Communicated on 7 January 2014

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 30496/09 Hayrettin ÅžAYIK against Turkey lodged on 18 May 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Hayrettin Şayık , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1963 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Bayburt Prison.

On 26 June 2000 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation , namely the Hizbullah .

On 30 June 2000 the applicant was questioned by police, allegedly under duress , and in the absence of a lawyer. In his statement, the applicant confessed to being a member of the Hizbullah and gave a detailed account of his acts w ithin the illegal organisation .

On 7 July 2000 a medical report was issued in respect of the applicant, which indicated an ecchymosis of 2 x 3 cm on the inner side of the right elbow, and hematomas of 2 x 3 cm on both right and left dorsal sides.

In 2000, the applicant ’ s trial commenced before the Adana State Security Court. During the proceedings, the applicant consistently denied the accusations against him and maintained that he had been ill-treated during his police custody. 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.

By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. Therefore, the Diyarbakır Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the case.

On 9 November 2007 the Diyarbakır Assize Court found the applicant guilty as charged by relying on his statements taken by the police while he was in custody and sentenced him to life imprisonment. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 19 January 2009.

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) 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) of the Convention as a result of the lack of legal assist ance available to the applicant during his detention in police custody (see Salduz v. Turkey [ GC], no. 36391/02, §§ 45-63, 27 November 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 extracted allegedly under duress and in the absence of a lawyer? Did the trial court sufficiently assess their reliability before admitting these statement s to the case file?