CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 23 September 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 22171/22 Rikar Kawa HUSSEIN against Türkiye lodged on 8 April 2022 communicated on 5 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged lack of reasoning in domestic court decisions to find the applicant guilty of membership of an armed terrorist organisation. The applicant is a Syrian national. After having migrated to Denmark through Türkiye and Greece, by illegal means, he returned to Türkiye illegally and was apprehended by the security forces while attempting to cross the border towards Syria and, by order of the public prosecutor, he was taken into custody. He was interviewed by the security forces in the presence of a lawyer and was questioned about photos found, by the security forces, on his phone depicting him holding machine guns and heavy rifles (namely a PK machine gun and an AK-47) along with other people in a PYD (Syrian branch of PKK) uniform. He denied being a member of PYD or any other terrorist organisation but did not challenge the content or authenticity of the photos. He explained that he intended to join the PYD to free his sister who was, allegedly, held captive by the PYD as a “soldier”. He was detained by order of a magistrate’s court and tried by an assize court. The Kilis Assize Court, relying on his statements given in the presence of a lawyer and photos found on his phone, concluded that he was a member of the PYD and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment. The judgment was upheld by the Gaziantep Regional Court of Appeal. The Court of Cassation quashed the decision on the grounds that he had not had the benefit of a defence lawyer during the hearings and remitted the case. Upon the appointment of a lawyer, the Regional Court held a new hearing, during which the applicant’s lawyer was present, and found him guilty of the charges brought against him. In its decision the Regional Court stated that he had been trained by the PYD, however it did not make clear how it reached such a conclusion. The judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation. The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s individual application. The applicant complains that the Gaziantep Regional Court of Appeal failed to address his arguments which were, allegedly, decisive for the outcome of his case. In this respect, the applicant alleges that that court did not render an individualised decision with answers to his defence submissions. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the Gaziantep Regional Court of Appeal provide relevant and sufficient reasoning in finding him guilty of membership of an armed terrorist organisation (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (No. 2) [GC], no.   19867/12, §§ 83 and 84, 11 July 2017)?   The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case.