Events
12. The High Criminal Court stated that it was understood from the statements of the defendants’ police and prosecutor’s office, the Diagnosis and Location Records, the weapons seized and organizational documents, and all other available evidence in the file that the applicant, together with the other defendants, was the senior officer of the armed terrorist organization and that he acted in line with the decisions taken on behalf of the organization. As the commanding and commanding officer of an armed terrorist organization, he was ultimately sentenced to life imprisonment for the crime of attempting to abolish the constitutional order by force. This provision was upheld by the Supreme Court decision.
In his individual application, the applicant alleges that the proceedings were not conducted in a fair manner in general, and that his conviction was decided on the basis of statements that were signed under duress but the content of which was not accepted while he was not able to benefit from the opportunity to access a lawyer while in custody.
In its decision, the Constitutional Court ruled that the right to a fair trial in connection with the applicant’s right to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer had been violated. After the Constitutional Court’s decision of violation was sent to the 12th High Criminal Court, the Court handled the case without any request for retrial. An evaluation was made with the additional decision of the aforementioned Court and it was decided to reject the request for the retrial on the basis of the file. The applicant’s objection to this decision was definitively rejected by the 13th High Criminal Court as a result of the examination made over the file.
allegations
The applicant alleges that the right to a fair trial in connection with the right to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer has been violated due to the failure to comply with the violation decision of the Constitutional Court.
Court’s Evaluation
The Constitutional Court has previously determined that the suspects’ failure to benefit from the assistance of their lawyers in terms of crimes falling under the jurisdiction of the state security courts is a practice arising from the legislation;
It is possible to remedy the violations found in the violation decision of the Constitutional Court without holding a hearing, depending on the situation. However, in the concrete case, in order to fulfill the requirements of the Constitutional Court’s decision of violation, the court of first instance must first decide to reopen the proceedings and to open a hearing, considering the nature of the violation. In such cases, where the Constitutional Court decides on a violation and decides to eliminate the violation and its consequences, the relevant judicial authorities must act in a way that will eliminate the violation and its consequences, taking into account the nature of the violation decision. However, the court of first instance stated that there would be no change in the verdict even if the applicant’s confession in the statement taken at the law enforcement office was ignored during the investigation phase, that the applicant was caught with a long-barreled gun and documents belonging to the organization as a result of the other accused’s being caught, that the applicant made a confession at the prosecution stage, and that the trial was in violation of its legal obligations. decided to reject the request for renewal.
It is not possible to question before a hearing is held whether the applicant’s inability to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer in custody and therefore the damage to the right of defense prevents the trial from being fair as a whole. Whether the confession obtained from the applicant during the investigation phase was given under ill-treatment and torture, whether it would be used as evidence for conviction, and whether the statements of the other accused, whose identification and location procedures were carried out without the presence of a lawyer, can be taken as a basis for the verdict, can only be possible with a decision to reopen the trial and hold a hearing. .
It is understood that the interpretation made by the High Criminal Court while rejecting the request for retrial did not coincide with the violation decision of the Constitutional Court, and although the nature of the violation necessitated holding a hearing, it was not within the scope and due diligence required by Article 36 of the Constitution, therefore, the violation and its consequences determined by the Constitutional Court in its decision on the applicant were not abolished by the lower courts. .
The Constitutional Court decided that the right to a fair trial had been violated for the reasons explained.
