FIRST SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 44093/98 by Abdurrahman ÇELİK and Kasım İMRET against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section) , sitting on 26 September 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mrs E. Palm, President , Mr L. Ferrari Bravo, Mr Gaukur Jörundsson, Mr R. Türmen, Mr B. Zupančič, Mr T. Panţîru, Mr R. Maruste, judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 7 September 1998 and registered on 27 October 1998,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Abdurrahman Çelik (A.Ç.), born in 1958 in Sason , and Kasım İmret (K.İ.), born in 1947 in Dudiran , are Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin. They are resident in Batman and are active members of HADEP, a legally established political party with a special interest in Kurdish issues.

The applicants are represented before the Court by Mr Tahir Elçi , a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicants

Around 2.00 a.m. on 17 May 1998, members of the Anti-Terror Team of the Batman Security Directorate surrounded the applicants’ houses in Batman. The applicants were asleep when the police knocked on their doors. K.İ., who was staying with his wife and children, opened his door. The police had to break open the door of A.Ç.’s home as A.Ç. refused to open it unless a written order from the public prosecutor could be produced. A.Ç. was hit in the face causing his mouth to bleed. The police searched the applicants’ houses. Subsequently the applicants were blindfolded and taken into police custody. A.Ç. was briefly taken to the State Hospital for a medical examination. He does not know if the doctor who examined him made a note of his injury.

Upon their arrival at the Batman Security Directorate, the police drafted handwritten arrest protocols ( yakalama tutanağı ) which were signed by three officers and the applicants. The arrest protocols with regard to A.Ç. and K.İ. are dated 17 May 1998, 4.55 a.m. and 2.30 a.m. respectively. The protocols stated inter alia that the applicants had opened their doors when requested and that their arrests were effected in accordance with the law. No reference was made to the searches conducted in the houses or to A.Ç.’s medical examination on the same day.

Neither at the time of their arrest nor during their subsequent detention were the applicants reminded of their rights to contact their families and to consult a lawyer.

The applicants were detained and questioned at the Batman Security Directorate. On 18 May 1998 the public prosecutor authorised the applicants’ continued detention until 20 May 1998.

The applicants were accused of acting as couriers for the PKK. The applicants denied the charges and were subjected to various types of torture and inhuman treatment. They claim they were blindfolded and had to stand naked while being sprayed with high pressure cold water. Electric shocks were administered to various parts of their bodies including their sexual organs. They state that their testicles were squeezed and that their hands and legs were tied. They were severely beaten and deprived of food and water and prevented from using toilet facilities. They were also kept in isolation, subjected to unbearable noises, insulted and threatened with death. From time to time, police officers applied medication to their injuries.

The applicants, fearful that they would continue to be tortured, signed statements ( sanık ifade tutanağı ) which were drafted by the police. According to the statements, the applicants admitted to being active members of the PKK and aiding the organisation as couriers. The text of the statements indicated inter alia that they had been given voluntarily. A.Ç.’s and K.İ.’s statements were dated 19 May 1998 and 18 May 1998 respectively.

On 20 May 1998 a doctor was called to the Batman Security Directorate to examine the applicants. A.Ç. opened his blindfold to show the doctor his injuries and requested that all of his wounds be noted in the medical report. K.İ. maintains that because he was blindfolded he was unaware that there was a doctor present and no one informed him of this. On the same day, the doctor drafted a medical report on each applicant. These reports did not refer to any finding of torture.

On the same day, the applicants were brought before the Office of the Batman Public Prosecutor. They complained that they had been tortured and ill-treated by the police and stated that they did not know of the contents of the statements which had been taken by the police. After the statements were read out to them, they denied their accuracy. The public prosecutor, without any reference to the applicants’ statements with regard to torture and ill-treatment, noted that they denied the accuracy of the statements put to them. The public prosecutor then sent the applicants to the Batman Magistrates’ Court for Criminal Affairs ( Sulh Ceza Mahkemesi ).

Also on the same day the applicants pleaded not guilty before the judge at the Batman Magistrates’ Court for Criminal Affairs to all the charges against them and denied the accuracy of the statements taken by the police. They repeated their complaints that they had been tortured and ill-treated. The judge noted that she had observed that A.Ç.’s left eye was purple. She also noted the applicants’ allegation that their statements were incorrect and had been obtained under duress (“ baskı altında ”). The applicants contend that the judge telephoned the Anti-Terror Office to report their beating. On the same day, the judge ordered the applicants’ formal arrest at the request of the Office of the Public Prosecutor.

On the night of 20 May 1998 the applicants were placed in Batman Prison. On the morning of 21 May 1998 the prison doctor examined the applicants. The applicants showed the doctor their injuries. The doctor told them that he could only note those injuries to their faces. The medical reports only described the wounds on their faces and mentioned that no other physical injuries had been observed.

On 21 May 1998 both applicants wrote to the Batman Magistrates’ Court for Criminal Affairs. They emphasised inter alia that the statements taken by the police were false as they had been signed under extreme duress and torture. They requested the court to reconsider its arrest order of 20 May 1998 or to have the file transferred to the local Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction. The applicants have not supplied any information on the outcome of these petitions.

On 12 June 1998 the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Diyarbakır State Security Court submitted an indictment to the Diyarbakır State Security Court No. 4. The applicants and nine other arrested persons were charged with membership of the PKK and aiding the organisation’s members.

In his petition of 27 July 1998 to the Diyarbakır State Security Court, the applicants’ lawyer wrote that the applicants had been tortured while in detention at the Batman Security Department and requested the court to order the Batman Prison Administration to send the prison doctor’s medical reports of 21 May 1998. On 29 July 1998 the Batman Prison Administration submitted copies of the medical reports to the Office of the Batman Public Prosecutor who passed them to the Diyarbakır State Security Court No. 4.

The first hearing before the Diyarbakır State Security Court was held on 13 August 1998. Both applicants and their lawyer were present.

In his defence, as noted in the minutes, A.Ç. denied the charges and told the court inter alia that he was forced to sign a statement while blindfolded at the Batman Security Department. He added that he would not acknowledge the contents of the statement. He also declared that he could not read or write. He did not challenge the contents of the arrest protocol report of 17 May 1998.

In his defence, as noted in the minutes, K.Ä°. denied the charges and told the court inter alia that he had been tortured at the Batman Security Department. He added that he was forced to sign documents while blindfolded. He stated that he did not know what he signed and would not acknowledge the contents of the statement. He did not challenge the contents of the arrest protocol of 17 May 1998.

The court read the medical reports of 21 May 1998 drafted by the doctor of the Batman Prison and asked the applicants’ lawyer to make comments if he wished. The lawyer told the court that he had no objections to their contents. He subsequently added that there was no evidence against the applicants other than the statements taken by the police at the Batman Security Department and that these statements were inadmissible as evidence against the applicants given that they had been obtained through torture. With reference to the medical report of 21 May 1998, the lawyer formally requested the court to initiate a criminal investigation ( suç duyurusu ) against the police officers responsible for torturing the applicants at the Batman Security Department and against the doctor who examined them at the same place for failing to note their injuries in his medical report of 20 May 1998.

All nine of the applicants’ co-accused denied the contents of the statements taken by the police. Eight of them also alleged that their statements had been signed under torture or when blindfolded.

At the end of the first hearing on 13 August 1998 the public prosecutor attached the Diyarbakır State Security Court No. 4 expressed his opinion inter alia that there were no grounds for keeping the applicants under arrest and requested the court to order their release. He did not comment on their torture complaints.

The court decided inter alia that there were no grounds for the continuation of the applicants’ arrest and ordered their immediate release. The court also rejected the applicants’ request for the initiation of a criminal investigation against the police officers and the doctor. The court decided that the applicants had to make these complaints “themselves” ( kendileri tarafından yapılmasına ) to the local Office of the Public Prosecutor.

The applicants were released from prison at once. They did not lodge a complaint with the Office of the local public prosecutor.

On 4 February 1999 the Diyarbakır State Security Court No.4 acquitted both applicants. In the judgment, the court stated that there was no evidence against the applicants other that the statements taken at the Batman Security Directorate which in its discretion was insufficient to sustain a conviction.

The Government

The Government maintain that the applicants were taken into custody in the early hours of 17 May 1998. On the same day as well as on the following day they were medically examined. The doctors who conducted the examinations found that there was no evidence that the applicants had been ill-treated. Also on 18 May 1998 the public prosecutor authorised the applicants’ detention until 20 May 1998.

On 20 May 1998 the applicants along with other persons who had been arrested were sent to a doctor for a further medical examination. On the same day they appeared before the Batman public prosecutor who took their statements and ordered them to be sent to the Batman Magistrates’ Court for Criminal Affairs. There the judge took their statements and ordered their detention pending trial.

The applicants’ trial before the Diyarbakır State Security Court opened on 18 June 1998. On 4 February 1999 the applicants were acquitted of the charges.

B. Relevant domestic law

Criminal law and procedure

The Turkish Criminal Code makes it a criminal offence:

– to deprive an individual unlawfully of his or her liberty (Article 179 generally, Article 181 in respect of civil servants);

– to issue threats (Article 191);

– to subject an individual to torture or ill-treatment (Articles 243 and 245);

– to commit unintentional homicide (Articles 452, 459), intentional homicide (Article 448) and murder (Article 450).

For all these offences complaints may be lodged, pursuant to Articles 151 and 153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the public prosecutor or the local administrative authorities. A public prosecutor who is informed by any means whatsoever of a situation that gives rise to the suspicion that an offence has been committed is obliged to investigate the facts in order to decide whether or not to bring a prosecution (Article 153). Complaints may be made in writing or orally. A complainant may appeal against the decision of the public prosecutor not to institute criminal proceedings.

In the case of alleged terrorist offences, the public prosecutor is deprived of jurisdiction in favour of a separate system of State security prosecutors and courts established throughout Turkey.

The public prosecutor is also deprived of jurisdiction with regard to offences alleged against members of the security forces in the state of emergency region. Article 4 § 1 of Decree no. 285, provides that all security forces under the command of the regional governor shall be subject, in respect of acts performed in the course of their duties, to the Law of 1914 on the prosecution of civil servants. Thus, any prosecutor who receives a complaint alleging a criminal act by a member of the security forces must make a decision of non-jurisdiction and transfer the file to the Administrative Council. These councils are made up of civil servants, chaired by the governor. A decision by the Council not to prosecute is subject to an automatic appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court. Once a decision to prosecute has been taken, it is for the public prosecutor to investigate the case.

A new law was adopted on 2 December 1999 repealing the provisions of the Law of 1914. The new law - Law no. 4483 - determines the authorities which are empowered to give permission for a state employee or public servant to be prosecuted for an offence committed when exercising official duties and regulates the procedure to be followed. According to Article 3 of the Law no. 4483, the power to grant permission to prosecute is now vested in the highest administrative authority in the area where the state employee is working. A decision granting or refusing permission to prosecute must be taken by the relevant authority within thirty days of being seized by the public prosecutor. Before referring the file to the authority the public prosecutor can only collect such evidence which, because of its nature, might be lost, altered or destroyed. The authority initiates an investigation or appoints senior civil servants to investigate on its behalf. According to Article 9 the local administrative courts and the Council of State have jurisdiction to hear appeals against the decisions reached by the authority. An appeal must be lodged within ten days of the authority’s decision.

Legal provisions governing the payment of compensation to persons who have been arrested, detained or acquitted

Section 1 of Law no. 466 on the payment of compensation to persons arrested or detained or acquitted provides:

“Compensation shall be paid by the State in respect of all damage sustained by persons

(1) who have been arrested, or detained under conditions or in circumstances incompatible with the Constitution or statute law;

(2) who have not been immediately informed of the reasons for their arrest or detention;

(3) who have not been brought before a judicial officer after being arrested or detained within the time-limit laid down by statute for that purpose;

(4) who have been deprived of their liberty without a court order after the statutory time-limit for being brought before a judicial officer has expired;

(5) whose close family have not been immediately informed of their arrest or detention;

(6) who, after being arrested or detained in accordance with the law, are not subsequently committed for trial …, or are acquitted or discharged after standing trial; or

(7) who have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment shorter than the period spent in detention or ordered to pay a pecuniary penalty only…”

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complain that they were tortured and ill-treated while detained at the Batman Security Directorate and that the authorities failed to initiate an investigation into these allegations. They invoke Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

2. The applicants also complain that their arrest and subsequent detention at the Batman Security Directorate were arbitrary and unlawful. They contend that that they were not brought before a judge within a reasonable time. They invoke Article 5 of the Convention.

3. Moreover, the applicants complain that they were not tried within a reasonable time by the Diyarbakır State Security Court which, in their opinion, is not an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench. They rely on Article 6 of the Convention.

4. The applicants further complain that the house searches carried out in the early hours of 17 May 1998 were effected in an unlawful manner. In this respect, they invoke Article 8 of the Convention.

5. Finally, the applicants complain that they were unlawfully arrested, detained, tortured, and put on trial on account of their activities in HADEP whose members, they allege, are mostly of Kurdish origin. They contend that they were discriminated against on the basis of their ethnic and political background and invoke Article 14 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. Article 3 of the Convention

The applicants complain that that they were subjected to ill-treatment during their detention at the Batman Security Directorate. They invoke Article 3 of the Convention, which provides:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

The Government’s preliminary objection

The Government state that the applicants never applied to the authorities in respect of their allegations and lodged their complaints under the Convention while their case was still being dealt with by the Diyarbakır State Security Court. The Government further observe that the Office of the Batman Public Prosecutor has opened an investigation into these allegations.

The applicants for their part contend that they did all that could be expected of them under domestic law to seek redress for their complaint. They further state that the Government have not supplied any information on the nature of the investigation which has now been opened into their complaint. The applicants also draw attention to their claim that the relevant legislation, especially new Law no. 4833 on the prosecution of civil servants and the previous Law of 1914, makes it extremely difficult to bring to justice those responsible for acts of torture.

The Court observes that the applicants complained about being tortured when brought before the Batman public prosecutor on 20 May 1998 and repeated their allegations before the judge at the Batman Magistrates’ Court on the same day. They followed up these allegations in writing by letter dated 21 May 1998 addressed to the same court. They again raised their complaint in their petition challenging the lawfulness of their arrest as well as in their petition of 27 July 1998 to the Diyarbakır State Security Court requesting that the medical reports of 21 May 1998 recording injuries to their faces be sent to that court. These medical reports were read out to the court at the hearing on 13 August 1998 in the presence of the public prosecutor. The court rejected their request to open proceedings against the police officers at the Batman Security Directorate who had allegedly tortured them as well as against the doctor who, in their view, failed to record their injuries in his report of 20 May 1998.

Against this background, the Court recalls that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies referred to in Article 35 § 1 the Convention obliges those seeking to bring their case against the State before an international judicial or arbitral organ to use first the remedies provided by the national legal system, thus dispensing States from answering before an international body for their acts before they have had an opportunity to put matters right through their own legal systems. In order to comply with the rule, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see the Aksoy v. Turkey judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, pp. 2275–76, §§ 51–52).

Having regard to the applicants’ repeated efforts to have their allegations investigated by the authorities the Court considers that they may be considered to have exhausted all reasonable possibilities available to them within the criminal justice system of the respondent State. In particular, they cannot be criticised for not having followed-up the advice of the judges on the bench of the Diyarbakır State Security Court to report their complaints to the local public prosecutor given that they had already drawn their torture allegations to the attention of both the prosecuting and judicial authorities.

The Court does not consider either that the applicants’ complaint under Article 3 can be defeated by reason of the Government’s reliance on the opening of an investigation into their allegations. In the first place, no details about the conduct and nature of that investigation have been supplied by the Government. Secondly, having regard to the lack of follow-up given to their repeated requests for an investigation into their complaints, they applicants could reasonably conclude that no timely action would be taken on their allegations.

For the above reasons the Court rejects the Government’s objection based on non-exhaustion.

Merits

The Government stress that the applicants were medically examined on two separate occasions during their brief period of detention: at the beginning of the detention in order to verify their medical condition and at the end of their detention. This enabled the findings in the first report to be checked against the findings in the second. In the second report the doctor found that there was an injury measuring half a centimetre in diameter on the outside of the applicant’s lower lip. The Government state that there are many persons who have this sort of bruising to their faces and bodies. However it does not prove that they were tortured. Given the brevity of the applicants’ detention it is difficult to conclude that their allegations are to be believed.

The applicants state that torture is an administrative practice in Turkey and draw attention in this connection to the findings of bodies such as Amnesty International and the Turkish Human Rights Foundation. They assert that, although there are thousands of incidents of torture, only a few cases are investigated and even fewer convictions are secured. In the applicants’ further submission the forensic medical reports drawn up on victims are unreliable. They contend that the doctors who examine detainees are civil servants who are pressurised by the authorities into ignoring evidence of ill-treatment and not recording it their reports. In effect, such reports only serve to protect the culprits. Thus the medical report prepared on 20 May 1998 under police supervision made no reference to any finding of ill-treatment whereas the judge at the Batman Magistrates’ Court noted that the left eye of the first applicant was discoloured. The doctor attached to Batman Prison also noted this injury in his report drawn up on 21 May 1998.

The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that this part of the case raises complex issues of law and of fact under the Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits of the application. The Court concludes, therefore, that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established.

2. Article 13 of the Convention

The applicants maintain that no official investigation was ever opened into their complaints of ill-treatment, complaints which they repeated to the authorities including judicial authorities on several occasions. The applicants rely on Article 13 of the Convention, which provides:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

The Government state in reply that the applicants only raised their complaint before the Diyarbakır State Security Court. That court advised the applicants to lodge their complaint with the competent public prosecutor given that the public prosecutor attached to the State Security Court, like the trial judge, is not competent to investigate such allegations. Neither the applicants nor their lawyer applied to the Office or the Public Prosecutor for Batman. According to the Government, the latter has in fact recently learned of the applicants’ allegations and has opened an investigation.

The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that this part of the case raises complex issues of law and of fact under the Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits of the application. The Court concludes, therefore, that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established.

3. Article 5 § 1(c) of the Convention

The applicants contend that their arrest and subsequent detention at the Batman Security Directorate were arbitrary and unlawful. They invoke Article 5 § 1(c) of the Convention, which provides in relevant part:

“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

(...)

(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;

(...)

In the applicants’ submission there was no concrete evidence that they were associated with the PKK. Significantly, they were eventually acquitted of the charges brought against them.

The Government affirm that the applicants never raised the substance of their complaint before the domestic authorities. Furthermore, it would have been open to the applicants to apply within three months of their acquittal for compensation in respect of, inter alia , their alleged unlawful arrest and detention under the provisions of Law No. 466. They did not pursue this remedy and must therefore be taken to have failed to exhaust domestic remedies.

In the alternative, the Government maintain that there existed a “reasonable suspicion” that the applicants had committed a criminal offence. Accordingly, their arrest was lawful under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and their complaint should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded.

The Court considers that it does not have to examine the Government’s objection based on non-exhaustion since the complaint is inadmissible on other grounds. It observes that the applicants have not supplied any concrete evidence which would contradict the Government’s assertion that the law enforcement authorities had facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the applicants may have committed an offence and that the purpose of the impugned deprivation of liberty was to confirm or dispel that suspicion (see the Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 182, p. 16, § 32). The Court further observes that the fact that the applicants were eventually acquitted does not of itself call into question the existence of a reasonable suspicion within the meaning of Article 5 § 1(c). Facts or information which raise such a suspicion need not be of the same level as those necessary to justify a conviction or even the bringing of a criminal charge, which comes at the next stage of the process of criminal investigation (see the Murray v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 October 1994, Series A no. 300-A, p. 27, § 55).

It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

4. Article 5 § 3 of the Convention

The applicants contend that they were not brought before a judge within a reasonable time, in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention which states:

“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”

The Government state that the applicants’ allegations are without substance since the applicants were brought before the public prosecutor attached to the State Security Court within three days of their arrest.

The applicants dispute the Government’s claim that they were held for three days in custody. In their submission they were held in custody between 17 May 1998 and 20 May 1998, a period of four days. During that time they were never informed of their rights to contact either a lawyer or a family member.

The Court observes that the applicants were apprehended in the early hours of 17 May 1998 and appeared before a judge for the first time on 20 May 1998. The period in question must have been less than ninety-six hours. In the Court’s opinion this period can be considered compatible with the promptness requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention ( cf the Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145-B, p. 33, § 62).

5. Article 8 of the Convention

The applicants state that their houses were unlawfully searched in the early hours of 17 May 1998, in violation of Article 8 of the Convention which provides as relevant:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his ... home (...).

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

The Government maintain that the applicants never raised this complaint with the authorities. The applicants accordingly failed to comply with the exhaustion requirement of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In the alternative, the Government state that the applicants’ houses were not searched as alleged.

The applicants reply that the police did not record the search in their records since they did not find any incriminating evidence. Furthermore, it is illogical to assume that no search was carried out given the security situation in the Batman region.

The Court notes that at no stage did the applicants complain to the authorities that their houses had been unlawfully searched on the day in question.

It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 3 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

6. Article 6 of the Convention

The applicants complain that they were not tried within a reasonable time and impugn the independence and impartiality of the Diyarbakır State Security which heard their case. The applicants invoke Article 6 of the Convention, which provides as relevant:

“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”

The Government point out that there was only an eight and a half month period between the date of their arrest and the date of their acquittal by the very court which they criticise. In the Government’s submission the applicants’ allegations are baseless.

The Court agrees with the Government’s observations on these complaints. Having regard to the criteria in its established case-law, the length of the proceedings cannot be impugned from the standpoint of the reasonable-time requirement prescribed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Furthermore, the fact that the applicants were acquitted of the charges brought against them removes the substance of their complaint concerning the composition of the trial court as well as their complaint that they were denied access to a lawyer during their time in custody.

It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

7. Article 14 of the Convention

The applicants contend that they were arrested, detained, ill-treated and prosecuted merely on account of their ethnic origin and political beliefs. They invoke Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Articles 3, 5, 6 and 13 thereof. Article 14 provides:

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as ... political ... opinion ... association with a national minority ... ”

The Government repudiate this allegation.

The Court considers that this circumstances relied on by the applicants do not disclose any appearance of a breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with any of the other Articles relied on.

It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECLARES ADMISSIBLE , without prejudging the merits, the applicant s’ complaints that they were tortured in custody and that they had no effective remedy in respect of these complaints;

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Michael O’Boyle Elisabeth Palm Registrar President