CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 9 février 1996

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s5AA75112 { width:24.19pt; display:inline-block } .s490C142E { width:28.91pt; display:inline-block }    The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),     Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Mansur case delivered on 8 June 1995 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;     Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 16026/90) against Turkey, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 23 November 1989 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by Mr Sadi Mansur, a Turkish national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaints relating to the length of the applicant's detention pending trial and of the criminal proceedings brought against him;     Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 15 April 1994;     Whereas in its judgment of 8 June 1995 the Court unanimously:     - dismissed the preliminary objection of lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis;     - dismissed the objection that domestic remedies were not exhausted;     - dismissed the objection based on loss of victim status;     - held that there had been a breach of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the Convention on account of the length of the applicant's detention;     - held that there had been a breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention on account of the length of the criminal proceedings;     - held that the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months, 30 000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 30 000 francs in respect of costs and fees, less 14 106 francs 50 centimes;     - dismissed the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction;     Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention;     Having invited the Government of Turkey to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 8 June 1995, having regard to Turkey's obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;     Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of Turkey gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution;     Having satisfied itself that on 11 September 1995 the Government of Turkey paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 8 June 1995,     Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Turkey, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.   Appendix to Resolution DH (96) 22   Information provided by the Government of Turkey during the examination of the Mansur case by the Committee of Ministers   1.     Article 110 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, as amended by Act 3842, which entered into force on 1 December 1992, provides:     "The length of detention during the preliminary investigation cannot exceed six months.   If criminal proceedings are instituted, the length of detention cannot exceed two years, including the detention already imposed.     If no criminal proceedings are instituted or if no judgment is rendered because of particular problems relating to the investigation or the judgment, the detention order is lifted at the expiration of the above time-limits if the maximum sanction risked does not exceed seven years' imprisonment.   In those cases where the sanction risked is equal to or exceeds seven years' imprisonment, or is capital punishment, the decision whether to lift or continue the detention may take into account the motives underlying the detention, the state of the evidence in the case and the accused's personal situation; release may also be ordered after an adequate monetary guarantee has been fixed."   2.   Furthermore, directly after it received the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in this case, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs transmitted the judgment to the Ministry of Justice with a request that it be communicated to all courts concerned, after being duly translated.   3.   Subsequently, Dr Seref Ünal, associate university professor and a high ranking official within the Ministry of Justice, published an article summarising the Mansur judgment of the Court and stressing the criteria used by the Court when ascertaining whether or not the length of the detention on remand and the criminal proceedings at issue had a reasonable character.   The article concluded by indicating the main legal and organisational problems raised by the Court's judgment.   The article has been published in the "Constitutional Court's Bulletin", April-July-October 1995 issue, which is distributed to all the courts, the public prosecutors' offices and the bar associations.   The Turkish Government is convinced that the authorities concerned will not fail to adapt their practices to the requirements of the Convention as defined by the Court's judgment.   4.   The Turkish Government considers that the above-mentioned measures comply with the requirements of Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention.