STRASBOURG - European Court of Human Rights accepted on Friday the objections of Turkey and the lawyers of head terrorist Abdullah Ocalan and decided to hear the case before the Grand Chamber.
ECHR stated in a press release the same day that the request to refer the case to the Grand Chamber which was composed of 17 judges, and which had the character of an appeal court, was accepted.
Turkey applied to ECHR on July 12, 2003 opposing the decision given by the Court which concluded that the head terrorist was not tried fairly and requested the Court to refer the case to Grand Chamber. Lawyers of the terrorists also demanded the same thing.
If the Grand Chamber rules that head terrorist Ocalan was not tried fairly, Council of Europe can ask Turkey to re-try Ocalan.
ECHR said in its ruling in March this year that Turkey violated Articles 3 (prohibition of ill-treatment) 5 (detention) and 6 (fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
ECHR defended the view that Turkey violated the first and third paragraphs of Article 6 (the right to a fair trial). ECHR said in its decision that that ''there had been a violation of Article 6/1 in that the applicant was not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal; there had been a violation of Article 6/1 (right to a fair trial), taken together with Article 6/3 (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defense) and (c) (right to legal assistance), in that the applicant did not have a fair trial.'' The ECHR didn't consider sufficient the changing of the military judge with a civilian one after the start of the hearings in Turkey.
The Court also held in its judgement that ''there had been a violation of Article 5/3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) given the failure to bring the applicant before a judge promptly after his arrest; a violation of Article 5/4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) given the lack of a remedy by which the applicant could have the lawfulness of his detention in police custody decided.''
Regarding death penalty, the Court held that ''there had been no violation of Article 2 (right to life); that there had been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of ill-treatment) of the Convention, concerning the implementation of the death penalty; and, that there had been a violation of Article 3 concerning the imposition of the death penalty following an unfair trial.''
Concerning treatment and conditions, the Court held unanimously that there had been ''no violation of Article 3 of the Convention, concerning the conditions in which the applicant was transferred from Kenya to Turkey and the conditions of his detention on the island of Imralý and no violation of Article 14 of the Convention (prohibition of discrimination).''
Finally the Court held, unanimously, that no separate examination was necessary of the applicant's remaining complaints under Articles 7 (no punishment without law), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (freedom of expression), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights).
ECHR considered that ''the violations found constituted in themselves sufficient just satisfaction.'' Therefore, the Court didn't ask Turkey to pay compensation to the applicant. It only ruled that Turkey had to pay a total sum of 100,000 euros to the applicant for court costs and expenses.
ECHR listened to the views of the applicant and Turkish government on November 21, 2000. In its ruling on Dec. 14, 2000, the Court found admissible the applications regarding Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights asking the sides to present their written views about these provisions.
The Court had also asked Turkey to postpone execution of death penalty (after the end of trial in Turkey) by taking a precautionary decision until the head terrorist's case on ECHR was concluded.
(ÖÞ-AÖ) 11.07.2003