CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 septembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 30 September 2024   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 27526/22 and 29593/22 Oktay KAYA against Türkiye and Mehmet AVCI against Türkiye lodged on 18 May 2022 communicated on 10 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicants on account of their alleged inability to examine three witnesses, whose identities were protected (anonymous witnesses), in person before the trial court. On 13 July 2016 the Bingöl Public Prosecutor’s Office, charging the applicants with the offence of membership of an armed terrorist organisation, filed a bill of indictment with the Bingöl 2nd Assize Court. On 8 November 2017 the Bingöl 2nd Assize Court convicted the applicants of membership of an armed terrorist organisation (the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) / KCK (Kurdistan Communities Union)). In its judgment the Bingöl 2nd Assize Court relied on statements of anonymous witnesses who had been heard by the court in a private hearing in the absence of the defendants and their lawyers. The applicants complain that their rights under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention have been violated as they were convicted based on statements of anonymous witnesses whom they had not been able to examine in person.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-151, ECHR 2011, and Schatschaschwili v.   Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-131, ECHR   2015). In particular:   (a)     Were the applicants able to examine all witnesses against them, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?   (b)     Was there a good reason for (i) keeping the identities of the witnesses concerned confidential, (ii) the non-attendance of the applicants or their lawyers at the session held by the trial court, during which it examined the anonymous witnesses? Were the factual or legal grounds of such a reason reflected in the domestic courts’ judgments?   (c)     Did the statements of those witnesses serve as the sole or decisive evidence or carry significant weight for the applicants’ conviction?   (d)(     Did the domestic courts’ judgments indicate that they had approached the statements given by the anonymous witnesses with any specific caution?   e)     Did the domestic courts provide the applicants with procedural safeguards aimed at compensating for the alleged lack of opportunity to directly examine the witnesses before the trial court?   The Government are invited to submit all relevant documents concerning the applicants’ cases.