3 of the Convention. 4.

35 §§   3 and 4 of the Convention. 11.

He invokes Article 8 of the Convention in this regard.

    The applicant alleged that he was ill-treated in a sobering-up centre in violation of Article 3 of the Convention and detained in a psychiatric hospital in violation of Article 5 of the Convention

    Was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention?   4.

Criminal proceedings against him were started in the Diyarbakır State Security Court. 4.

    The applicants alleged, in particular, a violation of Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention, of those two Articles taken together, of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, and

    Under Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complained that his medical data had not been protected and had been communicated to all the hospital staff.

COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he did not have a fair trial as a result of the lack of legal assistance when he released a statement to the police.

    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 24.

based its order to place him in a psychiatric hospital, in breach of his right to a fair trial pursuant to Article   6 §§ 1 as well as 3 (d) of the Convention. 4.

They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

  Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 39.

    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?

accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction

  35 §§   1 and 4 of the Convention.

    In that connection, the Court notes that the applicant’s conviction for membership of an armed terrorist organisation was based on the statements made by E.K. and Y.E. in the context of a

    Was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention?   4.

In particular, he argues that his conviction under Article   377 of the CC was not foreseeable, as experts appointed by the public prosecutor could not be considered as “witnesses” under Article &