Communicated on 29 January 2019<\/p>\n
SECOND SECTION<\/p>\n
Application no. 59491\/10
\nFaruk KUZU
\nagainst Turkey
\nlodged on 2 September 2010<\/p>\n
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE<\/p>\n
The application concerns the alleged violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention on account of use by the trial court of the applicant\u2019s statements taken under alleged duress during the pre-trial stage, and the lack of an oral hearing before the Court of Cassation despite the applicant\u2019s request in that regard (see, for instance, Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114\/02, \u00a7\u00a7 58\u201167, ECHR 2006\u2011XII, and Tierce and Others v. San Marino, nos. 24954\/94 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7 92-102, ECHR 2000\u2011IX).<\/p>\n
It further concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of his alleged inability to examine the witnesses against him in person before the trial court (see for general principles see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766\/05 and 22228\/06, ECHR 2011 as refined in Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 107 and 118, ECHR 2015).<\/p>\n
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES<\/p>\n
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the use of statements taken under alleged duress violate the applicant\u2019s right to a fair hearing (see \u00d6zcan \u00c7olak v. Turkey, no. 30235\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 47-50, 6 October 2009)?<\/p>\n
2. Was a public hearing held before the Court of Cassation following the applicant\u2019s request raised in its appeal petition? If not, did the lack of an oral hearing before the Court of Cassation prejudice the fairness of the trial against the applicant (see, for instance, Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114\/02, \u00a7\u00a7 58\u201167, ECHR 2006\u2011XII, and Tierce and Others v. San Marino, nos. 24954\/94 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7 92-102, ECHR 2000\u2011IX)?<\/p>\n
3. Was the applicant able to examine the witnesses against him as required by Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d) of the Convention? If not,<\/p>\n
(a) What steps did the domestic courts take to secure the attendance of the witnesses against him?<\/p>\n
(b) Was there a good reason for the non-attendance of the witnesses at the trial? Were the factual or legal grounds of such a reason reflected in the domestic courts\u2019 judgments?<\/p>\n
(c) Did the statements of the witnesses serve as the sole or decisive evidence for the applicant\u2019s conviction?<\/p>\n
d) Did the domestic courts\u2019 judgments indicate that they had approached the statements given by the witnesses with any specific caution?<\/p>\n
(e) Did the domestic courts provide the applicant with procedural safeguards aimed at compensating for the alleged lack of opportunity to directly examine the witnesses at the trial?<\/p>\n
The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicant\u2019s case, including but not limited to the minutes of all the hearings, all the medical reports (legible copies) issued following the applicant\u2019s police custody, the reasoned judgment of the Court of Cassation, documentary evidence against the applicant, and the written submissions of the applicant and his lawyer throughout the proceedings.<\/p>\n