PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 33370/96) 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 three Turkish nationals, Mr Arap Yalgın, Mr Mehmet Murat Öner and Mr Muhtat Karakoca (“the applicants”), on 17 June 1996.

The applicants were represented by Mrs Oya Ersoy Ataman, a lawyer practising in Ankara (Turkey). The Turkish Government did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court.

The applicants alleged, in particular, that the criminal proceedings brought against them had not been concluded within a “reasonable time”. The applicants Arap Yalgın and Muhtat Karakoca further submitted that their right to a fair hearing had been breached on account of their conviction by the Ankara Martial Law Court which lacked independence and impartiality. The applicants also maintained that they had been convicted on the basis of the statements they 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 applicants’ complaints concerning their right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal and declared the remainder of their complaints inadmissible.

The applicants 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 applicants

The applicants Muhtat Karakoca, Mehmet Murat Öner and Arap Yalgın were arrested by police officers from the Ankara Security Directorate on 20 November and 12 December 1980 and 6 March 1981 respectively. They were suspected of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way).

The Ankara Martial Law Court (sıkıyönetim mahkemesi) ordered Mr Öner and Mr Karakoca’s detention on remand on 27 January and 19 October 1981 respectively. On 11 May 1981 the court ordered Mr Yalgın’s release pending trial.

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 applicants and 720 other defendants. The public prosecutor accused the applicants 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 applicants with having been involved in a number of crimes such as producing false identity cards, killings, bomb attacks and collecting money for the organisation. The prosecution called for the applicants to be sentenced pursuant to Article 146 of the Turkish Criminal Code.

On 1 February 1983 Mr Öner and on 16 June 1986 Mr Karakoca were 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 applicants of membership of the Dev-Yol. The court sentenced Mr Yalgın to six years and eight months’ imprisonment and Mr Karakoca to seven years’ imprisonment under Article 146 § 3 of the Criminal Code. Mr Öner was sentenced under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code to five years and six months’ imprisonment. The court held that the applicants should be permanently debarred from employment in public service and that they should be placed under judicial guardianship.

C. Proceedings on appeal

The applicants appealed to the Military Court of Cassation (askeri yargıtay).

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 cases and the files were transmitted to it.

On 27 December 1995 the Court of Cassation upheld Mr Karakoca’s and Mr Yalgın’s conviction. It reviewed Mr Yalgın’s case and held that he should be sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The court however quashed Mr Öner’s conviction and decided that the criminal proceedings against him should be discontinued since the prosecution was time-barred.