PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 31535/04) 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 Bayram Güçlü (“the applicant”), on 23 June 2004.

The applicant was represented by Mr H. Dilek and Mr A. Sungurtekin, lawyers practising in Samsun. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

On 10 October 2011 the application was communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1966 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Samsun.

On 14 July 1999 the Istanbul State Security Court issued an order in respect of the applicant, in absentia, for him to be arrested on suspicion of trafficking illegal drugs. He was living in the Netherlands at the time. A few days later, an Amsterdam public prosecutor filed an indictment, accusing him of importing and trafficking illegal drugs.

On 21 July 1999 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court requested that the applicant be extradited from the Netherlands in order for criminal proceedings to be instigated against him for trafficking illegal drugs as part of a criminal organisation.

On 23 July 1999 the prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court, accusing the applicant of trafficking cocaine, pursuant to Article 403 of the former Criminal Code (Law no. 765). Meanwhile, criminal proceedings were brought against other members of the criminal organisation, of which the applicant was also accused of being a member.

On an unspecified date in 2000 the Amsterdam Criminal Court found the applicant guilty as charged, and sentenced him to a fixed term of imprisonment.

After serving thirty-three months of his sentence in the Netherlands, on 19 January 2002 the applicant was released and deported to Turkey by the Dutch authorities. He was arrested and remanded in police custody upon arrival.

On 21 January 2002 the applicant was interrogated by the police at the Narcotics Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate, in the absence of a lawyer. According to a form explaining arrested persons’ rights, which the applicant signed, he was informed of the charges against him and of his right to remain silent. It was also noted on the form that the applicant had waived his right to legal assistance.

On the same day the applicant was again questioned by the police, without being asked whether he wanted legal assistance. In the absence of a lawyer, he admitted some of the allegations made against him.

Later the same day the applicant was heard by the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court, still in the absence of a lawyer.

On 22 January 2002 the applicant was taken before the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, who remanded him in custody. Again in the absence of a lawyer, the applicant denied the statements he had given to the police and maintained that he had been compelled to sign them without having read them.

On 23 January 2002 the public prosecutor filed another indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court, accusing the applicant of trafficking heroin as part of a criminal organisation, pursuant to Article 403 of the former Criminal Code (Law no. 765).

In the meantime, the proceedings against the other members of the criminal organisation were concluded.

On 26 February 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court found the applicant guilty of trafficking cocaine and sentenced him to thirty-six years’ imprisonment. The court held that there was no need to consider the heroin charge. In convicting the applicant, it relied on his statements, the statements made by the other members of the criminal organisation, which had been taken during the proceedings against them, and forensics reports on the drugs that had been seized. The court deducted the thirty-three months the applicant had already served in the Netherlands from his total sentence.

On 6 November 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. That decision was deposited with the latter’s registry on 9 January 2004.