Arama yapmak için lütfen yukarıdaki kutulardan birine aramak istediğiniz terimi girin.

Case of Hakan Duman v. Turkey

Müge ÇETİN

The applicant was arrested in 2002 and taken into custody on suspicion of having committed several burglaries. He confessed his crimes and confirmed his statements before the Bursa Magistrate’s Court. The applicant complained under Article 6§2 that his conviction had been based on unlawful evidence obtained during his detention in police custody.The Court found a violation of Article 6§1 of the Convention.

Fair Trial, Judgement Based on Statement, Unlawful Evidence.

The Facts

The application was made on 12 May 2003 by a Turkish national Mr. Hakan Duman against the Republic of Turkey. The applicant was born in 1983 in Bursa (Turkey).

In 2002 the applicant was arrested, and taken into custody on suspicion of having committed several burglaries. He confessed to committing five burglaries and he participated in a number of reconstructions of the incidents. He also confirmed his statements before the Bursa Magistrate’s Court. Afterwards he retracted his earlier statements before the Bursa Criminal Court. The Bursa Criminal Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him in total to nine years, two months and five days’ imprisonment. A few weeks later, the applicant appealed against the trial court’s judgment but the Court of Cassation dismissed his request and upheld the judgment of the first instance court. 2 years later, the Bursa Criminal Court, taking into account the relevant provisions of the new Criminal Code, ordered the applicant’s release from prison.

Alleged Violation of Article 6 of the 
Convention

The applicant complained under Article 6§2 that his conviction had been based on unlawful evidence obtained during his detention in police custody. The Court examined this complaint under Article 6§1 of the Convention, which provides: “In the determination ...of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair...hearing .....” The Government objected, claiming non-compliance to the six-month rule. The Court observed that Hakan Duman had not failed the six month rule therefore, rejected the Government’s objection. The applicant submitted that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody and that the pressure he felt from the police had continued up until the trial court hearings and after he had hired a lawyer. The Government maintained that the applicant had not been convicted solely on the basis of his statements; the statements of the co-accused and other evidences were also considered during the assessments of the National Court.