İNAN v. TURKEY
Inadmissible
Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano
1. The applicant, Mr Hacı İnan, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1959 and is serving a prison sentence in Bolu F-type prison. He is represented before the Court by Mr N. Özdemir, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. 2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. According to the applicant’s submissions, he was arrested at gunpoint by police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on 18 May 2000. The arrest and custody report drafted by the police indicate that he was taken into custody on 21 May 2000. According to this report, during the arrest, officers used force as the applicant attempted to flee. 5. Between 24 and 26 May 2000 the applicant made statements to the police. He was questioned, in particular, about his alleged links to Hizbullah, an illegal organisation, and complicity in a homicide. 6. On 27 May 2000 the applicant was referred to a doctor at the end of his detention in police custody. According to the medical report issued in respect of the applicant, he had sustained injuries to the right and left sides of his back and his left elbow. The doctor concluded that these injuries rendered the applicant unfit to carry out daily activities for three days. 7. On the same day the applicant was brought before a public prosecutor and then before the duty judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. He denied his statements taken in police custody, alleging that he had been tortured. The judge ordered the applicant’s detention on remand on suspicion of membership of Hizbullah and committing offences on its behalf. 8. On 8 June 2000 the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, along with a number of other persons, with the Istanbul State Security Court. The applicant was charged with attempting to undermine the constitutional order, an offence proscribed under Article 146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code. 9. In 2001 the case against the applicant and his co-accused was joined with another case brought against a number of other persons who had been charged with membership of Hizbullah. 10. State Security Courts were abolished by Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004. The case against the applicant was therefore transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court. 11. On 3 September 2009 the applicant maintained before the Istanbul Assize Court that his police statements did not reflect the truth, as he had been subject to ill-treatment during his detention in police custody. 12. On 27 October 2010 the applicant’s lawyer submitted to the firstinstance court that the applicant’s police statements as well as a number of documents in the case file should not be used as evidence against him as the applicant had been subjected to torture in police custody. He further noted that no investigation had been initiated into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. 13. On 4 January 2011 the Istanbul Assize Court ordered the applicant’s release pending trial. However, he was not released from prison on account of other charges against him. 14. On 18 October 2011 the applicant was released from prison. 15. On 16 February 2012 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. With the final decision the Assize Court issued an order for the applicant’s arrest. 16. On 15 May 2013 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 16 February 2012 in so far as it concerned the applicant. 17. According to the applicant’s submissions, meanwhile, in 2000, he lodged a petition with the Fatih public prosecutor’s office against the police officers who had allegedly inflicted torture on him. During the same year, the Fatih public prosecutor initiated an investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment of the applicant, along with six other persons, who were the applicant’s co-accused. 18. On 25 December 2002 the Fatih public prosecutor decided not to bring criminal proceedings against the police officers suspected of torture and inhuman treatment, holding that there was insufficient evidence in support of the complainants’ allegations. In his decision, the public prosecutor also decided that the decision be served on the complainants in accordance with Article 164 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure. According to this decision, within the context of the investigation, the Fatih public prosecutor examined the medical reports issued in respect of the complainants and obtained statements of a number of police officers who had been on duty at the time of the complainants’ detention in police custody. There is nothing in the case file demonstrating that the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of the Fatih public prosecutor. 19. A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in Nurettin Aldemir and Others v. Turkey, nos. 32124/02, 32126/02, 32129/02, 32132/02, 32133/02, 32137/02 and 32138/02, § 23, 18 December 2007; Şefik Demir v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 51770/07, §§ 11-15, 16 October 2012); and Müdür Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 1926, 26 March 2013).