The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 December 2008 as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Vladimiro Zagrebelsky, Danutė Jočienė, Dragoljub Popović, Nona Tsotsoria, Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar. Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 April 2001, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mr Lokman Laçin and Mr İskender Elter, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1971 and 1966 respectively and live in Diyarbakır. They were represented before the Court by Mr M. Vefa, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 25...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 25666/02 by Lokman LAÇİN and İskender ELTER against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 December 2008 as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Vladimiro Zagrebelsky, Danutė Jočienė, Dragoljub Popović, Nona Tsotsoria, Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar. Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 April 2001, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mr Lokman Laçin and Mr İskender Elter, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1971 and 1966 respectively and live in Diyarbakır. They were represented before the Court by Mr M. Vefa, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 25 September 1993 and 15 September 1993 respectively the first and second applicants were arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of their
2 LAÇİN AND ELTER v. TURKEY DECISION affiliation to an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party). On 3 October 1993 the Van Magistrates' Court remanded them in custody. On 10 November 1993 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicants, accusing the first applicant of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory (Article 125 of the now defunct Criminal Code) and the second applicant of membership of the PKK (Article 168 § 2 of the aforementioned Criminal Code and section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, Law no. 3713). On 3 November 1997 the Diyarbakır State Security Court found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced the first applicant to death and the second applicant to twelve years and six months' imprisonment. The death sentence of the first applicant was immediately commuted to life imprisonment. On 3 November 1997 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the State Security Court for procedural errors. On 1 February 2001 the Diyarbakır State Security Court delivered a new judgment in which it maintained the applicants' previous convictions and sentences. On 8 October 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Diyarbakır State Security Court. On 7 December 2001 the decision of the Court of Cassation was returned to the registry of the Diyarbakır State Security Court. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal within a reasonable time. They also invoked Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention. THE LAW The Court rec...