SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 49892/99 by Hüseyin BULUT against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27 January 2004 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr J.-P. Costa , President , Mr L. Loucaides , Mr R. Türmen , Mr C. Bîrsan , Mr K. Jungwiert , Mr V. Butkevych , Mrs W. Thomassen , judges , and Mr T. L. E arly , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 March 1999,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Hüseyin Bulut , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1952 and is currently in prison in Burdur . He is represented before the Court by Yıldız Imrek Koluaçık , a lawyer practising in Malatya .

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

On 14 April 1994 the public prosecutor at the Malatya State Security Court filed an indictment with the latter, accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party. The public prosecutor requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and section 5 of Law no. 3713.

On 30 August 1996 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody by the police.

On 10 September 1996 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and the State Security Court. He denied his statements made in police custody.

In the course of the trial before the State Security Court the applicant requested that the statements of witnesses should not be taken into consideration as he had not been confronted with them.

On 20 January 1998 the Malatya State Security Court, composed of two civilian judges and a military judge, convicted the applicant and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. In its judgment the court relied on the materials found in the applicant’s possession during a search, his statements in police custody and the statements of witnesses. The court decided that the applicant’s request to conduct a forensic examination in respect of the signature appearing on the deposition should be rejected. The court reasoned that it did not rely on the impugned deposition and that there was other evidence sufficient to establish his guilt.

On 2 March 1998 the applicant appealed against the judgment of the Malatya State Security Court.

On 7 December 1998 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and on the same day upheld the above judgment.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant, without giving any details, complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment in police custody.

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he was denied a fair hearing on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Malatya State Security Court. He submits that in refusing his request for the examination of the signature on the deposition and in relying on the statements of witnesses whom he was unable to confront, the court violated his right to a fair hearing.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he was denied a fair hearing on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Malatya State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He submits that in refusing his request for the examination of the signature on the deposition and in relying on the statements of witnesses whom he did not confront, the court violated his right to a fair hearing.

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints under Article 6 and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

2. The applicant alleges that he was subjected to ill-treatment during his detention in police custody, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.

The Court notes that the applicant did not give any details as to the kind of ill-treatment which was allegedly inflicted on him. It further notes that, by letters dated 30 March 1999 and 8 June 1999, the Registry requested the applicant to provide details of the alleged ill-treatment and to furnish medical evidence in support of his allegation. On 5 July 1999 the applicant informed the Registry that he was unable to provide any documents relating to his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention and that he was ready to withdraw this particular complaint.

The Court observes that the applicant’s complaint has not been substantiated and must be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning [Note1] his right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

T. L. Early J.-P. Costa              Deputy Registrar President

[Note1] Summarise the complaints without necessarily citing the invoked Convention Articles.