SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 31388/09
by Metin HALICI
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14 September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
	Françoise Tulkens, President,
	Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
	Dragoljub Popović,
	Nona Tsotsoria,
	Işıl Karakaş,
	Kristina Pardalos,
	Guido Raimondi, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 May 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Metin Halıcı, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1967 and lives in Malatya. He is represented before the Court by Mr İ. Akmeşe, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 27 July 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being a member of the PKK (Kurdish Workers' Party), an illegal organisation.
On 1 August 1999 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and then the investigating judge, who ordered him to be placed in pre-trial detention. Before the public prosecutor, the applicant claimed that the statement taken from him by the police was not accurate as he had not been allowed to read it before he had signed it. Moreover, before the investigating judge, when the applicant denied his statement to the police, he submitted that he had been tortured in police custody while making it. The applicant did not challenge the reliability of the doctor's reports, which found no injuries on his body, before the national authorities.
On 10 August 1999 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment, charging the applicant and nine others with being members of an illegal organisation and extortion.
In his defence submissions to the trial court on 22 November 1999 the applicant claimed that the statement he had given to the police was inaccurate, but he did not claim that it had been given under duress while in police custody.
On 22 November 2004 the applicant was released pending trial.
Following the abolition of State Security Courts by Law no. 5190, the criminal proceedings against the applicant were transferred to the 12th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court.
On 13 February 2009, in the light of the evidence before it, namely, the autopsy, ballistics and other expert reports, the on-site inspection and house search reports and the statements taken from the witnesses, the applicant and the other accused, the 12th Division of the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of a part of the national territory, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
On 27 April 2010 the Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance court's judgment.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that there had been undue delays in the criminal proceedings against him, in breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time.
Relying on Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had not been provided with legal assistance during his detention in police custody, where he had allegedly made self-incriminating statements under duress. In this connection, he further alleged under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention that the trial court had based its decision on those confessions, in breach of his right to remain silent and a fair trial.
Furthermore, regarding his complaints under Article 6, the applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that the domestic system provided no effective remedy.
THE LAW
1.  Relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unreasonably lengthy and that the domestic law provided no effective remedy by which he could challenge undue delays in the proceedings.
The Court considers that, on the basis of the case file, it cannot determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2.  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention that he had been denied assistance of a lawyer while having been detained in police custody, in breach of his right to a fair trial.
The Court considers that, on the basis of the case file, it cannot determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of application to the respondent Government.
3. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the domestic court had relied on his statement, allegedly obtained from him under duress while in police custody.
The Court considers that this complaint should be examined from the standpoint of Article 3 of the Convention.
The Court observes that before the national authorities and in his application to the Court, the applicant simply denied the veracity of his police statement without giving any details of the alleged acts of ill-treatment. Moreover, in the course of proceedings the applicant had given inconsistent testimonies as regards facts concerning his detention in police custody. In addition, the applicant did not submit any concrete evidence in support of his allegation, in particular in the form of a medical report.
Having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court considers that the applicant has failed to substantiate his complaint of ill-treatment in police custody with any appropriate evidence (see Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 33396/02, 30 August 2007; Tanrıkolu and Others v. Turkey, no. 45907/99, 20 October 2005; and Yılmaz v. Turkey, no. 50743/99, 30 May 2000). Consequently, in the absence of any concrete proof, the Court finds that the applicant has also failed to lay the basis of an arguable claim that his conviction had been based on evidence obtained through ill‑treatment. It therefore considers that this part of the application should be rejected as being manifestly ill‑founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant's complaints concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against him, the alleged absence of a domestic remedy in that respect and the alleged lack of legal assistance in police custody;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

	Stanley Naismith	Françoise Tulkens 
	Registrar	President