The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14 January 2014 as a Chamber composed of: Guido Raimondi, President, Işıl Karakaş, Dragoljub Popović, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, Helen Keller, Egidijus Kūris, judges and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 August 2008, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Mustafa Gür, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Silifke. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3. On 14 October 2004 the applicant, who was...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 39182/08 Mustafa GÜR against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14 January 2014 as a Chamber composed of: Guido Raimondi, President, Işıl Karakaş, Dragoljub Popović, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, Helen Keller, Egidijus Kūris, judges and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 August 2008, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Mustafa Gür, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Silifke. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3. On 14 October 2004 the applicant, who was being searched for on suspicion of murder, surrendered himself to the gendarmerie.
2 GÜR v. TURKEY DECISION 4. On 15 October 2004 he was taken to the Sütlüce Central Gendarmerie Station for questioning. According to a form explaining arrested persons’ rights and which the applicant signed in acknowledgement, he was advised of the charges against him, as well as of his right to remain silent and to have access to a lawyer, and was asked to make a statement regarding the murder of M.S., a shepherd, by poisoning on 13 October 2004. The applicant stated that he did not wish to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer and then proceeded to give a detailed account of how he had poisoned M.S. He alleged that he had been blackmailed by his creditors into killing M.S. in order to steal his sheep. 5. At 4.25 p.m. on 15 October 2004 the applicant was examined by a doctor, who stated that there were no traces of ill-treatment on his body. In addition, the medical report indicated that the applicant had not complained of any physical ailments or psychological conditions. 6. On the same date he was brought before the Gülnar Public Prosecutor, where he was again advised of his right to remain silent and to request a lawyer. The applicant refused the assistance of a lawyer and repeated the statement he had given at the gendarmerie station. He stated that he had surrendered to the gendarmerie and that he regretted what he had done. 7. Later on the same day the applicant was questioned at the Gülnar Magistrates’ Court. Having refused legal assistance, he confirmed his statements given before the gendarmerie and the public prosecutor. He stated that he was in debt and that to secure payment of his debt his creditors had coerced him into killing the shepherd in order to steal his sheep. Subsequently he had agreed to kill the shepherd, and had bought an agricultural poison. He had also rented a lorry with a driver to transport the sheep. They had gone to the village and he had asked t...