Communicated on 11 October 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 59453/10 Hakan SÃœLEYMAN against Turkey lodged on 6 August 2010

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of his alleged inability to examine witness “X” whose statements were relied on by the trial court to convict him for murder of M. Ü. (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 Asani v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 27962/10 , 1 February 2018 ).

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. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant able to examine witness “X” as required by Article 6 §3 (d) of the Convention? What steps did the domestic courts take to secure the attendance of that witness?

2. Did the identity of the witness “X” remain undisclosed to the defence given that initials of his name and the fact that he had been present at the hotel on 30 January 2006 where the murder of M.Ü. had taken place were contained in the trial court ’ s reasoned judgment?

- In the affirmative, were there any good reasons to keep secret the identity of the witness “X”? Were the factual or legal grounds of such a reason reflected in the domestic courts ’ judgments?

- In the negative, was there a good reason for the non-attendance of S.A. at the trial? Were the factual or legal grounds of such a reason reflected in the domestic courts ’ judgments?

3. Did the statements of witness “X” serve as the sole or decisive evidence for the applicant ’ s conviction for murder of M. Ü.?

4. Did the domestic courts provide the applicant with procedural safeguards aimed at compensating for the alleged lack of opportunity to directly examine witness “X” at the trial? In that connection, did the domestic courts examine the applicant ’ s allegation that witness “X” had identified him on the basis of photographs which had not belonged to him?