VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL DUE TO NON-FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE VIOLATION DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

02 Jun VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL DUE TO NON-FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE VIOLATION DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Events

12. The applicant’s Criminal Court along with other defendants, armed terrorist organisation, a senior principal, together with his actions in accordance with the decisions they take on behalf of the organization of the defendants police and the prosecutor’s statements, showing the diagnosis and the records of the place, captured weapons and all other organizational documents and the file in command of an armed terrorist organization, noting that the available evidence is understood as a manager from having to commit the crime, sentenced to life imprisonment neticeten decided to eliminate the constitutional order. This provision was upheld by the decision of the Supreme Court.

The applicant stated in his individual application that the trial was not conducted in accordance with fairness in general, and that his conviction was decided on the basis of statements signed under duress but the content of which was not accepted while he was not given access to a lawyer in custody.

In its decision, the Constitutional Court ruled that the applicant’s right to a fair trial had been violated in connection with his right to enjoy the assistance of a lawyer. 12 Of the decision of the Constitutional Court on violations. Upon sending it to the Criminal Court, the Court considered the file without a request in order to renew the trial. An additional decision of the aforementioned Court was October and it was decided to reject the request to renew the trial on the file. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was filed on the 13th. As a result of the examination conducted by the Criminal Court on the file, it was definitively rejected.

Count

The applicant claimed that his right to a fair trial had been violated in connection with his right to benefit from the assistance of a defense lawyer due to the fact that the violation decision of the Constitutional Court had not been fulfilled.

Evaluation of the Court

The Constitutional Court has previously found that the failure of suspects to benefit from defense assistance in terms of crimes within the purview of state security courts is a practice arising from legislation, but it has issued violation decisions on the grounds that the right to benefit from defense assistance has not been subsequently compensated.

It is also possible to remedy the violations identified in the violation decision of the Constitutional Court without holding a hearing according to the state of the business. However, in order to fulfill the requirements of the violation decision of the Constitutional Court in the concrete case, the court of first instance must first decide on the renewal of the trial and – taking into account the nature of the violation – the opening of the trial. The decision of the Constitutional Court by the elimination of the violation and its consequences in violation whether in such cases the relevant judicial authorities violations given the nature of the violation, and must act in a way that will eliminate the consequences. However, the court of first instance, the applicant at the stage of Investigation, were taken in handcuffs from the declaration declaration backtrack, even though there will be a change in the provisions, the other to place the result of the defendant captured the applicant’s long-barreled gun, and have been captured with the organization’s own documents to the applicant and where legal obligation tevilli is located in the grounds during the prosecution phase of confession in violation of, has decided to refuse the request for a retrial.

It is not possible to question before the trial whether the applicant’s inability to use the assistance of a lawyer in custody and therefore whether the damage to his right to defend prevents the fairness of the trial as a whole. The investigation phase of confession was given under torture and mistreatment, whether obtained from the applicant, and be used as evidence for conviction, diagnosis and other operations that are performed without a defense attorney present showing a place based on a provision of the defendant’s testimony on the question of receiving, but also for renewal and decided to open the Proceedings of the trial may be.

Although the nature of the violation obliges the opening of a hearing, the interpretation made by the Heavy Criminal Court when rejecting the request to renew the trial does not coincide with the decision of the Constitutional Court on the violation of Article 36 of the Constitution. it is understood that it is not to the extent and with due care required by its article, therefore, the violation and its consequences that the Constitutional Court found in the decision on the applicant have not been eliminated by the courts of instance.

The Constitutional Court has decided that the right to a fair trial has been violated on the grounds described.

You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.