CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 octobre 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 90 October 2006 Göçmen v. Turkey - 72000/01 Judgment 17.10.2006 [Section II] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Use of evidence obtained in breach of Article   3 and in the absence of a lawyer: violation   Facts : In late December 1992 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody. While in custody he admitted being a member of the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan and confessed to having been involved in illegal activities. In accordance with the legislation in force at the relevant time, he was not allowed access to a lawyer while in police custody. In January 1993, after being placed in detention pending trial, the applicant was examined by the prison doctor. According to the report drawn up following the examination, the applicant’s body bore numerous signs of violence (reduced movement and pain in various parts of the body and a large number of bruises). During the proceedings the applicant stated that he had been subjected to ill‑treatment while in police custody in an attempt to extract a confession from him. In 1999 a national security court found the applicant guilty of forming armed gangs capable of committing offences against the State and sentenced him to 18 years and nine months’ imprisonment. The court based its decision in particular on the statements by the applicant’s co-defendants, the expert reports and search protocols and on documents and weapons seized at the applicant’s home. It also took into consideration, as evidence against the applicant, the statements he had made while in police custody. Law : The Court considered it regrettable that, before examining the merits of the case, the national security court had not ruled on the weight to be attached to the confession obtained from the applicant in police custody, which had been challenged before the court. A preliminary examination of that kind would have enabled the domestic courts to declare unacceptable the use of unlawful methods to obtain incriminating evidence. It was not necessary to ascertain whether the applicant’s conviction had been based to a decisive extent on the impugned statements. The Court took the view that the procedural guarantees offered in the present case had not prevented the use of evidence obtained under conditions which amounted to a violation of Article 3, in the absence of a lawyer and in breach of the privilege against self-incrimination. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 20,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. For further details see Press Release no. 598.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes