5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Çorum. 6.  On 17 March 2004 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody along with another person, on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, the TDP (Turkish Revolutionary Party). 7.  On 18 March 2004, before his police statement was taken, the applicant asked for the assistance of a lawyer. In accordance with Article 138 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure, in force at the relevant time, a defence lawyer, A.E.D., was appointed by the Bar Association to represent him. He arrived at the police station where the applicant was being held. The applicant and A.E.D. had a private meeting to discuss the case that lasted for eight minutes. The applicant agreed to A.E.D. representing him. 8.  On 18 March 2004 the applicant’s police interview took place in the presence of A.E.D. at the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Security Headquarters. According to the written interview record, the applicant replied to certain questions concerning his background and his alleged affiliation to the TDP. He did not admit to any affiliation to the organisation. Following the last question, the applicant stated that M.K., one of the alleged members of the TDP at the time, had asked him to provide him with a fake identity card in order to escape abroad and he had provided him with the identity information of his brother. The police officers terminated the interview at that point as they believed that the lawyer was interfering with the applicant’s free will by saying “remain silent, do not make such statements, do not answer this question”. The lawyer, alleging that the police officers were recording phrases that had not been said by the applicant, also requested that the police officers remove that part of the applicant’s statement. 9.  Following the lawyer’s intervention the police officers took him out of the interview room allegedly under threat and would not allow him to represent the applicant any more. As a result, the lawyer did not sign the interview record. According to the applicant’s submissions to the Court, after his lawyer was forced to leave, the police officers coerced him into signing self-incriminating statements which he had made while his lawyer was present, by indicating to him that they would involve his brother in the case if he refused to sign the statements. The applicant signed his statements. 10.  On 20 March 2004 at the request of the police officers, a new lawyer was appointed for the applicant. On the same day, the police resumed the interview and took additional statements from the applicant in the presence of his new lawyer. The applicant once again denied his affiliation to an illegal organisation. He stated that M.K. had stayed at his house on several occasions. On 16 March 2004, when at his house, M.K. had wanted to visit a friend. Having explained that the police were looking for him, he had asked if the applicant’s wife could accompany him so he would not be noticed by the police. Subsequently, the applicant had allowed them to visit the friend together. 11.  On 21 March 2004 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and investigating judge respectively. He exercised his right to remain silent before the public prosecutor. He then gave statements to the investigating judge in the presence of a lawyer and retracted his police statements, alleging that he had been compelled by police officers to make self-incriminating statements. The investigating judge ordered the applicant’s release. 12.  On 22 March 2004 the applicant’s detention was ordered in absentia. 13.  On 29 March 2004 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, charging him with aiding and abetting an illegal organisation under Article 169 of the former Criminal Code. 14.  On 20 April 2004 the applicant was remanded in custody. 15.  At a hearing held on 24 November 2004 the applicant gave evidence in the presence of his lawyer and denied the charges against him, arguing that he had not aided any member of an armed organisation. He accepted the statements he had given to the investigating judge and the fact that he had exercised his right to remain silent before the public prosecutor. However, he denied his statements to the police, stating that they had frequently recorded things he had not said, as a result of which his lawyer had confronted them and had then been removed from the interview. According to the applicant, after his lawyer’s removal, the police had added to his statements the fact that he had passed the identity information of his brother to his co-defendant M.K. At the same hearing, the court noted that the investigation file relating to the allegations that the police officers had ill-treated the accused and had not allowed them to see their lawyers had been sent to the Fatih public prosecutor’s office. It accordingly decided to request a copy of that investigation file. 16.  At a hearing held on 6 July 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court decided to join the case pending before it to proceedings before the Erzurum Assize Court, to which it sent the case file. 17.  On 4 March 2005 the applicant was released pending trial. 18.  On 16 March 2006 the Erzurum Assize Court acquitted the applicant, finding that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. 19.  On 20 November 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment, concluding that the elements of the crime had been established. The case was accordingly remitted to the Erzurum Assize Court. 20.  A document provided by the PTT (the postal, telegraph and telephone service) to the Erzurum Assize Court shows that on 26 January 2007 the forthcoming hearing date was served on the secretary of the applicant’s lawyer. 21.  At a hearing held on 24 December 2007 the applicant, at his request, made his final submissions to the Erzurum Assize Court about the decision of the Court of Cassation. At the end of the hearing the court notified him that the next hearing would take place on 27 December 2007. 22.  On 27 December 2007 the first-instance court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment in the absence of both him and his lawyer. In delivering its judgment, the court relied on his partial confession, the false identity card drawn up in his brother’s name, the arrest and identification reports. The court held that the applicant had harboured a member of an illegal organisation, M.K., and had provided him with the identity information of his brother, E.S. It further noted that on 27 February 2004 police officers had arrested M.K. at Adana Airport in possession of a false identity card, drawn up in the applicant’s brother’s name, while he had been trying to escape to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. 23.  In his appeal, the applicant alleged that he had not been notified of the hearing date and argued that he had been convicted on the basis of abstract police statements obtained under coercion. 24.  On 2 March 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the conviction. 25.  On 8 April 2009 the judgment was deposited with the registry of the first-instance court.
Criminal proceedings against the police officers 26.  On an unspecified date the applicant, along with the lawyer concerned, lodged a complaint alleging that the police officers who had participated in his interview had unlawfully interfered with the questioning and had therefore breached his defence rights. 27.  On 22 October 2004 the Fatih public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the relevant police officers, accusing them of ill‑treatment and misconduct in office. The prosecutor stated that they had ill-treated the applicant and other suspects in police custody between 17 and 21 March 2004. It further held that they had not allowed the lawyers to examine certain documents, had not given them copies of those documents and had terminated the interviews on the grounds that the lawyers had interfered with the free will of the suspects and reminded them of their right to remain silent in the course of the interviews. 28.  At a hearing held on 2 March 2005 before the Fatih Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction, the applicant’s officially appointed lawyer A.E.D. was heard as a complainant. He stated that on the day in question he had been representing another suspect and the police had told him that he could not look that suspect in the face. Subsequently, during the course of the applicant’s interview when he had informed him that he had the right to remain silent, one of the officers had shouted at him saying that he was “ill-mannered” (terbiyesizlik). Another police officer had allegedly told him that he had “overstepped the mark” (çizmeyi aşmak) and had taken him out of the interview room. Two other lawyers also testified as complainants and stated that the police had either not allowed them to see the suspects or had prevented them from examining certain documents in the investigation file. 29.  On 29 September 2010 the Fatih Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction discontinued the case, finding that it was time-barred pursuant to Article 102 of the former Criminal Code (Law no. 765) and Article 223 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 5271). The parties did not appeal and the judgment became final on 14 December 2010.