The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 2 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Vladimiro Zagrebelsky, Danutė Jočienė, András Sajó, Nona Tsotsoria, Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 June 2002, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together. Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant. Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case. Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr İsmet Aslan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Diyarbakır. He was represented before the Court by Mr...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 32661/02 by İsmet ASLAN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 2 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Vladimiro Zagrebelsky, Danutė Jočienė, András Sajó, Nona Tsotsoria, Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 June 2002, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together. Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant. Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case. Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr İsmet Aslan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Diyarbakır. He was represented before the Court by Mr Hüseyin Tayfun, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
2 ASLAN v. TURKEY DECISION The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 7 May 1995 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation and of having carried out activities on its behalf. He was placed in custody at the police headquarters in Diyarbakır where he was questioned by police officers. In the statement the applicant was reported as having stated that he had participated in a failed bomb attack organised by the PKK1. At the end of his police custody on 2 June 1995 the applicant was brought before the duty judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court. He told the duty judge that the contents of the statements he had made while in police custody were not true; he had had no involvement in the offence. The duty judge ordered the applicant’s detention in prison pending the introduction of criminal proceedings. On 8 June 1995 the prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment with that court and accused the applicant and four other persons of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory, an offence defined in Article 125 of the Criminal Code in force at the time of the events. On 22 October 1998 the Diyarbakır State Security Court (hereinafter “the trial court”) considered that the activities carried out by the applicant were insufficient to find him guilty of the offence defined in Article 125 of the Criminal Code, but sufficient to establish that he had been a member of the illegal organisation, an offence under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code then in force. It sentenced the applicant to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. One of the three jud...