Communicated on 12 February 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 38358/11 Yücel GENÇ against Turkey lodged on 14 September 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Yücel Genç , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1982 and was serving a sentence in Tekirdağ prison at the time of the introduction of the application . He is represented before the Court by Mr Z. Değirmenci , a lawyer practising in Izmir.

On 11 January 2003 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation .

On 13 January the applicant was questioned by the police, allegedly under duress, in the absence of a lawyer. On the same day he also gave a statement to the public prosecutor and the investigating judge , still in the absence of a lawyer. The investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody, having regard to the nature of the offence and the state of the evidence.

On 21 March 2003 the applicant complained against the police officers and alleged that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his police custody.

On 4 December 2003 the public prosecutor at the Ä°zmir Assize Court filed an indictment with that court, accusing the police officers under Article 243 of the former Criminal Code. On 7 July 2005 the Ä°zmir Assize Court acquitted the police officers. On 13 December 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment that acquitted the police officers.

On an unspecified date the public prosecutor at the Ä°zmir State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, accusing the applicant of membership of an armed illegal organisation and of involvement in activities which undermined the constitutional order of the State.

In his defence submissions, the applicant denied the charges against him and argued that his police statement had been taken under duress. He also stated that his police statement should not be taken into account by the trial court, as it had been extracted from him under duress.

Whilst the proceedings were pending, State Security Courts were abolished in accordance with Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004. Therefore, the Ä°zmir Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the case.

On 19 June 2009 the Ä°zmir Assize Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. In convicting the applicant, the first-instance court relied on the police statement of the applicant. On 15 March 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he was convicted on the basis of unlawful evidence in that the domestic court relied on his police statement which had been taken under duress. He further submits under Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was denied legal assistance during the preliminary investigation stage.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as a result of the lack of legal assistance available to the applicant during his detention in police custody (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, §§ 45-63, ECHR 2008)?

2. 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, to what extent was the applicant ’ s conviction based on his statements allegedly extracted under duress and in the absence of a lawyer? Did the trial court sufficiently assess their reliability before admitting these statements to the case file?