Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 31881/96

by Fikri TAMKOÇ

against Turkey

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 2 July 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President

MM. J.-C. GEUS

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

A. ARABADJIEV

Ms. M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 21 May 1996 by

Fikri Tamkoç against Turkey and registered on 13 June 1996 under file

No. 31881/96;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, a Turkish citizen born in 1952, resides in Ankara.

He is represented before the Commission by Oya Ataman, a lawyer

practising in Ankara.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be

summarised as follows.

The applicant, accused of being a member of the organisation Dev-

Yol (Revolutionary Way), was taken into police custody in Ankara on

2 March 1981 and was subsequently detained on remand following a

decision of the Ankara Court-Martial on 21 April 1981. He was released

on 24 March 1986 pending trial.

On 26 February 1982 the military prosecutor filed a bill of

indictment in the Court-Martial against altogether 723 defendants

including the present applicant.

It was alleged that the applicant was a member of an illegal

organisation whose aim was to undermine the constitutional order and

replace it with a Marxist-Leninist regime. It was also alleged that the

applicant had instigated a number of violent acts such as killing of

G.S. and hiding the body of the murdered people, wounding of I.A.,

opening fire on a house and a shop. In addition it was alleged that

following his confessions, the police found a huge amount of explosives

and many weapons which were used during many violent acts and used for

making hand bombs. The prosecution called for the applicant to be

sentenced pursuant to Article 146 of the Turkish Criminal Code.

On 29 May 1981 the applicant was questioned by the Public

Prosecutor at the Ankara Court-Martial. In his questioning he denied

his statement made to the police and alleged that it had been made

under duress.

After martial law was lifted, the Ankara Court-Martial took the

name of Court-Martial attached to the 4th army corps. It continued to

deal with this case even after lifting of martial law, until

27 December 1993, pursuant to a provision in Article 23 of the Martial

Law Act (no. 1402) of May 1971, amended on 19 September 1982.

In a judgment of 19 July 1989, the Court-Martial found the

applicant guilty of the offences as charged. The court rejected the

applicant's objection that his statement made to the police was made

under duress. It concluded that the applicant's and his co-activists'

statements were corroborated by the evidence collected according to the

statements in question. The court sentenced him to nine years and four

months' imprisonment, debarred him from employment in the civil service

and also placed him under judicial guardianship during his detention.

Following the applicant's appeal, the case was referred to the

Military Court of Casstion.

Pursuant to a law promulgated on 27 December 1993, the case-file

was transferred to the non-military criminal court, Court of Cassation,

by act No.3953. On 27 December 1995 the Court of Cassation concerning

the applicant's crime, quashed the first instance court's decision on

the ground that the court had failed to apply all the relevant

provisions. The Court of Cassation ruled that there was no need for

retrial of the case. Accordingly, it revised the judgment and finally

sentenced the applicant to seven years' imprisonment.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention

that his detention on remand was prolonged beyond a reasonable time.

2. The applicant complains that the criminal proceedings brought

against him were not concluded within a "reasonable time" as required

by Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

3. The applicant also complains that he did not have a fair trial

as the courts based their reasoning on statements which he had made to

the police under duress, which is contrary to Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention.

4. The applicant also complains that his case was not heard by an

independent and impartial tribunal, as required by Article 6 para. 1

of the Convention. He explains that the Court-Martial was composed of

five members: two military judges, two civil judges and one army

officer with no legal training and fully accountable to the military

commander of the state of martial law.

5. He further complains that his case was not heard by a tribunal

established by law within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention. Although martial law was lifted in Ankara on 19 July 1985,

Courts-Martial continued to deal with cases pending before them.

6. He complains under Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention that owing

to its excessive length his detention on remand could no longer be

considered as a provisional measure, but constituted an anticipatory

sentence.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that his detention on remand exceeded a

reasonable time within the meaning of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of

the Convention. He also complains that because of its excessive length

it could not be considered as a provisional measure, but constituted

an anticipatory sentence, infringing the presumption of innocence under

Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention.

The Commission recalls that the declaration made by Turkey on

28 January 1987, pursuant to Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention,

by which Turkey recognised the Commission's competence to examine

individual petitions, extends only to facts and judgments based on

events occurring after that date. The Commission notes that the above

complaints concern a period which is prior to 28 January 1987.

It follows that the applicant's complaints in this respect must

be rejected as falling outside the competence ratione temporis of the

Commission and therefore as being incompatible with the provisions of

the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).

Consequently, this part of the application must be dismissed as

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2. The applicant further complains that his case was not heard by

a tribunal established by law within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention. In this context he explains that although

martial law was lifted in Ankara on 19 July 1985, Courts-Martial

continued to deal with cases pending before them.

The Commission observes that the Court-Martial remained competent

to deal with this case even after the lifting of martial law, until

27 December 1993, pursuant to a provision in Article 23 of the Martial

Law Act (no. 1402) of 13 May 1971, amended on 19 September 1982. This

provision was repealed by Act No. 3953 of 27 December 1993, amending

Act No. 1402, and the case-file was transferred to the non-military

criminal courts.

The Commission futher considers that in this case, the applicant

was prosecuted and convicted on the basis of legal provisions

empowering a Court-Martial to decide, even in peacetime, cases against

civilians suspected of having committed offences designed to undermine

the constitutional system.

It follows that the Court-Martial, which tried and convicted the

applicant, may be considered to be a tribunal "established by law"

within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention

(Mitap and Müftüoglu v. Turkey, Comm. Report 8 December 1994, para. 86,

to be published in Reports of Judgments and Decisions, 1996).

3. The applicant complains that the criminal proceedings brought

against him were not concluded within a "reasonable time" as required

by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

The applicant further complains that he did not have a fair trial

as the courts based their reasoning on statements which he had made to

the police under duress, which is contrary to Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

The applicant also complains that his case was not heard by an

independent and impartial tribunal, as required by Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention. He explains that the Court-Martial was

composed of five members: two military judges, two civil judges and one

army officer with no legal training and fully accountable to the

military commander of the state of martial law.

The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the

file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is

therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the

Rules of Procedure, to give notice of these complaints to the

respondent Government.

For these reasons, the Commission,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant's

complaints concerning the length and fairness of the criminal

proceedings instituted against him and his complaint concerning

the independence and impartiality of the court,

unanimously,

DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE

Secretary President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

Menu

TAMKOÇ v. TURKEY

TAMKOÇ v. TURKEY

LEXI