CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 23 octobre 2001

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s42A0AEC7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6A184BC2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD35C6159 { width:1.54pt; display:inline-block } .sF9A986A5 { width:12.2pt; display:inline-block } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     756   23.10.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARING IN THE CASES OF MAMATKULOV v. TURKEY AND ABDURASULOVIV v. TURKEY   Tuesday 23 October 2001 at 2.30 p.m.   The applicants   The case concerns two applications lodged by two Uzbek nationals, Rustam Mamatkulov (application no. 46827/99) and Askarov Abdurasulovic (application no. 46951/99), who were born in 1959 and 1971 respectively. They were extradited from Turkey to Uzbekistan.   Summary of the facts   Mamatkulov v. Turkey On 3 March 1999 the applicant arrived in Istanbul from Alma-Ata (Kazakhstan) on a tourist visa. Acting pursuant to an international arrest warrant issued against the applicant, the Turkish police arrested him at Atatürk Airport (Istanbul) and took him into police custody. He was suspected of homicide, causing injuries by the explosion of a bomb in the Republic of Uzbekistan and an attempted terrorist attack on the President of Uzbekistan.   Relying on a bilateral convention with Turkey, Uzbekistan asked for the applicant to be extradited.   On 11 March 1999 the applicant was interviewed by the judge of the Bakırköy Criminal Court. An order made by the judge on the same day under the urgent procedure mentioned the charges against the applicant and noted that the offences concerned were not political or military in nature but ordinary criminal offences. The judge also remanded the applicant in custody pending his extradition.   On 19 March 1999 the Cabinet issued a decree ordering the applicant’s extradition, and on 27   March 1999 he was handed over to the Uzbek authorities.   Abdurasulovic v. Turkey The applicant entered Turkey on 13 December 1998 on a false passport. On 5 March 1999, acting pursuant to an extradition request made by the Republic of Uzbekistan, the Turkish police arrested him and took him into police custody. He was suspected of homicide, causing injuries by the explosion of a bomb in the Republic of Uzbekistan and an attempted terrorist attack on the President of Uzbekistan.   On 7 March 1999 the applicant was brought before a judge, who remanded him in custody. On 15 March 1999 the Fatih Criminal Court (Istanbul) determined his nationality and ruled on the nature of the offence, pursuant to Article 9 of the Turkish Criminal Code. It held that the offences with which the applicant had been charged were not political or military in nature but ordinary criminal offences. The court also remanded the applicant in custody pending his extradition. On 18 March 1999 the applicant appealed against the judgment of 15   March 1999 to the Istanbul Assize Court. The Assize Court examined the case on the basis of the file that had been submitted to it and dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 26 March 1999. On 27 March 1999 the applicant was handed over to the Uzbek authorities.   * * *   In a letter dated 19 April 1999 the Turkish Government (“the Government”) informed the Court of the following guarantees obtained from the Uzbek authorities concerning the two applicants: “There will be no general confiscation of the applicants’ assets, they will not be subjected to torture and will not be sentenced to death” and “the Republic of Uzbekistan is a party to the United Nations Convention against torture and accepts and reaffirms its obligation to observe the requirements of the provisions of that Convention both with regard to Turkey and with regard to the international community as a whole”.   The Government informed the Court that, in a judgment of 28 June 1999, the High Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan had found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced them to twenty and eleven years’ imprisonment respectively.   Complaints   The applicants complained that their lives would be at risk and they would be in danger of being subjected to torture following their extradition, contrary to the provisions of Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   They further submitted that they would not have a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) in the criminal proceedings brought against them in their country of origin and they ran the serious risk of being sentenced to death and executed. They alleged in that connection that the judicial authorities were not independent of the executive.   In support of their allegations they cited the reports of international investigative bodies working in the field of human rights which had condemned an administrative practice of torture and other forms of ill-treatment of political dissidents and the repressive policy of Uzbekistan’s leaders towards them.   The applicants further complained that they had not had a fair hearing in the proceedings before the criminal courts which had ruled on their extradition, in that they had not had access to all the documents in the file and had not been able to raise their allegations concerning classification of the offence with which they had been charged. They relied in that connection on Article 6 of the Convention.   Emphasising the fact that the applicants had been extradited, their representatives alleged that Turkey had failed to discharge its obligations under the Convention by not acting in accordance with the indications given by the Court under Rule 39 (interim measures) of its Rules of Court. Procedure   The applications were lodged on 11 and 22 March 1999 and declared admissible on 31   August 1999.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President , Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Rait Maruste (Estonian), judges, Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), Tudor Panţîru (Moldovan), substitute judges, and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government:   Münci Özmen , Co-Agent , Gökşen Acar and İlkay Kocayığıt , Counsel ;   Applicants:   İ. Şâdi Çarsancaklı , Counsel .     * * *   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.