This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. HÜSEYİN HABİP TAŞKIN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Hüseyin Habip Taşkın v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Dragoljub Popović, Nona Tsotsoria, Işıl Karakaş, Kristina Pardalos, Guido Raimondi, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 11 January 2010, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 5289/06) 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 Hüseyin Habip Taşkın (“the applicant”), on...
SECOND SECTION CASE OF HÜSEYİN HABİP TAŞKIN v. TURKEY (Application no. 5289/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 February 2011 FINAL 01/05/2011 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
HÜSEYİN HABİP TAŞKIN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Hüseyin Habip Taşkın v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Dragoljub Popović, Nona Tsotsoria, Işıl Karakaş, Kristina Pardalos, Guido Raimondi, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 11 January 2010, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 5289/06) 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 Hüseyin Habip Taşkın (“the applicant”), on 27 January 2006. 2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms A. Kuru, a lawyer practising in İzmir. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3. On 6 October 2009 the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate to the Government the complaints raised under Article 5 § 2 and Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention. It also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1). THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Izmir. 5. On 9 July 2002 at 4 p.m., the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Izmir Security Directorate. Immediately, he was taken to the Atatürk Teaching and Research Hospital, where he was examined by a doctor. The medical report
2 HÜSEYİN HABİP TAŞKIN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT stated that there was no trace of ill-treatment on his body. The applicant was then taken to the Izmir Security Directorate Building for interrogation. 6. According to a form dated 9 July 2002 that explained arrested persons' rights, and which was signed by the applicant, he had been reminded of his right to remain silent. 7. On 10 July 2002 the applicant was interrogated at the Anti-Terrorist Branch in the absence of a lawyer. In his statement, the applicant gave a detailed description about his involvement in an illegal organisation, namely the Bolşevik Parti - Kuzey Kürdistan/Türkiye (Bolshevik Party – North Kurdistan/Turkey). The applicant further took part in an identification parade with other accused persons and identified certain persons as members of the said organisation. 8. On 12 July 2002 the applicant was visited by a lawyer, Mr M.R., for a short period of time. The applicant told the lawyer that he did not need anything and that during his trial he wished to be represented ...