  []

SADAK and OTHERS v.

Right to a fair hearing – violation Article 6, Section 1 Right to know charges – violation Article 6, Section 3(a) Right to prepare defence – violation Article 6, Section 3(b)

Ankara State Security Court was not an independent and impartial tribunal.

In a judgment delivered on  July  in the case of Sadak and Others v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that: – there had been a violation of Article , Section  (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights; – there had been a violation of Article , Section (a) (right to know charges) of the Convention; and – there had been a violation of Article , Section (b) (right to prepare defence) of the Convention. Under Article  (just satisfaction), the Court awarded each applicant , United States dollars (USD) for non-pecuniary damage and a total of USD , for legal costs and expenses.

1. Principal facts The four applicants, , , and Orhan Dogan, all former parliamentarians and members of the former (DEP), were accused of having committed treason, under section  of the Turkish Penal Code, punishable by the death penalty, in relation to activities allegedly undertaken in the name of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and declarations in support of the PKK. On  December  they were convicted by the Ankara State Security Court and sentenced to  year’s imprisonment for belonging to an armed organ- isation, under section  of the Penal Code, but the charges under section  were thrown out.

   []

2. Procedure of the Court The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on  January . The Commission declared the application partially admissible on  October . In its report of  March  it unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article  of the Convention and, by  votes to , that it was not necessary to examine the complaints under Article  of the Convention. The application was allocated to the First Section of the Court.

3. Summary of the judgment

Complaints The applicants complained that they were denied a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal, particularly in view of the presence of a military judge among the State Security Court judges who convicted them, in violation of Article , Section  of the European Convention on Human Rights. They also alleged, relying on Articles  (freedom of expression),  (freedom of association) and  (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, that they were convicted for putting forward, as parliamentarians, the views of the Kurdish population in Turkey and of having developed peaceful solutions to the Kurdish question.

Decision of the Court Article 6 of the Convention Finding that the Ankara State Security Court was not an independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article , the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article . The Court further held, unanimously, that the applicants’ rights under Article , Section (a) and (b) had been violated, in that they had not been informed in time of modifications to the charges against them and that they had not been able to have key witnesses questioned. The Court held that it was not necessary to examine the other complaints raised under Article . Articles 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention Having found that the applicants’ membership of an illegal armed organisation was not established following a fair trial, within the meaning of Article  of the Convention, the Court held that it was not necessary to examine the complaints raised under Articles ,  or  of the Convention.

