CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 6 avril 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } Interim Resolution ResDH(2004)31 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 17 July 2001 in the case of Sadak, Zana, Dicle and Doğan against Turkey   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 April 2004 at the 879th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) of 17 July 2001 in the Sadak, Zana, Dicle and Doğan against Turkey case (applications No. 29900/96 and others) transmitted the same date to the Committee for supervision of execution in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2, of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”);   Recalling that, in that judgment, the Court found violations of the applicants’ right, under the Convention, to a fair trial when they were convicted in 1994 by the Ankara State Security Court and sentenced to a 15-year prison term;   Recalling that, further to the adoption of Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)59, the Turkish authorities adopted legislation allowing for the reopening of criminal proceedings and that the applicants’ trial was reopened in February 2003 and thirteen hearings have been held so far;   Noting that the applicants’ numerous requests for release pending the outcome of the new trial have all been rejected without any convincing reasons being given by the State Security Court;   Recalling that on 20 November 2003, the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, at the request of the Committee, conveyed the latter’s concerns to the Turkish authorities regarding this state of affairs;   Noting that, in his reply of 19 February 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Turkey stated that the applicants’ detention was maintained inasmuch as they continued to serve their original sentences;   Stressing in this connection, the importance of the presumption of innocence as guaranteed by the Convention;   Deplores the fact that, notwithstanding the re-opening of the impugned proceedings, the applicants continue to serve their original sentences and thus remain in detention almost three years after the Court’s finding of a violation of the Convention in this case;   Stresses the obligation incumbent on Turkey, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to comply with the Court’s judgment in this case notably through measures to erase the consequences of the violation found for the applicants, including the release of the applicants in the absence of any compelling reasons justifying their continued detention pending the outcome of the new trial.