003-769620-784594

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS    300  5.6.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, neither of which is final.[1]    Violation of Article 6 § 1 (1)  Işık v. Turkey (application no. 50102/99) (2)  Orhan Kaya v. Turkey (application no. 44272/98)   Işık v. Turkey Zeynep Işık is a Turkish national who was born in 1977. She is currently in prison.   In 1995 she gave herself up to the police for her activities within an illegal organisation, the TKP/ML-TIKKO (Marxist-Leninist-Communist Party of Turkey – the Liberation Army of the Workers and Peasants of Turkey). On 14 October 1997 the Erzurum State Security Court found her guilty of attempting to overthrow the Turkish constitutional order by force and sentenced her to 16 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. Her conviction and sentence were upheld by the Court of Cassation in February 1999.   Orhan Kaya v. Turkey   Orhan Kaya is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives at Wuppertal (Germany).   In December 1992 he was arrested by police officers from the anti-terror brigade. Several witnesses gave evidence that he had links with the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) and that his brother was a member of that organisation. On 26 November 1996 he was convicted by the Diyarbakır State Security Court of being a member of an illegal organisation and of seeking to undermine the indivisibility of the State. He was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment. ______   The applicants in these two cases complained under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) that they had not been tried by an independent and impartial court, as a military judge had sat on the bench of the state security courts. Ms Işık also complained that her defence rights had been infringed in the Court of Cassation proceedings, while Mr Kaya complained that the proceedings in the state security court had been unfair.   The European Court of Human Rights reiterated that certain aspects of the status of military judges called their independence and impartiality into question. Such judges continued to be members of the army, which in turn took its orders from the executive. A civilian standing trial on terrorist offences had legitimate reason to fear that a state security court which included a military judge among its members might not be independent and impartial.   The Court noted that the Turkish legislation on the composition of state security courts had been amended so as to bring it in line with the Convention, but it could not accept that such cases no longer held any legal interest for applicants. Consequently, it found that the state security courts were not independent and impartial and unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in this respect in both cases. In the light of that finding, it considered it unnecessary to examine the applicants’ other complaints of unfairness. In both cases, the Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. (The judgments are available only in French.)   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)  Joanna Reynell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)  Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1].  Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17‑member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.