Communicated on 23 October 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no 2508/05 Aydın GÜZEL and Others against Turkey lodged on 8 December 2004

SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE

The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings due to the systemic restriction imposed on the applicants ’ 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 those statements taken in the absence of a lawyer and allegedly under duress (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008; Özcan Çolak v. Turkey , no. 30235/03, §§ 47-50, 6 October 2009 , and İbrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016 ). It further pertains to the alleged absence of procedural safeguards in place with regard to alleged procedural shortcomings at the pre-trial stage (see Türk v. Turkey , no. 22744/07 , § 55, 5 September 2017, and compare with Ibrahim , cited above, § 282) and the applicants ’ inability to challenge documentary evidence (see mutatis mutandis Mirilashvili v. Russia , no. 6293/04, § 156-166, 11 December 2008).

QUESTIONS

1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, 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 applicants during the preliminary investigation (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008, and İbrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016 ) ?

2. Were there any procedural safeguards in place with regard to the alleged procedural shortcomings at the pre-trial stage? Did the trial court examine the admissibility of the evidence before going on to examine the merits of the case (see Türk v. Turkey , no. 22744/07 , § 55, 5 September 2017, and compare with Ibrahim , cited above, § 282) ?

3. Were the applicants given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge documentary evidence against them, specifically the documents that had been produced by the police based on the video footage and the statements of the co-accused who were under police custody, in accordance with Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention (see mutatis mutandis Mirilashvili v. Russia , no. 6293/04, § 156-166, 11 December 2008) ?

4. Did the use of statements taken under alleged duress and in the absence of a lawyer violate the applicants ’ right to a fair hearing (see Özcan Çolak v. Turkey , no. 30235/03, §§ 47-50, 6 October 2009)?

In respect of the applicant Tahir Laçin ;

5. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in lodging his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention?

6 . Was he subjected to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention during the police custody?

The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicants ’ case, including but not limited to the minutes of all the hearings, documentary evidence against the applicants, and the written submissions of the applicants and their lawyers throughout the proceedings.

APPENDIX