CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 9 juin 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF389B225 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:170.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s3CED24E9 { width:27.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s82D1689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   291 9.6.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING ÖCALAN v. TURKEY     The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today, Wednesday 9 June 2004 at 9 a.m., on the merits in the case of Öcalan v. Turkey (application   no. 46221/99).   The applicant   The case concerns an application brought by a Turkish national, Abdullah Öcalan, who was born in 1949. He is the former leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), proscribed as a terrorist organisation under Turkish law, and is currently incarcerated in İmralı Prison (Bursa, Turkey).   Summary of the facts   At the time of the events in question, the Turkish courts had issued seven warrants for Mr   Öcalan’s arrest and a wanted notice (red notice) had been circulated by Interpol. He was accused of founding an armed gang in order to destroy the integrity of the Turkish State and of instigating terrorist acts resulting in loss of life.   On 9 October 1998 he was expelled from Syria, where he had been living for many years. From there he went to Greece, Russia, Italy and then again Russia and Greece before going to Kenya, where, on the evening of 15 February 1999, in disputed circumstances, he was taken on board an aircraft at Nairobi airport and arrested by Turkish officials. He was then flown to Turkey, being kept blindfolded for most of the flight.   On arrival in Turkey, a hood was placed over his head while he was taken to İmralı Prison, where he was held in police custody from 16   to 23 February 1999 and questioned by the security forces. He received no legal assistance during that period and made several self-incriminating statements which contributed to his conviction. His lawyer in Turkey was prevented from travelling to visit him by members of the security forces. 16 other lawyers were also refused permission to visit on 23 February 1999.   On 23 February 1999 the applicant appeared before an Ankara State Security Court judge, who ordered him to be placed in pre-trial detention.   The first visit from his lawyers was restricted to 20 minutes and took place with members of the security forces and a judge present in the same room. Subsequent meetings between the applicant and his lawyers took place within the hearing of members of the security forces. After the first two visits from his lawyers, the applicant’s contact with them was restricted to two one-hour visits a week. The prison authorities did not authorise the applicant’s lawyers to provide him with a copy of the documents in the case file, other than the indictment. It was not until the hearing on 2   June 1999 that the State Security Court gave the applicant permission to consult the case file under the supervision of two registrars and his lawyers’ permission to provide him with a copy of certain documents.   On 29 June 1999 Ankara State Security Court found the applicant guilty of carrying out actions calculated to bring about the separation of a part of Turkish territory and of forming and leading an armed gang to achieve that end. It sentenced him to death, under Article   125 of the Criminal Code. That decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation.   Under Law no. 4771, published on 9 August 2002, the Turkish Assembly resolved to abolish the death penalty in peacetime. On 3 October 2002 Ankara State Security Court commuted the applicant’s death sentence to life imprisonment.   An application to set aside the provision abolishing the death penalty in peacetime for persons convicted of terrorist offences was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 27   December 2002.   Complaints   The applicant complains that the imposition and/or implementation of the death penalty was or would be in violation of Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of ill-treatment) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention; and that the conditions in which he was transferred from Kenya to Turkey and detained on the island of İmralı amounted to inhuman treatment in breach of Article 3. He also complains that he was not brought promptly before a judge and did not have access to proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, in breach of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security). Under Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) he complains that he was denied a fair trial, in that he was not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal, as one of the judges of the State Security Court was a military judge, the judges were influenced by hostile media reports and his lawyers were not given sufficient access to the court file to enable them to prepare his defence properly. He also complains, under Article 34 (right of individual application), that his legal representatives in Amsterdam were prevented from contacting him after his arrest and/or that the Turkish Government failed to reply to a request by the European Court of Human Rights for information.   The applicant further relies on Articles 7 (no punishment without law), 8 (right to respect for family life), 9 (freedom of religion), 10 (freedom of expression), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the Convention.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 16 February 1999. A hearing was held on 21 November 2000 and the case was declared partly admissible on 14   December 2000.   In it’s Chamber judgment of 12 March 2003, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 5   §§ 3 and 4, Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c), and also of Article 3 on account of the fact that the death penalty had been imposed after an unfair trial. (More detailed information on the Court’s judgment is to be found in the Court’s press release no. 135).   On 9 July 2003, in accordance with Article 43 [1] of the European Convention on Human Rights, a panel of five Grand Chamber judges accepted requests submitted by the applicant and the Government, on 5 and 11 June 2003 respectively, for the case to be referred to the Grand Chamber.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Georg Ress (German), Nicolas Bratza (British), Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss) [2] Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot) , Riza Türmen (Turkish) , Viera Strážnická (Slovakian) , Peer Lorenzen (Danish) , Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian) , John Hedigan (Irish) , Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian) , Lech Garlicki (Polish) , Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), judges , Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian) , Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan) , Karel Jungwiert (Czech) , substitute judges , and also Paul Mahoney , Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Şükrü Alpaslan , Münci Özmen , co-Agents, Erdoğan İşcan , İlkem Altıntaş , Burçe Arı , Banur Özaydın , Amir Çiçek , Mehmet Tire , Kaya Tambaşar , Nejat Üstüner , Bilal Çalışkan , Orhan Nalcıoğlu , Nermin Erdim , Counsel.   Applicant :   Sydney Kentridge , Mark Muller , Timothy Otty , Aysel Tuğluk , Counsel , Kerim Yıldız , Mahmut Sakhar , İrfan Dündar , Fırat Aydınkaya , Louis Charalambous, Anke Stock , Advisers .     After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. A judgment will be delivered at a later date.     ***   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1]     Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17   member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] Judge in respect of Liechtenstein.