CASE OF MEHMET GÜNEŞ v. TURKEY
Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic and Convention proceedings
4. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Turkey. 5. On 16 July 1993 the applicant was taken into police custody by police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership in an illegal organisation, the TDP (Revolutionary Party of Turkey) and of possessing a false identity card. He was held in police custody until 30 July 1993. 6. On 30 July 1993 he was brought before a judge who ordered his detention on remand. He asserted that he had not signed any statement and claimed that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody. 7. On 15 September 1993 the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with the latter charging the applicant under Article 168 § 1 of the Criminal Code with membership of an illegal organisation. 8. On 25 January 2000 the applicant was released from detention. 9. Between 16 July 1993 and 25 January 2000 the Istanbul State Security Court held thirty-six hearings. The applicant requested to be released pending trial several times before the trial court. The Istanbul State Security Court dismissed his request on all occasions, having regard to the state of the evidence, until 25 January 2000. 10. On 26 March 1996 the Istanbul State Security Court requested the Forensic Medical Institute to carry out an analysis as to whether the documents, which were submitted as written evidence, were drafted by the applicant and another co-accused, namely M.A.A.. 11. Until 17 February 2004 the trial court postponed the hearings in order to wait for the Forensic Medical Institute’s report on the issue and to be informed about the prison that M.A.A had been detained. 12. On 17 February 2004 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant be terminated on the ground that the statutory time-limit under Articles 102 and 104 of the Criminal Code had expired.