Ms Sakine Aba, a Turkish national, brought an application against the Republic of Turkey under Art 34 of the Convention, relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security of the person) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial). The applicant complained of the length of time she had spent in police custody, of a lack of legal assistance, and of the absence of the right to compensation.

The applicant lives in Istanbul. She was arrested and placed in police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation. During her custody period, she was interrogated by the police, the public prosecutor and the investigating judge respectively, in the absence of a lawyer. Relying on Article 5(3) of the Convention, the applicant argued that the length of her police custody exceeded the reasonable time requirement. Under Article 5(5), she further alleged that she did not have any remedy whereby to seek compensation for the time she had spent in custody; and, invoking Article 6(3)(c), she complained that she had not been allowed the assistance of a lawyer during this period.

The European Court of Human Rights, noting that the applicant had spent 5 days in police custody, relied on the case of Brogan v UK, where it had been held that detention in police custody lasting 4 days and 6 hours without judicial control exceeded the time constraints of Art 5(3), even if its purpose was to protect the community as a whole against terrorism. Therefore, since the applicant had been detained for a longer period without being brought before a judge or another officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power, the Court unanimously found a violation of Art 5(3). As for the complaint under Art 5(5) of a lack of an enforceable right to compensation for the breach of the applicant’s right, the Court also found a violation, since they felt that there were no particular reasons why they should depart from established case law on this matter.

Similarly, it was unanimously held that there had been a violation of Art 6(3)(c) in conjunction with Art 6(1), referring to the case of Salduz v Turkey. It was held in Salduz that the right to a fair trial under Art 6(1) required, as a rule, that access to a lawyer should be provided from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless compelling reasons were shown to restrict this right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denial of access to a lawyer, such restriction - whatever its justification - must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6. In this case, it was held that the lack of legal assistance to the applicant was an unjustified violation of her Art 6 right. Therefore, Ms Aba was awarded EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage on an equitable basis.