of Hizbullah , an illegal organisation. The applicant’s right of access to a lawyer was restricted during his police custody according to the now defunct Law   no. 3842. On 5 April 1995 a single judge at the Mardin Magistrates’ Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. On an unspecified date the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and several other persons. The applicant was accused of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory, proscribed by Article   125 of the former Criminal Code. On 19 October 1995 the State Security Court held the first hearing in the case. By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on   30   June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court. On 31 March 2005 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant of attempting to undermine the constitutional order, proscribed by Article   146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. During the proceedings, the first-instance courts examined the applicant’s continued detention at the end of every hearing, either on their own motion or upon the applicant’s request. The courts ordered the applicant’s continued detention on remand having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of evidence and the content of the file on each occasion. On 11 December 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 31   March 2005 in respect of some of the accused, including the applicant, and remitted the case to the Diyarbakır Assize Court. On 9 November 2007, the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant of attempting to undermine the constitutional order, proscribed by Article   146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code, and sentenced him to life imprisonment again. On 19 January 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance court’s judgment. COMPLAINTS   The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention that he was denied legal assistance during the preliminary investigation and his statements which were allegedly taken under duress during police custody were used by the trial court in his conviction.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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 allegedly extracted under duress and in the absence of a lawyer? Did the trial court sufficiently assess their reliability before admitting these statements to the case file?   2.     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, as a result of the lack of legal assistance available to the applicant during the preliminary investigation (see Salduz v.   Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, §§ 45-63, 27 November 2008)?   The Government are further requested to submit a copy of the applicant’s police statements.