CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 8 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 } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sEF8F76C5 { width:20.87pt; display:inline-block } .s93B30DFA { width:207.46pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 13797/02 by Abdurrezzak ŞUYUR against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8   July 2004 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   G. Ress , President ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   L. Caflisch ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mr   J. Hedigan ,   Mrs   H.S. Greve ,   Mr   K. Traja, judges , and   Mr   V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 February 2002, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Abdulrezzak Suyur, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Siirt. He is represented before the Court by Mr   S.   Kurbanoğlu, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. On 26 April 1993 the applicant was taken into custody in Marmaris by the police officers from the Muğla Security Department and he was held in custody until 21 May 1993. On 21 May 1993 the Siirt Magistrate’s Court decided that the applicant be detained on remand. On 8 June 1993 the Public Prosecutor at Diyarbakır State Security Court (the State Security Court) filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicant of being a member of an illegal terrorist organization and for assisting and abetting the said organization contrary to Article 125 of the Criminal Code. On 16 June 1993 the State Security Court commenced the trial against the applicant and two other suspects and ordered that the applicant’s detention on remand be continued. On 27 December 2001 the State Security Court convicted the applicant and applying Article 125 of the Criminal Code, sentenced him to lifetime imprisonment. On the same date the applicant appealed against this judgment to the Court of Cassation. On 10 July 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the court of first instance. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that during the 9 years that he was tried, he lived with the fear of the death penalty which amounted to a mistreatment in the meaning of Article 3. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of being unlawfully taken into custody. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 2 that he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest and of the charge against him. The applicant further complains under Article   5 §   3 of the Convention of being detained for an unreasonable period of time like nine years without any reasons which could justify such acts. The applicant alleges that he was not tried within a reasonable time and that he was not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal in violation of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention on account of being tried and convicted by the State Security Court. He further asserts that since he was detained during the whole time he was being tried, he was not presumed innocent by the relevant court, which breached Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. He finally alleges the breach of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention since he was tried on account of the allegations against him through a witness, but he was not given the opportunity to testify against such allegations. THE LAW 1.     The applicant alleges that the length of his custody and trial periods coupled with the fact that he had lived with the fear of being sentenced to death for nine years amounted to torture within the meaning of Article   3 of the Convention. The Court recalls that, in order to fall within the scope of Article 3, the alleged treatment must attain a minimum level of severity, the assessment of which depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim, etc. In the present case there is no indication that the treatment complained of reached the threshold of severity required to bring the matter within the scope of Article 3. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 2.     The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that he was unlawfully taken into custody. The applicant further complains under Article   5 § 2 of the Convention for not being informed of the actual reasons for being taken into custody. The Court observes that the applicant’s custody period ended on 21   May 1993. The applicant introduced his application on 15 May 2002, i.e. more than six months later. It follows that the complaints concerning his being taken into custody have been introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 35 §   4 of the Convention. 3.     The applicant asserts under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his detention period was unreasonably long. The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government. 4.     The applicant complains that the criminal proceedings brought against him were not concluded within a “reasonable time” as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention. The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 1 that he did not have a fair trial before the State Security Court. He further asserts that since he was detained during the whole time he was being tried, he was not presumed innocent by the relevant court, which breached Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. He finally alleges the breach of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention since he was tried on account of the allegations against him through a witness, but he was not given the opportunity to testify against such allegations. 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 this part of the application to the respondent Government. For these reasons, the Court by a majority Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the length of his detention period on remand, the length of criminal proceedings, his right to be tried by an impartial and independent tribunal, his right to presumption of innocence, lack of adequate facilities for preparing his defence and the legality of his detention; unanimously Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Vincent Berger   Georg Ress   Registrar   President