Source: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/Inf/DH(2009)5&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=rev13&Site=COE&BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864
Timestamp: 2015-10-13 16:47:15
Document Index: 748022627

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1', '§1', '§1', '§3', '§4', '§41']

Committee of Ministers - Cases of unfair proceedings requiring reopening of domestic proceedings: 28490/95 Hulki Güneş, judgment of 19/06/03, final on 19/09/03 - 72000/01 Göçmen, judgment of 17/10/2006, final on 17/01/2007 - 46661/99 Söylemez, judgment of 21/09/2006, final on 21/12/2006 - 25060/02+ Erdal Aslan, judgment of 02/12/2008, final on 02/03/2009
CM/Inf/DH(2009)5rev14E / 28 September 2009 Ministers’ Deputies Information documents CM/Inf/DH(2009)5rev13 18 September 20091
46661/99 Söylemez, judgment of 21/09/2006, final on 21/12/2006 25060/02+ Erdal Aslan, judgment of 02/12/2008, final on 02/03/2009
Reference documents CM/Del/OT/DH(2009)1065 addendum 2 ——————————————— The purpose of this document is to set out the context and retrace the history of the examination of these cases by the Deputies at the Committee of Ministers’ meetings. Table of Contents A. Introduction B. Examination of the cases by the Ministers’ Deputies
C. Appendices Appendix 1: Letter of the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers dated 28 February 2005 Appendix 2: Response from the Deputy Prime Ministers and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey dated 1 June 2005 Appendix 3: Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)113 Appendix 4: Letter of the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers dated 12 April 2006 Appendix 5: Response from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey dated 8 May 2006 Appendix 6: Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)26 Appendix 7: Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)150 A. INTRODUCTION 1. The case of Hulki Güneş concerns the lack of independence and impartiality of the Diyarbakır State Security Court on account of the presence of a military judge (violation of Article 6§1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”), and the unfairness of the proceedings before that court. As a result of the unfair proceedings, the applicant was sentenced to death (subsequently commuted to life imprisonment), mainly on the basis of statements made by gendarmes who had never appeared before the court as well as on the applicant’s confessions obtained while he was questioned in the absence of a lawyer and under circumstances which led the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Court”) to find a violation of Article 3 (violation of Article 6§§1 and 3 (d)). The case also concerns the treatment inflicted on the applicant while in police custody in 1992 which the Court found to be inhuman and degrading (violation of Article 3). 2. The cases of Sabahattin Göçmen, Mehmet Faysal Söylemez and Erdal Aslan also concern the unfairness of the proceedings against the applicants. In the case of Göçmen, the applicant was sentenced in 1999 to 18 years and 9 months’ imprisonment on the basis of incriminating statements he made in the absence of a lawyer and under duress while in police custody. In the case of Söylemez the applicant was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment while the proceedings were pending against the police officers for having ill-treated the applicant while in custody. In the Erdal Aslan case, the applicant was convicted in November 1999 for armed action aimed at upsetting the constitutional order and sentenced to life imprisonment. The European Court, noting that the applicant had not benefited from the assistance of counsel whilst on remand, considered that his conviction was essentially based on statements he made under duress, described by the Court as torture (violations of Articles 3, 6§§1 and 3c)). The Erdal Aslan case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy whereby he might complain of the ill-treatment inflicted on him (violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3), the excessive length of his continued detention throughout his trial (violation of Article 5§3) and the absence of an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his detention (violation of Article 5§4). 3. In view of the seriousness of the violations of the applicants’ right to a fair trial, the serious doubts they cast on the outcome of the criminal proceedings at issue and the gravity of the sentences imposed on the applicants, specific individual measures - namely the reopening of the impugned proceedings - to erase them as well as their consequences for the applicants are urgent. 4. According to the Turkish authorities, restitutio in integrum, as far as possible, for the applicants can only be achieved by amending the Code of Criminal Proceedings. 5. However, more than five years after the Court’s judgment in the case of Hulki Güneş and despite repeated requests from the Committee of Ministers and its Chair (see, appendices 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7) and the commitments made to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers by the Turkish authorities (see, appendices 2 and 5), no tangible information has been provided by the Turkish authorities on the measures taken to remove promptly the legal lacuna preventing the reopening of the domestic proceedings in the applicants’ cases in order to comply with the Court’s judgments. B. EXAMINATION OF THE CASES BY THE MINISTERS’ DEPUTIES
36. The Representative of Switzerland supported the declaration made on behalf of the European Union. He stated that it was imperative to have fair proceedings in these cases. He welcomed the fact that the Turkish Parliament would deal with this issue forthwith, taking into account the judgments by the European Court, and hoped for positive results in the near future. 37. The Secretariat (Head of the Department for Execution of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights) took note with interest of the information provided by the Representative of Turkey concerning the fact that the Parliament was in session following the very recent local elections. The Secretariat hoped that this would constitute the first step of developments making it possible rapidly to achieve concrete results for the implementation of these three judgments, in particular through tabling the required amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure. 38. At the 1054th meeting (16 April 2009), the Representative of France recalling the encouraging intervention made by the Permanent Representative of Turkey during the previous meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies regarding the necessary amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, expressed his concern that there has been no concrete developments in this field. While indicating that he understood the sensitivity of the issues, the Representative stressed two fundamental principles at stake here, namely the right to a fair trial and the obligation to execute the judgments of the Court. He stated that five years after the Court’s judgment in the Hulki Güneş case, whatever the difficulties are, it is high time that Turkey set a precise timetable for the adoption of the necessary measures for the execution of the cases in question. It is an issue of the credibility of the mechanism of the Convention. 39. At the 1055th meeting (22-23 April 2009), The Secretariat (Director General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs) recalled that the Committee was still awaiting concrete information on the measures envisaged by the Turkish authorities, including the time-frame, for executing these three judgments. 40. The Representative of Turkey recalled that he had promised the Committee that he would inform it as soon as possible of any development. It could be deduced from his silence that as yet there was none, but he would inform the Committee when he had something to announce. 41. At the 1059th meeting (2-4 and 5 (morning) June 2009), the Secretariat (Director General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs) recalled that the Committee was still waiting for a clear position from the Turkish authorities regarding the way they intend to implement these judgments. In this respect, he recalled that information was awaited on the concrete measures envisaged as well as a time-table for their adoption. He deplored that so far no information has been provided on these issues. He stated that the objections from Turkey, although understandable from a political point of view, could not justify the failure to implement these judgments. 42. The Representative of the United Kingdom reiterated her position according to which cases concerning terrorism raise problems but in any event these judgments must be implemented. She recalled that the Turkish authorities had indicated that no measure could be adopted before the local elections and hoped that since then the Turkish authorities would be able to provide information on the measures expected. 43. The Representative of Germany regretted the absence of information and recalled the statement made on behalf of the European Union. 44. The Representatives of the Netherlands, Switzerland, France, Norway, Denmark, Belgium,
Sweden and Portugal supported the statements made by the previous speakers concerning in particular the need for information on the concrete measures envisaged and the time-table for their adoption. 45. The Chair underlined the importance for the Committee that these cases be implemented and urged the Turkish authorities to take concrete measures to this end. 46. At the 1060th meeting (10 June 2009), the Representative of the Czech Republic on behalf of the European Union made the following statement: “The European Union reiterates its deep concerns about the lack of progress in the implementation of the judgments in the Turkish cases of Hulki Güneş, Göçmen and Söylemez. Of particular concern is the fact that the non-execution of the judgments which were issued several - in the case of Hulki Güneş more than five - years ago, continues to result in deprivation of liberty without due process of law. By becoming party to the European Convention on Human Rights, Turkey undertook the obligation to abide by the Court’s final judgments in any case to which it is a party, and to take all appropriate measures in this regard. We regret that the Turkish authorities still have not provided the necessary information on the execution measures including the timetable requested at the Committee of Ministers to this end. The European Union reiterates its position that all efforts to prevent and reduce terrorism must be executed in full conformity with the rule of law, respect for human rights and international legally binding obligations. In March 2009, Turkey stated, that the necessary amendments to the laws, drafted by the Turkish Government and allowing the domestic proceedings in the applicants´ cases to be reopened, could not be presented to the Turkish Parliament, as it was in recess due to the upcoming local elections in Turkey. More than two months have passed since the local elections were held. The European Union therefore strongly calls on the Government of Turkey to advise when the amendments will be presented to the Turkish Parliament, and what measures the Government of Turkey will take to ensure the speedy passing of these amendments.” The candidate countries, Croatia and ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’, countries of the stabilisation and association process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro, along with the European Free Trade Association countries and members of the European Economic Area; Iceland and Norway, align themselves with this declaration.”
47. At the same meeting, the Representative of Switzerland took the floor in his capacity as Chair of the Deputies human rights meetings to report on the debate at the 1059th meeting (see above §§41-45). 48. The Representative of Turkey recalled that when the item had been placed on the agenda of the Deputies’ regular meetings, he had promised to inform them of any development in execution of these judgments. He had also explained that execution would require an amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was a matter for Parliament. He was fully mindful of the undertaking he had given but at present had no news to give. He had listened to the declaration by the European Union and to the report given by the Representative of Switzerland, and he took note. However, he recalled that when the European Union had delivered its first declaration on 1 April 2009, his authorities took exception to the reference to “deprivation of liberty without due process of law”. Their attitude had not changed: the formulation in question tended to presuppose the outcome of re-opening of the applicants’ cases, but he emphasised that such re-opening could not necessarily open the way to retrial and still less to the quashing of their convictions. He noted that in this respect the situation was no different from that in many other member states. He asked for his declaration to be reflected in the minutes. 49. The Representative of the Czech Republic considered that the words in question were an accurate reflection of the circumstances of the violations, recalling that the European Court had indicated that the unfairness of the proceedings at issue was such as to “cast serious doubt on the convictions” and that the applicants were now servicing life-sentences as a result of proceedings which had been declared unfair.
50. The Secretariat (Director General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs) stated that, as the very wording of the agenda item attested, the proceedings had been unfair. They had been unfair in particular because of military judges on trial benches and because some evidence had been obtained under duress. However, it was clear that the Representative of Turkey was right in saying that reconsideration of the cases could not automatically lead to findings of innocence: the only requirement was that the conclusion reached, whatever its nature, should result from a fair process. 51. The Representative of Turkey agreed to differ: he recalled that the applicants had been tried in the 1990s for violent terrorist offences before state security courts, the composition of which included military judges. Military judges had subsequently been found by the European Court not to satisfy the necessary criterion of independence because they were under the orders of the military command. As a consequence of this finding, state security courts had been banned, and terrorist suspects were now tried before ordinary courts. However, he wished to insist on the fact that the re-examination required by the judgments in these cases would involve a reconsideration of the merits of the files, not necessarily leading to reopening or retrial, and that this being the case, the expression “deprived of liberty without due process of law” tended to prejudge the outcome. 52. At the 1063rd meeting (8-9 July 2009), the Representative of Turkey made the following statement: “I had informed the Committee on earlier occasions that the execution of the judgments of the European Court requires amendment of Turkish Criminal Procedure Law by the Parliament. The Parliament has now gone to summer recess and will be back in session on 1 October. Therefore, any legislative action can only be initiated after that date. My authorities are presently considering to include this particular amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law in a legislative package of judicial reforms that is being elaborated. This course of action may increase the chances of the amendment being legislated into law by the Parliament.
- The persons involved in the three judgments are all the members of organised crime groups, sentenced for their criminal activities. Indeed, all persons tried in the State Security Courts, before they were disbanded, were members of organised crime organisations. Organised crime groups may be either terrorist organisations or mafia-type criminal groups. Hulki Güneş and Sabahattin Göçmen, for example, were convicted for their violent terrorist acts. At their trials they have not denied their crimes. Their defense was to justify and even glorify the violent acts they had perpetrated. As a result, the re-opening of legal proceedings, if made feasible by legislative amendment, would, in all likelihood, result in reaffirming their sentences. I make these points not to provide arguments in support of the delay in execution of the judgments. My purpose is to draw attention to the fact that the issue that may seem legal- technical to us in this Hall, has in fact political repercussions which need to be handled with care.” 53. The Secretariat (Director General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs) took note with interest of the declaration made by the Representative of Turkey and agreed that many measures had been taken to avoid future violations of the same kind, including the abolition of state security courts and the consequent abolition of the role of military judges on the bench of courts judging civilians. However, the point at issue here was the need to reopen proceedings, judged by the European Court to be unfair, in which these applicants had been convicted of crimes. He wished to underline most strongly that the aim of such reopening was not to secure the freedom of the applicants nor to find them not guilty – but merely to ensure that their guilt was established in proceedings satisfying the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention. He noted that due to the Summer recess of the Turkish Parliament, there would be nothing new to report at the Deputies’ next meeting on 9 September, but hoped that the legislative package mentioned by the Representative of Turkey and which would include the requisite amendments to the Code of Penal Procedure, would shortly be submitted and receive a favourable response from the Grand National Assembly. 54. At the 1064th meeting (9 September 2009), the Secretariat (Director General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs) took the floor to remind the Deputies of the information provided by the Turkish delegation at the preceding meeting and to express the hope that with the resumption of the work of the Grand National Assembly, the necessary measures would be swiftly adopted. 55. At the 1065th meeting (15-16 September 2009), the Representative of Turkey indicated, concerning the joining of the Erdal Aslan case with the Hulki Guneş group, that its delegation was looking forward to seeing the enactment of the necessary amendments by Parliament in its new legislative session which will resume in the beginning of October. As regards the Erdal Aslan judgment, he indicated, as recalled in the notes on the agenda, that the execution of this judgment was mainly linked to the Hulki Guneş group, that meant that when the necessary legislative amendments were enacted, the same procedure would apply to Erdal Aslan and he would benefit from the amendments as the other cases in the Hulki Guneş group. As regards the other violations in the Erdal Aslan judgment, the Representative of Turkey added that they may be grouped with other similar cases and examined altogether. He recalled that the payment of the just satisfaction in this case had been made and that the Secretariat had been informed by letter dated 23/06/2009. The judgment in Erdal Aslan has also been translated into Turkish and published on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice. 56. The Secretariat (Director General of Human rights and Legal Affairs) expressed satisfaction at the fact that the Turkish delegation had no objection to grouping the Erdal Aslan case with the Hulki Güneş group. He recalled that the Erdal Aslan case also fell within the “Öcalan gap” – i.e. a period of time provided in Turkish law during which it was impossible to reopen trials closed at national level having to do with terrorist offences. The Secretariat also recalled that these cases had been subject to specific treatment, the Deputies having decided to take them up at each of their regular meetings as a means of intensifying pressure on the government so that it would take the necessary measures to implement the judgments. He noted that at the last discussion of the matter before the summer break, the ambassador of Turkey had very clearly stated that no progress could be anticipated before the resumption of parliamentary activity. This information had now been confirmed by the delegation which had announced the reopening of Parliament on 1 October. The Secretariat expressed the hope that during its forthcoming Session the Parliament would take decisive steps towards executing these cases, presumably at the proposal of the Ministry of Justice. 57. The Representative of Norway asked the Turkish delegation whether the Turkish government had already submitted a Bill to the Parliament or intended to do so before the Parliament resumes it works 58. The Representative of Turkey indicated that he hoped to be able to give positive information beginning of October about the progress achieved but that at this stage he was not in a position to give more information than that. Appendix 1: Letter of the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers dated 28 February 2005 Appendix 2: Response from the Deputy Prime Ministers and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey dated 1 June 2005
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)262
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”); Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final; Recalling that, in that judgment, the Court found violations of the applicant’s right to a fair trial before the Diyarbakır State Security Court, on account of: - the lack of independence and impartiality of the tribunal due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Court (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1); - the impossibility for the applicant to examine or to have examined the witnesses who testified against him (violation of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3(d)); Noting that the Court found that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment while in police custody (violation of Article 3); Recalling that, as a result of the unfair proceedings the applicant was sentenced to death, a sentence which was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment; Reiterating that, since the first examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers dating back to November 2003, it considered that the Court’s judgment required the adoption of individual measures in view of the extent of the violations of the right to a fair trial casting serious doubts on the safety of the applicant’s conviction; Noting however that, despite the adoption of Article 90 of the Turkish Constitution, the Code of Criminal Procedure still excludes the reopening of the criminal proceedings in this case as in numerous other cases pending before the Committee for supervision of execution, as it only provides reopening of proceedings in respect of Court judgments which became final before 4 February 2003 or those rendered in applications lodged with the Court after 4 February 2003; Recalling that the request for the reopening of proceedings lodged by the applicant had been rejected by domestic courts solely on the ground of this temporal limitation and without any assessment of the need for a new trial to remedy the specific violations found by the Court in the particular circumstances of the case; Stressing that the Committee has adopted two interim resolutions so far (on 30 November 2005 Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)113 and on 4 April 2007 Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)26) calling upon the Turkish authorities to abide by their obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to redress the violations found in respect of the applicant and urging them to remove the legal lacuna preventing the reopening of domestic proceedings in the applicant’s case; Recalling further that the acting Chairmen of the Committee addressed two letters on 21 February 2005 and 12 April 2006 to their Turkish counterpart conveying the Committee’s concern at Turkey’s continuing failure to comply with the judgment and urging for appropriate measures in respect of the applicant; Deeply deploring that, notwithstanding the Committee’s two Interim Resolutions and the two letters from the Chair, no measures have yet been taken by the Turkish authorities, beyond the payment of just satisfaction, to grant the applicant, who is still serving his life sentence, adequate redress for the violations found; Noting with grave concern that two similar cases, namely the cases of Göçmen and Söylemez, pending before the Committee also call for reopening of domestic proceedings because the applicants were deprived of their right to a fair trial and are still serving their prison sentences; Stressing that failure to adopt the necessary measures in the present case prevents the possibility of reopening of proceedings in those cases; Reiterating that a continuation of the present situation would amount to a manifest breach of Turkey’s obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention; FIRMLY RECALLS the obligation of the Turkish authorities under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to redress the violations found in respect of the applicant; STRONGLY URGES the Turkish authorities to remove promptly the legal lacuna preventing the reopening of domestic proceedings in the applicant’s case; DECIDES to examine the implementation of the present judgment at each human rights meeting until the necessary urgent measures are adopted. 1
This document has been classified restricted at the date of issue; it will be declassified in accordance with Resolution Res(2001)6 on access to Council of Europe documents. 2
Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 April 2007 at the 992nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
CM/Inf/DH(2009)5rev14E / 28 September 2009 CM/Inf/DH(2009)5rev12E / 19 August 2009 CM/Inf/DH(2009)5rev11E / 12 June 2009 CM/Inf/DH(2009)5rev10E / 04 June 2009 CM/Inf/DH(2009)5rev9E / 28 April 2009 CM/Inf/DH(2009)5rev8E / 20 April 2009 CM/Inf/DH(2009)5rev7E / 07 April 2009 CM/Inf/DH(2009)5rev6E / 30 March 2009 CM/Inf/DH(2009)5rev5E / 19 March 2009 CM/Inf/DH(2009)5rev4E / 13 March 2009 CM/Inf/DH(2009)5rev3E / 20 February 2009 CM/Inf/DH(2009)5rev2E / 16 February 2009 CM/Inf/DH(2009)5E / 02 February 2009 CM/Del/Dec(2009)1066/H46-1E / 25 September 2009 CM/Notes/1066/H46-1E / 18 September 2009 CM/Del/Dec(2009)1049/H46-1E / 20 February 2009 CM/Notes/1049/H46-1E / 16 February 2009 CM/Del/Dec(2009)1047/H46-1E / 06 February 2009 CM/Notes/1048/H46-1E / 06 February 2009 CM/Notes/1047/H46-1E / 26 January 2009 Activities