The applicants are Turkish nationals who live in Diyarbakır (Turkey).

On the 1st December 2001 the applicants were arrested at the second applicant’s house and taken into police custody in order to establish whether they had any link with an illegal armed organisation, the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). The police did not find anything illegal or incriminating during the search.

On 2 December 2001 the police searched the house of the first applicant but did not find anything illegal or incriminating.

Upon the request of the police, the Diyarbakır public prosecutor (hereinafter the prosecutor) extended the applicants’ detention for two days on 3 December 2001. On the same day, the applicants were questioned by the police. Since they were accused of offences falling within the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts, they could not benefit from the assistance of a lawyer despite their age.

On the 4th of December 2001, the applicants were brought before the prosecutor and then to the Diyarbakır State Security Court (hereinafter the SSC). The latter, after having heard them, ordered their remand in custody.

On the 5th December 2001 the prosecutor, relying mainly on the basis of the applicants’ statements obtained during the pre-trial investigation, filed a bill of indictment with the SCC accusing the second applicant of membership of an illegal organisation and the other applicants of aiding and abetting that organisation. The charges were brought under Articles 168 and 169 of the Turkish Criminal Code respectively.

They were released pending trial on the 5th of February 2002

Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained in particular about the unlawfulness of their arrest and the excessive length of their detention in police custody.

Art 5.1
The applicants submitted that there had been no reasonable suspicion warranting their arrest.

The court noted that reasonable suspicion meant: ‘the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence.’

Accordingly it held that there was no violation of Article 5.1 of the Convention in respect of the second applicant for there was reasonable suspicion warranting his arrest. He was arrested in the course of an investigation into an illegal armed organisation of which he was suspected of being a member, and of having gone to the city in order to conduct activities on its behalf.

The first and third applicants were not detained on reasonable suspicion, but rather in virtue of being at the second applicants’ house. Thus in their case there had been a violation of art 5.1

Art 5.3
The applicants complained that their detention in police custody had exceeded the reasonable time requirement.

The court held that especially in view of the applicants’ young age (16), that the government was not justified to keep them in detention for more than 3 days, even in terrorist investigations. It held that there had been a violation of art 5.3.

Art 5.4
The applicants alleged under Article 5.4 that there were no effective remedies in domestic law to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest and detention in police custody.

The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 5.4 of the Convention.

Art 5.5
The applicants complained under Article 5.5 that they had not had a right to compensation in respect of the unlawfulness of their arrest and detention in police custody.

The court held that there had been a violation of Art 5.5 of the Convention concerning the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for the breach of their rights under Article 5 paras. 1, 3 and 4.