PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 28226/04) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Adnan Levent Çamlar (“the applicant”), on 4 August 2004.

The applicant was represented by Mr A. Cangı, a lawyer practising in İzmir. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

On 24 June 2013 the complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d) of the Convention concerning the independence and impartiality of the İzmir State Security Court and the applicant’s inability to examine or have examined witnesses were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in London.

A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant in the United Kingdom

On 29 April 1997 the applicant was arrested in London on suspicion of trafficking of illegal drugs.

On the same day he was placed in police custody, where he was informed that he would be charged with importation of a controlled drug, namely diamorphine.

In his statements before the British police, the applicant maintained that he had been importing clothing goods from Turkey and had not been aware of the trafficking of drugs by his partners.

On 15 September 1998, after having heard witness statements and evaluated all relevant evidence, the Crown Court acquitted the applicant of all charges and ordered his release.

B. Criminal proceedings against the applicant in Turkey

On 16 June 1997 the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, accusing certain persons of trafficking of illegal drugs by establishing a criminal organisation pursuant to Article 403 of the former Criminal Code (Law no. 765). In that indictment, the public prosecutor indicated the involvement of the applicant in the alleged acts, without bringing any charges against him.

On 19 August 1997 the public prosecutor issued an indictment, accusing the applicant of the same offence as the others. The public prosecutor stated that the applicant had actively participated in the transfer of the illegal drugs from Turkey to the United Kingdom and noted that he was in detention on remand in the United Kingdom.

In a report dated 13 June 1997, the public prosecutor stated that the British authorities had provided him with the tapes of the applicant’s police statements as well as other evidence on the alleged offence.

On an unspecified date in 1997, the Magistrates’ Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand in absentia.

At a hearing on 24 February 1998 the İzmir State Security Court joined the proceedings against the applicant with the proceedings against the other persons involved in the same offence. At this hearing the domestic court also requested the case file of another set of related proceedings, which contained the statements of a certain F.A.

On 5 November 1998 one of the co-accused, B.Ӧ., gave his statements before the court, maintaining that he had been hired by the applicant for the receipt and storage of certain goods which he had not known to be drugs.

On 3 December 1998 the lawyer of one of the co-accused submitted to the national court the applicant’s certificate of acquittal issued by the Crown Court.

On 15 July 1999 the military judge sitting on the İzmir State Security Court hearing the applicant’s case was replaced by a civilian judge.

On 20 September 1999 the applicant went back to Turkey; he was placed in detention on remand the following day.

At the subsequent hearing on 30 September 1999, the applicant submitted his statements before the court and denied his involvement in the trafficking of illegal drugs. In particular, he contested the incriminating statements of B.Ӧ. and F.A. The applicant further requested to have certain witnesses, including his counsel in the United Kingdom, heard. The İzmir State Security Court rejected that request, finding that the statements of the witnesses called by the applicant would not contribute to the case in view of the information already available concerning the proceedings in the United Kingdom. The court went on to decide that the applicant should be released pending trial.

During the numerous hearings which followed, the court deferred the examination of the case to the subsequent hearings, awaiting information as regards certain accused in the United Kingdom.

At the hearing on 18 February 2003, the public prosecutor submitted his written opinion, requesting that the accused be found guilty as charged, mainly on the basis of the investigation conducted in the United Kingdom and the evidence obtained during another set of proceedings concerning the same offence.

On 21 March 2003 the applicant submitted his written defence to the court and requested his acquittal. He argued that he could not be found guilty on the basis of evidence which according to the British court was insufficient to prove his involvement in the alleged acts.

On 27 March 2003, on the basis of the investigation conducted by the British authorities, the statements of B.Ӧ. and those made by F.A., which had been taken in another set of proceedings, the İzmir State Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to twenty four years’ imprisonment and a fine.

On 31 March 2003 the applicant appealed against that judgment. During the appeal proceedings before the Court of Cassation the applicant submitted that the first instance court had based his conviction on evidence which he could not challenge, in particular the statements made in his absence by B.Ӧ. and F.A.

On 4 March 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the İzmir State Security Court. The higher court indicated that the offence at issue concerned the exportation of illegal drugs and accordingly the case differed from that concluded in the United Kingdom. The high court dismissed the applicant’s remaining grounds for appeal without further elaboration.

On an unspecified date the applicant went to the United Kingdom.

Following the entry into force of the new Criminal Code (Law no. 5237), in June 2005, the applicant requested the reassessment of his case and the application of the more favourable clauses in the new Code.

On 16 December 2005, after having examined the case file, the İzmir Assize Court reduced the applicant’s sentence to twenty years’ imprisonment and decreased the amount of the fine.

On 28 June 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment, stating that the first-instance court was to hold a hearing.

Following several hearings, which the applicant had not attended as he had not returned to Turkey, on 3 July 2008 the İzmir Assize Court sentenced the applicant to twenty years and ten months of imprisonment and a fine pursuant to Article 188 of the Criminal Code (Law no. 5237).

Following the applicant’s appeal, on 9 April 2009 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and heard the submissions of the applicant’s lawyer. Finally, the higher court upheld the judgment of the İzmir Assize Court with a minor procedural correction.