SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 14129/11 Haci Ä°NAN against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 December 2012 as a Chamber composed of:

Guido Raimondi , President, Danutė Jočienė , Peer Lorenzen , András Sajó , Işıl Karakaş , Nebojša Vučinić , Helen Keller , judges, and Stanley Naismith , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 December 2010,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Haci İnan , is a Turkish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Bolu . He is represented before the Court by Mr N. Özdemir , a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır .

The circumstances of the case

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

On 18 May 2000 the applicant was arrested at gunpoint by police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate. Contrary to the allegations of the applicant, the record of his capture and custody made by the police indicates that he was taken into custody on 21 May 2000.

Between 24 and 26 May 2000 the applicant gave statements to the police. He was questioned in particular about his alleged links to the illegal organisation Hizbullah , and complicity in a homicide.

On 27 May 2000, at the end of the applicant ’ s police custody, he was referred to a doctor. A medical report was drawn up in respect of him. According to the report, the applicant had sustained injuries to the right and left sides of his back and his left elbow, and these injuries would prevent him from working for three days.

On the same day the applicant was brought before a public prosecutor and then before the duty judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. He denied his statements taken under police custody alleging that he had been tortured. The judge ordered his detention on remand on suspicion of being a member of Hizbullah and committing offences on their behalf.

On 8 June 2000 the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, who was still in pre-trial detention, with the Istanbul State Security Court . The applicant was charged with attempting to undermine the constitutional order, an offence under Article 146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code.

During the trial, the applicant denied the statements he had given during his police custody, alleging that they had been taken under duress. He raised the same allegation again subsequently, the most recent time being nearly ten years later at the hearing of 27 October 2010 before the Istanbul Assize Court .

On 4 January 2011 the Assize Court ordered the applicant ’ s release pending trial. However, he was not released from prison on account of the other charges against him.

On 18 October 2011 the applicant was released pending trial.

On 16 February 2012 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. With the final decision the Assize Court issued an order for the applicant ’ s arrest.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody at the Istanbul Security Directorate and that no effective investigation had been instigated into his allegations of ill-treatment.

Without relying on any provision of the Convention, the applicant complained that his six days ’ detention in police custody had been unlawful.

The applicant further complained that his right to the presumption of innocence had been violated as his pre-trial detention, which had lasted ten years and eight months, had been excessive.

The applicant further maintained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive and that he had no effective domestic remedy for his complaint regarding the allegedly excessive length of the proceedings.

The applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had not been tried with dignity, that he had been convicted on the basis only of the statements of the law enforcement officers, and that the relevant Hizbullah records had not been secured by the court.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody and that no effective investigation had been initiated into his allegations. He also complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive. Finally, the applicant maintained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had not been concluded within a reasonable time and that there was no effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaint regarding the length of the proceedings.

The Court considers that it cannot determine the admissibility of these complaints on the basis of the case file, and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

2. The applicant contended that his detention in police custody had lasted six days and had therefore been unlawful.

The Court considers that this complaint should be examined under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. It further reiterates that, according to the established case ‑ law of the Court, where no domestic remedy is available the six-month period runs from the date of the act alleged to constitute a violation of the Convention (see Ege v. Turkey ( dec .), no. 47117/99, 10 February 2004, and DoÄŸan v. Turkey ( dec .), no. 67214/01, 7 June 2005).

The Court observes that the applicant ’ s detention in police custody ended on 27 May 2000, whereas the application was lodged on 27 December 2010, more than six months later.

It follows that this complaint has been lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

3. The applicant further alleged that a num ber of his rights under Article 6 of the Convention had been breached in the criminal proceedings against him.

The Court notes that criminal proceedings in question are still pending before the Court of Cassation. The applicant ’ s complaints under this provision are therefore premature. Consequently, this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see, for example, Koç v. Turkey ( dec .), no. 36686/07, 26 February 2008).

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant ’ s complaints concerning his alleged ill-treatment in police custody, the length of his detention pending trial, the length of the criminal proceedings and lack of an effective remedy;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Stanley Naismith Guido Raimondi Registrar President