Communicated on 11 December 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 59213/10 Rayif DAMAR against Turkey lodged on 21 June 2010

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention in view of the sentence of life imprisonment , with however the possibility of the applicant ’ s conditional release after having served thirty years of the overall term of his imprisonment (see Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, 26 April 2016; T.P. and A.T. v. Hungary , nos. 37871/14 and 73986/14, 4 October 2016; compare Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria , n os. 15018/11 and 61199/12, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).

The application also pertains to the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings due to the systemic restriction imposed on the applicant ’ s right of access to a lawyer during the pre-trial stage pursuant to Law no. 3842 and the subsequent use by the trial court of statements taken in the absence of a lawyer (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008; Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, 13 September 2016; and Beuze v. Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, 9 November 2018).

The application also relates to the alleged absence of the applicant ’ s lawyer during the investigative measures, such as the reconstruction of the events ( yer gösterme ) and the identification procedure ( teşhis islemleri ) (see, mutatis mutandis , Hakan Duman v. Turkey , no. 28439/03, 23 March 2010)

Finally, it further concerns the alleged inability to examine the victim, E.B. in person before the trial court (see for general principles Al ‑ Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011 as refined in Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 107 and 118, ECHR 2015; see also Vladimir Romanov v. Russia , no. 41461/02, § 59, 24 July 2008).

The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicant ’ s case, including but not limited to the minutes of all the hearings, the reasoned judgment of the trial court, documentary evidence against the applicant, and the written submissions of the applicant and his lawyer throughout the proceedings.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Is the conviction of the applicant to life imprisonment ( müebbet hapis) with the possibility of conditional release after having served thirty years of the overall term of his imprisonment, consistent with Article 3 of the Convention (see Murray v. the Netherlands [GC] , no. 10511/10 , 26 April 2016; T.P. and A.T. v. Hungary , nos. 37871/14 and 73986/14, 4 October 2016; compare Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria , nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12 , ECHR 2014 (extracts))?

2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against himself, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, as a result of the lack of legal assistance available to the applicant during the preliminary investigation (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008; Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, 13 September 2016; and Beuze v. Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, 9 November 2018)?

3. Has there been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, as a result of the absence of the applicant ’ s lawyer during the investigative measures, such as the reconstruction of the events ( yer gösterme ) and the identification procedure ( teşhis islemleri ) (see, mutatis mutandis , Hakan Duman v. Turkey , no. 28439/03, 23 March 2010)?

4.( a) Was the applicant able to examine the victim, E.B. as required by Article 6 §3 (d) of the Convention (see, for general principles, Al ‑ Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011 as refined in Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 107 and 118, ECHR 2015; and see also Vladimir Romanov v. Russia , no. 41461/02, § 59, 24 July 2008) ? What steps did the domestic courts take to secure the attendance of E.B.?

( b) Was there a good reason for the non-attendance of E.B. at the trial? Were the factual or legal grounds of such a reason reflected in the domestic courts ’ judgments?

( c) Did the statements of E.B. serve as the sole or decisive evidence for the applicant ’ s conviction?

( d) Did the domestic courts ’ judgments indicate that they had approached the statements given by E.B. with any specific caution?

( e) Did the domestic courts provide the applicant with procedural safeguards aimed at compensating for the alleged lack of opportunity to directly examine E.B. at the trial?