Keş v. Turkey (17174/03)
| Date | 20081202 |
|---|---|
| Article | 6(1), 6(3) |
| Decision | violation |
The applicant, Mustafa Keş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Simav (Turkey).
In 2002 he was convicted by an Assize Court for drug possession and trafficking as a member of a gang and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and a fine. He alleged before the Court of Cassation that the Assize Court had not taken evidence from certain witnesses. The Court of Cassation upheld the Assize Court’s judgment.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 6 § 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses), the applicant complained that certain witnesses were not examined and that he had not been given access to the written opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation.
The Court noted that the domestic courts had carried out a thorough and careful analysis of the various items of evidence that were relevant in assessing and evaluating the credibility of the charges against the applicant. The witnesses had been examined during the preliminary investigation, and the Assize Court had considered that examining the witnesses in question was not essential to establishing the truth. In this connection, the Court noted that the applicant had not explained how examination of these witnesses would have been decisive in establishing the truth, in that their statements were not the sole items of evidence on which the court had based the applicant’s conviction. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and 6 § 3 (d) with regard to the questioning of witnesses.
Furthermore, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the failure to communicate the written opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation. It held that its judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)