CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 17 mars 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .s3CED24E9 { width:27.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   131 17.3.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING MAMATKULOV AND ASKAROV v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today, Wednesday 17 March 2004 at 9 a.m., on the merits in the case of: Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey (application nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99).   The applicants   The case concerns two applications brought by two Uzbek nationals, Rustam Mamatkulov and Abdurasulovic Askarov, who were born in 1959 and 1971 respectively.   Summary of the facts   The applicants are members of the ERK “Freedom” Party (an opposition party in Uzbekistan). They were extradited from Turkey to Uzbekistan on 27   March 1999 and are understood to be currently in custody there.   Mr Mamatkulov arrived in Istanbul from Kazakhstan on 3 March 1999 on a tourist visa. The Turkish police arrested him at Atatürk Airport (Istanbul) and took him into police custody. Mr Askarov came into Turkey on 13 December 1998 on a false passport. The security forces arrested him and took him into police custody on 5 March 1999.   Both men were suspected of homicide, causing injuries by the explosion of a bomb in Uzbekistan, and an attempted terrorist attack on the President of the Republic. They were brought before a judge who ordered them to be remanded in custody. Uzbekistan requested their extradition under a bilateral treaty with Turkey.   Mr Mamatkulov was questioned by the judge at Bakırköy Criminal Court and Mr   Askarov was brought before Fatih Criminal Court (Istanbul). The judge and court noted that the offences with which the applicants were charged were neither political nor military in nature, but ordinary criminal offences. They ordered them to be detained pending their extradition.   On 18 March 1999 the European Court of Human Rights indicated to the Turkish Government, under Rule 39 (interim measures) of the Rules of Court, that “it was desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court not to extradite the applicants to Uzbekistan until the Court had had an opportunity to examine the application further at its forthcoming session on 23 March”. On that date the Chamber extended the interim measure until further notice. In the meantime, on 19 March 1999, the Turkish Cabinet issued a decree for the applicants’ extradition. They were handed over to the Uzbek authorities on 27 March 1999.   In a judgment of 28 June 1999 the High Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan found the applicants guilty of the offences as charged and sentenced them to 20 and 11 years’ imprisonment respectively.   Complaints   Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants submitted that following their extradition their lives were at risk and they were in danger of being subjected to torture. They also complained, under Article 6 (right to a fair trial), of the unfairness of the extradition procedure in Turkey and of the criminal proceedings against them in Uzbekistan. Pointing out that the applicants had in fact 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 of its Rules of Court.   Procedure   The applications were lodged respectively on 11 and 22 March 1999. They were both declared admissible on 31 August 1999. A hearing was held on 23 October 2001.   In a Chamber judgment of 6 February 2003 the Court held unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; that Article 6 was inapplicable to the extradition procedure in Turkey; and that no issue arose regarding the second complaint lodged under Article 6. It held, by six votes to one, that there had been a breach of Article 34 (individual applications) of the Convention because Turkey had not complied with the interim measures indicated by the Court.   On 28 April 2003 the Government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber [1] . The panel of the Grand Chamber granted the request on 21 May 2003.   On 18 December 2003 the President of the Grand Chamber granted three non-governmental organisations, The Aire Centre (London), Human Rights Watch (New York) The International Commission of Jurists (Geneva), leave to intervene as third parties in the proceedings.   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), Nicolas Bratza (British), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss) [2] , Elisabeth Palm (Swedish) Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese) , Riza Türmen (Turkish) , Françoise Tulkens (Belgian) , Nina Vajić (Croatian) , Matti Pellonpää (Finnish) , Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (Macedonian) , András Baka (Hungarian) , Egil Levits (Latvian) , Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), judges , John Hedigan (Irish) , Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese) , substitute judges , and also Paul Mahoney , Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Münci Özmen , Co-Agent ,   Meltem Gülşen ,   Vedia Sirmen ,   Hande Sarı , Advisers ;   Applicant :   İ. Şadi Çarsancaklı , Counsel ,   Levent Korkut, Adviser .     ***   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 elected in respect of Liechtenstein.