CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 28 janvier 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4FB3DF95 { width:90.08pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     047   28.1.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT CONCERNING TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber judgment, which is not final [1] . (The judgment is in French only.)   Section 4   Demirel v. Turkey (application no. 39324/98)   Violation Article 5 § 3 Violations Article 6 § 1   Halise Demirel, a Turkish national born in 1971, is currently being held in Batman Prison (Turkey).   As part of a police operation against the PKK, the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on 28 September 1991. According to the report on her arrest, she was in possession of a pistol, a grenade, documents belonging to the PKK and false identity papers. She was placed in pre-trial detention on 9 October 1991.   In an indictment issued on 5 November 1991 she was charged with participating in the formation of an armed gang capable of committing offences against the State and the public authorities, and with separatism. At a hearing on 8 April 1994 the Diyarbakır National Security Court made an order for her to remain in custody “in view of the nature of the alleged offence and the state of the evidence”.   Between April 1994 and September 1997 the National Security Court made more than 30 orders for the applicant to remain in custody; on 24 occasions it held that such a measure was justified “in view of the nature of the offence and the state of the evidence”, and on several other occasions it gave no precise reasons for prolonging her detention.   On 21 October 1998 the National Security Court, composed of two civilian judges and one military judge, sentenced the applicant to 22 years and six months’ imprisonment for membership of the PKK. The Court of Cassation upheld her conviction in a judgment of 12   May 1999, which was served on 26 May 1999.      Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge or released pending trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained of the length of her pre-trial detention. Furthermore, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), she argued that her case had not been heard by an independent and impartial tribunal, contested the fairness of the proceedings in the National Security Court and complained of the length of the proceedings to which she had been a party (seven years, seven months and 14 days).   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the applicant’s pre-trial detention had begun on 28 September 1991, had ended when she had been convicted on 21 October 1998 and had lasted seven years and 23 days. It appeared from the evidence that the orders for her continued detention had nearly always been worded in identical, not to say stereotyped, terms, and on seven occasions no reasons for her detention had been specified. The Court reiterated that the persistence of reasonable suspicion that an arrested person had committed an offence was a condition sine qua non for the validity of the person’s continued detention but, after a certain lapse of time, it no longer sufficed. The Government submitted that in the present case there had, in particular, been a danger that the applicant might abscond or that evidence might be destroyed, but the Court found that those dangers did not appear to have been taken into account by the judicial authorities, which had omitted to state exactly why such risks were still present after a period of more than seven years in custody. In the Court’s view, although the existence and persistence of substantial evidence of guilt might be relevant factors, they did not in themselves justify such a long period of pre-trial detention. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.   As regards the independence and impartiality of the National Security Court, the Court reiterated that certain aspects of the status of military judges made their independence and impartiality questionable; they were servicemen who still belonged to the army, which in turn took its orders from the executive. In the Court’s opinion, the fact that a civilian accused of a terrorist offence had to stand trial before a National Security Court whose members included a military judge constituted a legitimate reason for her to fear that that court might lack independence or impartiality. The Court concluded that the National Security Court was not an independent and impartial tribunal and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on that account. It further held that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s other complaints under Article 6 concerning the fairness of the proceedings.   As regards the applicant’s complaint that the proceedings had been excessively long, the Court noted that they had lasted seven years, seven months and 14 days. They had been of some complexity and the applicant’s conduct did not in itself explain their length. Delays in the proceedings had been attributable to the conduct of the national authorities, without any relevant explanation having been provided by the Government. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on that account. It awarded the applicant 6,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,200 for costs and expenses.   ***   This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex 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 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. [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.