CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 1 juillet 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4E8A404A { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4B2CD0D6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s1F3DC0D4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s69A82CF5 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left } .sDFF9B1EC { width:27.55pt; display:inline-block } .sCE1E12A0 { width:214.15pt; display:inline-block } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; display:inline-block } .sFDE7661F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt } THIRD SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 77343/01 by Özkan ATALAY and Others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1 July 2004 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   G. Ress , President ,   Mr   L. Caflisch ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mr   B. Zupančič ,   Mrs   H.S. Greve ,   Mr   K. Traja ,   Mrs   A. Gyulumyan, judges , and Mr M. Villiger , Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 August 2001, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Özkan Atalay, Abdullah Şaşmaz, Ahmet Taş, Adnan Karakaş and Hikmet Adsız, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1968, 1971, 1974, 1962, and 1963 respectively. They are represented before the Court by Mr S. Özdemir, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The first and second applicants were detained on 22 December 1992, the third applicant was detained on 31 October 1992, the fourth applicant was detained on 6 January 1993 and the fifth applicant was detained on 16   January 1993. They were accused of being members of the PKK and carrying out separatist activities against the Republic of Turkey. The applicants were allegedly ill-treated whilst in police custody. On 18 January 1993 the first and second applicants were brought before the investigating judge. The fifth applicant was brought before the investigating judge on 20 January 1993. Other applicants were brought before the investigating judge after one month in custody. Subsequently, the investigating judge ordered that the applicants be placed in detention on remand. Following this, the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed indictments with the same court and accused the applicants and 54   other defendants of involving in separatist activities, being members of and aiding and abetting the PKK. On 8 May 2000 the State Security Court sentenced the applicants to death penalty under Article 125 of the Criminal Code and then commuted it to a life sentence. The court when delivering its decision, referred to the police statements made by the applicants and their co-accused, to the reports of the re-construction of events, to the confrontations records and to the expertise reports. The case was then automatically referred to the Court of Cassation for appeal. On 2 April 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. On 1 April and 28 May 2004, the Registry sent letters to the applicants’ lawyer and requested that the applicants to provide details of their alleged ill-treatment and to furnish medical evidence in support of their allegations. The applicants did not give any details or provide any documents relating to their allegations. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were ill-treated whilst in police custody. They further complain that their custody period was unreasonably long contrary to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. The applicants allege that the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against them constitute a violation Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Finally, they complain under Article 7 of the Convention that there was insufficient evidence to convict them and even if it was considered that they had committed such offences they should not have been punished pursuant to Article 125 of the Criminal Code which provides for a heavy penalty. THE LAW 1.     The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were ill-treated whilst in police custody. The Court notes that the applicants did not give any details as to the kind of ill-treatment which was allegedly inflicted on them. It further notes that, by letters dated 1 April 2004 and 28 May 2004, the Registry requested the applicants to provide details of alleged ill-treatment and to furnish medical evidence in support of their allegations. The Court notes that the applicants did not give any details or provide any documents relating to their complaints. The Court concludes that the applicants’ complaint has not been substantiated and must be declared inadmissible as being manifestly-ill founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and 4 of the Convention. 2.     The applicants further complain under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that they were kept in detention for about one month without being brought before the public prosecutor or the judge. The Court observes that, in the instant case, the applicants’ custody ended on 18 January 1993 and 20 January 1993 respectively, whereas the application was brought before the Court on 8 August 2001 that is more than six months after the detention complained of. It follows therefore that this part of the application has been lodged out of time and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 3.     They further allege that the length of criminal proceedings brought against them contravened the “reasonable time” requirement under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention. The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of these complaints to the respondent Government. 4.     The applicants finally complain under Article 7 of the Convention that it has not definitely been proved that they had committed the offences with which they were charged, and even if it was considered that they had committed such offences they should not have been sentenced pursuant to Article   125 of the Criminal Code which concerns a heavy punishment. The Court notes that this complaint does not raise any issue under Article   7 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Mark Villiger   Georg Ress Deputy Registrar   President