Search
document

Document text Analytics

SÜNNETÇi v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 28632/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3462

Document date: January 13, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

SÜNNETÇi v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 28632/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3462

Document date: January 13, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 28632/95

by Mahmut SÜNNETÇi

against Turkey

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

13 January 1997, the following members being present:

Mr. S. TRECHSEL, President

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

P. LORENZEN

K. HERNDL

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs. M. HION

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 18 July 1995 by

Mahmut Sünnetçi against Turkey and registered on 21 September 1995

under file No. 28632/95;

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, was born in 1967 and resides

in Diyarbakir. He is represented before the Commission by Mustafa

Sezgin Tanrikulu, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakir.

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

be summarised as follows.

On 22 August 1994 the applicant was taken into police custody in

Diyarbakir on suspicion of being a member of an armed organisation, the

PKK. During his interrogation the applicant signed a statement which

referred to his activities within the PKK.

On 30 August 1994 he was suddenly taken ill while in custody and

was taken to the Diyarbakir State Hospital. His illness was diagnosed

as chronic kidney disease and he was kept in hospital for treatment.

On 2 September 1994 he was questioned by the Public Prosecutor at the

Diyarbakir State Security Court. In his questioning he denied the

statement he had made to the police. He alleged that he had been ill-

treated in police custody. On the same day the State Security Court

decided that the applicant should be placed in detention on remand.

On 13 September 1994 the Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakir

State Security Court charged the applicant with carrying out acts

aiming at the separation of part of the State Territories, undertaking

special missions in a separatist terrorist organisation, being a member

of the PKK and assisting and acting as a PKK accomplice. Criminal

proceedings were brought against the applicant in the Diyarbakir State

Security Court. At a hearing on 6 July 1995 the applicant invited the

Court to examine his complaint concerning the ill-treatment. The Court

refused to institute a separate proceedings and did not inform the

Public Prosecutor of this issue at this stage of the proceedings. The

Court held that it would examine this issue at the same time as the

merits.

The criminal proceedings against the applicant in the Diyarbakir

State Security Court are still pending.

COMPLAINTS

As regards Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant alleges

that during his interrogation by the police he was subjected to various

forms of ill-treatment.

As regards Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention, he complains that

his detention was unlawful.

As regards Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention, he alleges that

he was not brought before a judicial authority within a reasonable

time.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 5 paras. 1 and 3

(Art. 5-1, 5-3) of the Convention that his detention was unlawful and

that he was not brought promptly before a judge.

The Commission recalls that according to Article 26 (Art. 26) of

the Convention, it may deal only with applications introduced within

a period of six months after the final domestic decision.

When an act of a public authority is not open to any effective

remedy, the six-month period runs from the date on which the act took

place (No. 8007/77, Dec. 10.7.78, D.R. 13 p. 85, at p. 153).

In the present case the Commission observes that the applicant

was arrested pursuant to the Law on the Procedures of State Security

Courts and that no domestic remedy was available in order to challenge

the lawfulness and the length of his police custody. The situation

complained of ended on 2 September 1994, whereas the application was

submitted to the Commission on 18 July 1995, that is more than six

months after the date of the incident.

It follows that this part of the application has been introduced

out of time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3

(Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

2. The applicant also complains under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the

Convention that during his interrogation by the police he was subjected

to various forms of ill-treatment.

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

file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is

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

Rules of Procedure, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent

Government.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant's complaint

under Article 3 (Art. 3);

DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

H.C. KRÜGER S. TRECHSEL

Secretary President

to the Commission of the Commission

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant