Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant (a juvenile) complained, in particular, about his detention in an adult prison and his trial before the State Security Court instead of a juvenile court. Although a juvenile, he had been placed in an adult prison, where he had remained for the next five years, and which had resulted in his repeated suicide attempts. Under Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 (right to a fair trial), he also complained that he had not been released pending trial and that he had not been tried fairly.

In 1995 the applicant was charged with undermining the territorial integrity of the State, an offence which was punishable by death at the time. That charge was later modified and, following a retrial, in 2001 the court found the applicant guilty of membership of an illegal organisation (the PKK) and sentenced him to eight years and four months in prison. The applicant’s conviction was upheld in 2002.

When questioned by the police, and subsequently by the prosecutor and the judge, the applicant was not represented by a lawyer. During the retrial, both the applicant and his lawyer were absent from most of the hearings.

In 2000 the prison doctor reported that the applicant had been suffering from serious psychiatric problems in prison and had attempted to commit suicide twice in 1999. The doctor concluded that the situation in the prison was not conducive to the applicant’s treatment and that he needed to be placed in a specialized hospital. The applicant also alleged before the Court that, while detained in police custody, he had been given electric shocks, sprayed with pressurized water and beaten with a truncheon.

The Court first observed that the applicant’s detention in an adult prison had been in contravention of the applicable regulations in force in Turkey at the time and of the country’s obligations under international treaties. It further noted that, according to the medical report of April 2001, the applicant’s psychological problems had begun during his detention in prison and had worsened there.

Consequently, given the applicant’s age, the length of his detention in prison together with adults, the failure of the authorities to provide adequate medical care for his psychological problems, and, finally, the failure to take steps with a view to preventing his repeated suicide attempts, the Court entertained no doubts that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3.

The Court hence concluded that the length of the applicant’s detention on remand had been excessive, in violation of Article 5. The Court considered that the applicant had not been able to effectively participate in the trial, given that he had not attended at least 14 of the 30 hearings both during the trials. Having considered the shortcomings of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, in particular the lack of legal assistance for most of the proceedings, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6.