PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 33363/96) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Fikret Doğan (“the applicant”), on 27 June 1996.

The applicant was represented by Mrs Canan Aydın, a lawyer practising in Ankara (Turkey). The Turkish Government did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court.

The applicant alleged, in particular, that the criminal proceedings brought against him had not been concluded within a “reasonable time” and that his right to a fair hearing had been breached on account of his conviction by the Ankara Martial Law Court which lacked independence and impartiality. He further submitted that he had been convicted on the basis of the statements he had made to the police under duress.

The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11).

The application was allocated to the First Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1 of the Rules of Court. Mr Rıza Türmen, the judge elected in respect of Turkey, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28). The Government accordingly appointed Mr Feyyaz Gölcüklü to sit as an ad hoc judge, in his place (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1).

By a decision of 11 January 2000, the Chamber retained the applicant’s complaints concerning his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal and declared the remainder of his complaints inadmissible.

The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

A. Arrest and detention of the applicant

On 28 November 1980 police officers from the Ankara Security Directorate arrested the applicant on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way).

On 9 January 1981 the Ankara Martial Law Court (sıkıyönetim mahkemesi) ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.

B. Trial in the Ankara Martial Law Court

On 26 February 1982 the Military Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Martial Law Court against the applicant and 722 other defendants. The public prosecutor accused the applicant of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the Dev-Yol, whose object was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a Marxist-Leninist regime. He further charged the applicant with having been involved in a number of crimes, such as bomb attacks on several premises, the killing of three persons and an attempt to kill another. The prosecution sought the death penalty under Article 146 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code.

On 28 November 1989 the applicant was conditionally released pending trial.

In a judgment of 19 July 1989 the Martial Law Court, composed of two civilian judges, two military judges and an army officer, convicted the applicant on account of membership of the Dev-Yol and his involvement in the killing of three persons, the attempt to kill another person, opening fire and organising bomb attacks on several premises. The court acquitted the applicant of other charges. It sentenced the applicant under Article 146 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code to life imprisonment, permanently debarred him from employment in public service and placed him under judicial guardianship.

C. Proceedings on appeal

As the applicant was sentenced to a death penalty, his case was automatically referred to the Military Court of Cassation (askeri yargıtay).

On 22 July 1991 the applicant was conditionally released pending trial.

Following promulgation of the Law of 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the martial law courts, the Court of Cassation (yargıtay) acquired jurisdiction over the case and the file was transmitted to it.

On 27 December 1995 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant’s conviction.