7.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Aydın. 8.  At the material time, the applicant was the manager of a hotel in Kuşadası. 9.  On 10 July 2002 at 4.50 a.m. the applicant was arrested by police officers from the counter-terrorism unit of the İzmir Security Directorate in connection with an operation conducted against an illegal organisation, namely the Bolşevik Parti – Kuzey Kürdistan / Turkiye (Bolshevik Party –North Kurdistan/Turkey). According to the arrest report, which was signed by the applicant, the police found eighty-eight left-wing books and periodicals in his room. Those books were seized by the police with a view to ascertaining whether they were illegal. 10.  On 11 July 2002 at approximately 2.15 a.m. the applicant took part in an identity parade in the absence of a lawyer. The applicant identified another co-accused, a certain M.B., and stated that he had allowed him to stay in his hotel free of charge without registering him in the hotel’s guestbook. 11.  On the same day at 1.10 p.m. the applicant was interviewed by the police in the absence of a lawyer. The applicant was asked, inter alia, what his ideology was, for how long he had been reading the periodical Çağrı that had been found and seized in his place of work, and which other meetings or demonstrations – held within a democratic platform – he had participated in. The applicant explained that he regularly bought the periodical Çağrı from a newspaper kiosk and enjoyed reading it. This periodical, which was sold legally, was supportive of leftist ideas. He also stated that he was friends with Mehmet Desde (who was the applicant in Desde v. Turkey, no. 23909/03, 1 February 2011) and E.Y., whom he had met when he had been in Germany. The applicant had allowed them to stay in his hotel and use his car when they had needed a vehicle. The applicant admitted that he had expressed his wish to be involved in the activities of the Bolshevik Party, but Mehmet Desde, who had connections in the organisation, had never replied to him. 12.  On 13 July 2002 the applicant was questioned by the public prosecutor again in the absence of a lawyer. He admitted to having lent his car to Mehmet Desde and to having provided him with accommodation in his hotel. However, he denied any affiliation with the illegal organisation. Following his questioning, the applicant was released. 13.  Although Mehmet Desde used his right to remain silent before the police, he made statements before the public prosecutor in the absence of a lawyer, where he stated that he had stayed in the applicant’s hotel for two days and had borrowed the applicant’s car. 14.  On 6 September 2002 the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant together with nine other co-accused. The prosecutor charged the applicant with aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, Bolşevik Parti – Kuzey Kürdistan/Türkiye –, under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act as in force at the material time. 15.  On 24 October 2002, at the first hearing in the case, the applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, denied the charges against him. He maintained that he had not been involved in any illegal activity. He further stated that Mehmet Desde, E.Y. and M.B. had come to his hotel as guests and that they had not gathered with an ulterior motive. The applicant also stated that he had lent his car to Mehmet Desde and M.B. when they had told him that they wanted to drive to another coastal town. When asked about his statements before the police, the applicant denied them, alleging that they had been obtained through coercion and torture by the police as a result of which he had been pressured to sign his statement. At the end of that hearing, the trial court asked the applicant to make additional defence submissions given that his actions might be reclassified as assisting members of a terrorist organisation under section 7 (1) and (2) of Law no. 3713. He reiterated his previous defence submissions. 16.  At the hearing held on 24 July 2003, the applicant made his defence submissions in relation to the merits of the case and denied the allegations against him. He further stated that his only mistake had been not registering Mehmet Desde and M.B. in his hotel’s guestbook. At the same hearing the İzmir State Security Court convicted the applicant of aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation under section 7 (2) of Law no. 3713 as then in force and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment and a fine. Having regard, inter alia, to the statements of the applicant as well as of the other co-accused, the “written evidence” and the content of the case file as a whole, the trial court concluded that the applicant had committed the offence of aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation by allowing the other co-accused, namely Mehmet Desde, E.Y. and M.B., to stay in his hotel without registering them in his hotel’s guestbook and by lending his car to those people. Furthermore, the trial court listed the periodicals found in the applicant’s possession as evidence in the “written evidence” part of its judgment. 17.  On 8 April 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment, holding that in rendering its judgment the first-instance court should have taken into account the recent amendments made to section 7 of Law no. 3713. 18.  In the meantime, pursuant to Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was therefore transferred to the İzmir Assize Court. 19.  On 12 October 2004 the İzmir Assize Court convicted the applicant once again under section 7 (2) of Law no. 3713 as then in force and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment and a fine. Having regard, inter alia, to the statements of the applicant as well as of the other co-accused, the “written evidence” and the content of the case file as a whole, it held that the applicant had committed the offence of aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation by allowing the other co-accused, namely Mehmet Desde, E.Y. and M.B., to stay in his hotel without registering them in his hotel’s guestbook and by lending his car to those people. It listed the periodicals found in the applicant’s possession as evidence in the “written evidence” part of its judgment. 20.  On 13 December 2004 the applicant appealed. 21.  While the appeal proceedings were pending before the Court of Cassation, in 2005 the new Criminal Code of Criminal Procedure came into force. By a decision dated 10 November 2005, the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation sent the case file back to the first‑instance court and requested that the latter reconsider the case in the light of the amendments made to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case was accordingly transferred back to the İzmir Assize Court. 22.  The public prosecutor before the İzmir Assize Court submitted his opinion on the merits of the case and requested the acquittal of the applicant and his co-accused on the grounds that the organisation which they had allegedly founded did not correspond to the definition of a terrorist organisation under section 7 (1) of Law no. 3713. Consequently, he considered that the applicant’s acts could not be characterised as aiding and abetting an illegal organisation under section 7 (2) of the same Law. 23.  On 16 March 2006 the İzmir Assize Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment and a fine under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 as then in force. Having considered the structure, methods, purpose and activities of the said organisation, the court concluded that it could be categorised as a terrorist organisation, contrary to the submissions of the accused and the public prosecutor in charge of the investigation. It noted that even though the members of the organisation had not resorted to physical violence, they had used “psychological duress” (manevi cebir), such as issuing threats, in order to achieve their aims. The trial court considered that the aim of the organisation was to start an uprising with a view to replacing the democratic regime with a totalitarian Marxist and Leninist regime. Thus, the fact that the organisation in question had not resorted to violence was not considered problematic with regard to categorising it as a terrorist organisation. It went on to state that the periodicals Çağrı and Güney had been the legal media outlets of the organisation.
The trial court further held that the applicant had admitted to the allegations in his statements to the police. Moreover, having regard, inter alia, to the statements of the applicant as well as of the other co-accused persons, the “written evidence” and the content of the case file as a whole, it held that the applicant had committed the offence of aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation by allowing the other co-accused persons, namely Mehmet Desde, E.Y. and M.B., to stay in his hotel without registering them in his hotel’s guestbook. Again, it listed the periodicals found in the applicant’s possession as evidence in the “written evidence” part of its judgment. 24.  On 23 March 2006 the applicant appealed against the judgment. 25.  On 5 October 2006 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation lodged a written opinion with the Ninth Division of the Court of Cassation in which he submitted, inter alia, that the objections of the lawyers concerning the use of police statements to convict the co-defendants should be rejected as irrelevant and unsubstantiated. However, the Principal Public Prosecutor also submitted that the Division should quash the judgment of the İzmir State Security Court on account of the legislative amendments to Law no. 3713. 26.  On 25 December 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 16 March 2006 stating that the lawyers’ objections in respect of the applicant and two other co-defendants were irrelevant and unsubstantiated. The applicant maintains that he only became aware of the judgment in April 2007. There is nothing in the case file to indicate that the applicant became aware of the judgment on the date of delivery.