Öcalan v. Turkey

Abstract

30Human rights — Right to liberty and security — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 5(4) — Whether failure to exhaust domestic remedies — Whether lack of remedy by which applicant could have lawfulness of his detention in police custody decided — Article 5(1) — Whether applicant being deprived of liberty unlawfully — Applicant intercepted by Kenyan agents — Applicant arrested and transferred to Turkey by Turkish officials — Whether cooperation between Turkey and Kenya — Whether Turkey acting extraterritorially in manner inconsistent with Kenya’s sovereignty — Whether applicant within jurisdiction of Turkey for purposes of Article 1 of European Convention — Whether applicant’s arrest and detention complying with Turkish law — Article 5(3) — Whether applicant being brought promptly before — Whether Turkey violating Article 5 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950Jurisdiction — Extraterritorial jurisdiction — Whether Turkey acting extraterritorially in manner inconsistent with Kenya’s sovereignty — Whether proof in form of concordant inferences — Applicant intercepted by Kenyan agents — Applicant arrested and transferred to Turkey by Turkish officials — Applicant under Turkish authority — Applicant within jurisdiction of Turkey for purposes of Article 1 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether applicant’s arrest and detention complying with Turkish law — Whether cooperation between Turkey and Kenya — Balance between bringing fugitives to justice and protection of individual rights under European Convention — Whether applicant’s right to security under European Convention affected — Whether violation of Article 5(1) of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950Human rights — Right to a fair trial — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 6(1) — Whether Ankara National Security Court independent and impartial — Whether applicant having reasonable concern regarding military judge — Whether proceedings in National Security Court fair — Legal assistance — Applicant’s access to case file — Access by applicant’s lawyers to case file — Whether Turkey violating Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 195031Human rights — Right to life — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 2 — Applicant sentenced to death under Article 125 of Turkish Criminal Code — Turkey staying execution at request of European Court of Human Rights pursuant to Rule 39 — Turkey abolishing death penalty in peacetime — Whether implementation of death penalty constituting violation of Article 2 — Whether imposition of death penalty constituting violation of Article 2 — Whether Article 2 should be interpreted as no longer permitting capital punishment — Legal significance of practice of Council of Europe Contracting States as regards death penalty — Whether Turkey violating Article 2 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950Human rights — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 3 — Whether implementation of death penalty constituting violation of Article 3 — Whether imposition of death penalty constituting violation of Article 3 — Whether imposition of death penalty following unfair trial amounting to inhuman treatment — Whether applicant’s conditions of detention amounting to inhuman treatment — When transferred from Kenya to Turkey — When in İmralı prison — Whether Turkey violating Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950Treaties — Interpretation — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 2 — Whether Article 2 should be interpreted as no longer permitting capital punishment — Legal significance of practice of Council of Europe Contracting States as regards death penalty — Whether imposition of death penalty amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment per se — Whether imposition of death penalty violating Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950Terrorism — Threat from terrorism — Relevance — Applicant convicted of terrorism charges in Turkey — Whether relevant to delay in bringing applicant before judge — Whether relevant to assessment of inhuman treatment — Whether relevant to risk of implementation of death sentence — Whether relevant to applicant’s conditions of detention — Balance between State and individual interests — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950