Çimen v. Turkey (19582/02)
| Date | 20090203 |
|---|---|
| Article | 6(3) |
| Decision | violation |
No summary given. Excerpts from the verdict
4. The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Izmir.
5. On 17 April 2000 the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Izmir Security Directorate on suspicion of his involvement in the activities of an illegal armed organisation.
6. On the same day, the applicant was interrogated at the Anti-Terrorist branch in the absence of a lawyer. According to a form explaining arrested persons' rights which the applicant had signed, he had been reminded of the charges against him and of his right to remain silent. In his statement, the applicant admitted to his involvement in the illegal armed organisation.
7. On 20 April 2000 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and subsequently the investigating judge at the Izmir State Security Court. Before the public prosecutor and the judge, again in the absence of a lawyer, the applicant admitted that he had participated in certain activities of the illegal armed organisation.
8. On the same day, the applicant's lawyer requested to visit him; however this request was rejected by the Public Prosecutor.
9. On 2 May 2000 the Public Prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with that court, accusing the applicant of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. He requested that the applicant be sentenced and convicted under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713).
10. On 5 December 2000 the Izmir State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to three years and nine months' imprisonment. In its decision, the court attached particular importance to the applicant's statements to the investigating judge.
11. On 25 December 2000 the applicant appealed. On an unspecified date, the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion. This opinion was not served on the applicant or his representative. On 11 June 2001, the Court of Cassation, upholding the reasoning and assessment of the Izmir State Security Court, dismissed the applicant's appeal.