5.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Gebze.
6.  On 17 August 2002 a certain H.A. was found dead in a junkyard. The police initiated an investigation into the matter to find the perpetrators.
7.  On 20 August 2002 the applicant, a minor at the time, was brought to the police headquarters, where he was searched. Following the search, he went through a medical examination. The report drawn up after that examination noted that he did not have any complaints and that there were no signs of injury on his body.
8.  On 21 August 2002 at 1.30 p.m. another report was issued in respect of the applicant, indicating that there were no traces of ill-treatment on him. He was released afterwards.
9.  The same day the applicant’s house was searched by the police, who seized certain objects. The search records prepared by the police noted that the applicant was suspected of having committed the crime.
10.  At around 11 p.m. the applicant was brought to the police headquarters once again, together with some others.
11.  On 22 August 2002 he gave his statements before the police in the absence of a lawyer and indicated that he had spent the day with his friends on 16 August 2002, the day H.A. had been killed. The medical report prepared following his examination reiterated the findings of the previous reports, noting no signs of injury on his body. Several members of the applicant’s family were also questioned the same day. The applicant and the others were all released after their questioning.
12.  On 26 August 2002 the applicant turned eighteen years of age.
13.  On 20 September 2002 the applicant was questioned by the police once again. In the absence of a lawyer, he submitted that he had known H.A. as the grandmother of one of his friends and that when he had heard of the murder, he had speculated with his friends that she could have been killed for the jewellery she wore.
14.  A police report prepared on 11 October 2002 established that according to the results of a DNA test, the blood stains on a tile-cutting machine found at the applicant’s house matched the sample tissues taken from the deceased. Subsequently, the applicant, other members of his family and his friend A.S. were arrested. The search and arrest records held by the police noted that all of those arrested had been placed in police custody following their medical examinations. The medical report concerning the applicant noted no signs of injury.
15.  On 12 October 2002 the police conducted a reconstruction of the events at the applicant’s house, during which he confessed to having killed H.A. He maintained that he had hit her on the head with a wooden club in the basement of their house, with the intention of stealing her jewellery, and that he had put her in a nylon bag afterwards as he had panicked. He went on to describe in detail how he had disposed of the body and showed the police the pushcart he had used to that effect. According to the police records bearing the applicant’s signature, the applicant did not benefit from the assistance of a lawyer during the reconstruction of events and was not informed of his rights to request legal assistance and to remain silent.
16.  Subsequently, the applicant was taken back to police station, where he reiterated his confession in the absence of a lawyer. He also added certain details such as the locations of the jewellery stores in Istanbul and İzmir where he had changed the deceased’s jewellery, and how he had spent the money in İzmir with his friend A.S., who had not known how he had obtained it. His statements were transcribed on a form, on the first page of which there was a pre-printed message stating, inter alia, that the person being questioned had been informed of his right to remain silent and to choose a lawyer, and that he refused legal assistance.
17.  On 13 October 2002, at the end of the applicant’s police custody, another medical report was drawn up, again indicating no signs of ill‑treatment on his body.
18.  On 13 October 2002 the applicant was questioned by the Gebze Public Prosecutor. Pursuant to his request, he was assisted by a lawyer appointed by the Bar Association during the questioning. He reiterated his previous statements and maintained that he accepted those he had made before the police. He argued, however, that electric shocks had been administered to him through his penis and small toe during his time in police custody.
19.  A medical examination conducted pursuant to the Public Prosecutor’s request revealed no traces of injury on the applicant’s penis, small toe or any other part of his body.
20.  On the same day the applicant repeated his previous statements before the investigating judge and claimed once again that he had been subjected to electric shocks while in police custody. He was subsequently placed in detention on remand.
21.  On 22 October 2002 the Public Prosecutor filed an indictment with the Gebze Assize Court, accusing the applicant of murder and robbery.
22.  At the first hearing held on 19 November 2002, the applicant denied his previous statements and argued that he had had to confess to having committed the murder as a result of the ill-treatment inflicted on him. He requested that the appointed lawyer who had been present during his questioning by the Public Prosecutor and the investigating judge be heard as a witness. The court rejected that request.
23.  In a petition dated 11 September 2003, the applicant argued that he had been coerced into making self-incriminating statements, in that he had been subjected to ill-treatment and psychological duress by the police, who had threatened him with bringing charges against his family members if he did not confess to having murdered H.A. He submitted that his waiver of his right to legal assistance had not been unequivocal, which had been proven by the fact that he had requested a lawyer before the Public Prosecutor, as soon as his police custody ended. He further contested the relevance of the DNA examination with regard to the tile-cutting machine, arguing that the court should conduct an examination of the wooden club indicated in his police statements, in order to prove that his confessions had not been genuine.
24.  On 16 October 2003 the Gebze Assize Court held that it lacked jurisdiction and forwarded the case to the Kocaeli Juvenile Court as the applicant had been a minor at the time of the murder. During the course of the thirteen hearings before it, the Assize Court obtained a report from the Istanbul Forensics Institute and heard all the police officers involved in the applicant’s questioning. It further examined two witnesses, namely, the owners of the jewellery stores described by the applicant, who stated that they had not seen him before.
25.  During the course of the hearings before the Juvenile Court, the applicant requested the court to obtain a new forensics report, claiming that there were discrepancies between the police report and that prepared by the Istanbul Forensics Institute, as the latter noted that no blood sample could be found on either the tile-cutting machine or the wooden club. The court rejected that request. Nevertheless, it re-examined and accepted the applicant’s request to have the appointed lawyer heard. In his statements before the court, that lawyer submitted that he had first seen the applicant during the interview at the Public Prosecutor’s office and had suspected that he might have been ill-treated as he had been nervous. The court also heard a number of other witnesses, including his friend A.S., who indicated that the applicant had spent a considerable amount of money in İzmir.
26.  In his submissions before the Juvenile Court, the applicant maintained that he had not been assigned a lawyer while in police custody and claimed that he had been coerced into making a false confession although he had not committed the murder. He added that he had withdrawn the money he had spent after the events with his father’s debit card. Following that latter submission, the court obtained the transcripts of the applicant’s father’s bank account, which showed no such transaction.
27.  On 31 May 2004 the Juvenile Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to twenty-six years and eight months’ imprisonment. The court noted that it did not take account of the statements made by the applicant during his questioning by the police, as in any event it found him guilty on the basis of his subsequent statements confessing his acts, the records of the reconstruction of events, the forensics reports, the statements of A.S., and the bank transcripts which rebutted his defence with regard to the money he had spent after the murder.
28.  The applicant appealed against the judgment, arguing that he might have made contradictory remarks as he had been confused with the questions of the judges. Reiterating his submissions with regard to his alleged ill-treatment, he maintained that he had not been assigned a lawyer while in police custody although he had requested one.
29.  On 16 June 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment, finding that the applicant’s sentence needed to be re-evaluated in the light of the new Penal Code, which had entered into force following the judgment.
30.  On 27 July 2005 the Juvenile Court sentenced the applicant to a total of twenty-one years’ imprisonment. On 12 October 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment once again, this time as a result of the Juvenile Court’s failure to hold a hearing while re-evaluating the sentence.
31.  On 15 February 2007, after holding a hearing and assessing the applicant’s final submissions, the Juvenile Court sentenced him to twenty-one years’ imprisonment for murder and robbery. That judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 19 July 2007.