Communicated on 8 June 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 68556/10 Harun GÃœRBÃœZ against Turkey lodged on 12 October 2010

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

Two sets of criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant for two separate offences. The first set of proceedings, as a result of which the applicant was sentenced to seven years and one month ’ s imprisonment for attempted plundering and causing bodily injury became final on 16 July 2010, with the return of the Court of Cassation ’ s decision to the registry of the Istanbul Assize Court. The second set, where he was sentenced to life imprisonment for attempted plundering and homicide, ended on 10 June 2010.

The application concerns the absence of a lawyer while the applicant made self-incriminating submissions before the police, which later on was used as evidence in his conviction. It also raises an issue with regard to the applicant ’ s waiver of his right to legal assistance.

The application further concerns the domestic court ’ s refusal to hear witnesses on behalf of the applicant during the course of the proceedings against him.

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, has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, as a result of the lack of legal assistance available to the applicant during his detention in police custody (see Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016; and Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008)? In this connection, taking account of the Istanbul Bar Association ’ s refusal to appoint a lawyer and the applicant ’ s inability to provide a lawyer himself at that stage, could he be considered to have waived his right to legal assistance in an unequivocal manner before his interview by the police on 11 April 2007 (see Yoldaş v. Turkey , no. 27503/04 , 23 February 2010)?

2. Was the applicant able to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?

In that respect, during the course of the criminal proceedings where the applicant was charged with intentional homicide and attempted plundering, did he support his request to hear witnesses on his behalf, whose testimony he claims could confirm his alibi, by explaining why it was important for the witnesses concerned to be heard? Moreover, was the evidence requested by the applicant necessary for the establishment of the truth, taking into account the results of the forensics examination, which indicated that the applicant ’ s DNA did not match the sample tissue found on the victim ’ s hands, the statements of the witnesses who did not clearly identify the applicant and the non-examination of the video recordings of the Çı ra ÄŸ an Palace ’ s security cameras? If so, did the domestic court provide relevant reasons for dismissing his request (see Perna v. Italy [GC], no. 48898/99, § 29, ECHR 2003 ‑ V; Polyakov v. Russia , no. 77018/01, §§ 31 ‑ 37; 29 January 2009; Băcanu and SC « R » S.A. v. Romania , no. 4411/04, §§ 74 ‑ 82, 3 March 2009; and Topić v. Croatia , no. 51355/10 , §§ 40 ‑ 49, 10 October 2013).

The Government are further invited to submit copies of all the relevant do c uments concerning the criminal proceedings against the applicant, including but not limited to the minutes of all interviews conducted during the preliminary investigation stage, the minutes of all the hearings, the reasoned judgments of the trial court, the evidence against the applicant and the written submissions of the applicant and his lawyer throughout the proceedings.