JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE S JOČIENĖ AND SAJÓ

We voted with the majority in th is case in finding a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the C onvention in respect of the length of the applicant ’ s detention and a violation of Article 6 § 1.

However , we do not share the majority ’ s view that the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention is admissible and that there has been a procedural violation of that Article. In our opinion , the applicant ’ s Article 3 complaints should have been dismissed for non-compliance with the six-month time-limit as indicated in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

The applicant alleged that he had been ill-treated while in police custody at the Diyarbakır Security Headquarters and that his complaint had not been examined effectively. In this connection , he relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

As indicated in paragraph 28 of the judgment , t he Government asked the Court to dismiss this part of the application for non-compliance with the six-month time-limit , dr a w ing the Court ’ s attention to the lengthy period of time that had elapsed between the date on which the applicant ’ s time in police custody had ended , namely on 30 October 2000 , and the date on which he had lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor , namely on 7 June 2007.

We would point out that the purpose of the six-month rule is to promote legal stability ( see De Wilde , Ooms and Versyp v . Belgium , 18 June 1971 , § 50 , Serie s A n o. 12) and to ensure that cases raising issues under the Convention are dealt with within a reasonable time . It marks out the temporal limits of supervision carried out by the organs of the Convention and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such supervision is no longer possible (see , among other authorities , Walker v. the United Kingdom ( dec .) , no. 34979/97 , ECHR 2000-I). Furthermore , it ought to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being in a state of uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey , no. 73065/01 , 28 May 2002; Içöz v. Turkey ( dec .) , no. 54919/00 , 9 January 2003; and Kenar v. Turkey ( dec .) , no. 67215/01 , 1 December 2005).

According to the established case-law , if no remedies are available or if they are judged to be ineffective , the six-month time-limit , in principle , runs from the date of the act complained of (see Hazar and Others v. Turkey , ( dec .), nos. 62566/00 and others , 10 January 2002) or from the date of knowledge of that act or its effect on or prejudice to the applicant (see Dennis and Others v. the United Kingdom ( dec .) , no. 76573/01 , 2 July 2002). Special considerations may apply in exceptional cases where an applicant first avails himself of a domestic remedy and only at a later stage becomes aware , or should have become aware , of the circumstances which make that remedy ineffective. In such a situation , the six-month period might be calculated from the time when the applicant becomes aware , or should have become aware , of these circumstances (see Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey ( dec .) , no. 38587/97 , ECHR 2002 ‑ III).

We observe that in the present case , the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant took place in October 2000 , while he was in police custody. It is clear from the case file that the applicant brought his complaint to the attention of the domestic authorities during his trial before the Diyarbakır State Security Court . We also take into account the fact that during the first hearing held on 30 November 2000 , the judges of the Diyarbakır State Security Court observed certain bruises on the applicant ’ s right hand. The trial court further decided that the Public Prosecutor ’ s O ffice should be informed of the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment. Furthermore , the applicant ’ s lawyer , who was present at the hearing , was advised to attach a certified copy of the minutes of the hearing to his application should he wish to lodge a separate complaint with the public prosecutor.

We would point out in this connection that a public prosecutor who is informed by any means possible of a situation that gives rise to the suspicion that an offence has been committed is obliged , under Article 153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as in force at the material time , to investigate the facts by conducting the necessary inquiries to identify the perpetrators. However , according to the information in the case file , no action whatsoever was taken by the public prosecutor on the allegations of ill-treatment that were brought to his attention. Moreover , although in his defence submissions before the trial court , the applicant stated that he had been ill-treated , the court did not take any action in response to these allegations.

We also note that the applicant has not provided any information as to why he did not display due diligence in response to the outcome of the investigation into his ill-treatment allegations but lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor only on 7 June 2007 , seven years after the events complained of . We consider that the applicant , who was represented by a lawyer during the domestic court proceedings , must already have become gradually aware of the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation into his allegations by that time , more than seven years after the alleged events. Indeed , this is supported by the fact that in his application to the Court , lodged on 20 September 2007 , the applicant actually complained under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of an effective investigation into his alleged ill-treatment while in police custody . Although the prosecutor had recently commenced an investigation at that stage and had taken a statement from the applicant on 13 September 2007 , we do not consider that this investigation , which ended on 26 June 2009 with the decision of the Siverek Assize Court , interrupted or reopened the running of the six - month period in the circumstances of the present case. We are of the opinion that the seven-year period that had elapsed since the acts complained of clearly marked the temporal limits of the Court ’ s supervision, which should no longer have been possible in the circumstances of the case in 2007.

Therefore , in our view , this part of the application was lodged more than six months after the applicant became aware or should have become aware that there was no effective remedy at domestic level as regards his Article 3 complaints. It should therefore have been rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

Finally , as regards non-pecuniary damage under Article 41 of the Convention , we are of the opinion that, in the circumstances of the case, the applicant should have been awarded a smaller amount because his Article 3 complaints did not comply with the six-month rule .