Case of Duman - Turkey

Mümine ÖZTÜRK

There was a contradiction between the confessions of the applicant and the demand; for this reason there was not efficient justification

Fair Trial, To Hear Witness

A news reporter inform to the police so that Mahmut Duman was arrested and was taken under custody for selling drugs. His lawyer denied his being a drug-dealer and requested from the court that undercover cops/plain-clothes policemen and the reporter should testify in the court. The request was dismissed by the judges. Mahmut Duman was sentenced to two years and six months and was fined approximately 85 Euros. Upon which he appealed to The Supreme Court and his case was rejected. This decision was not issued to him but it was attached/enclosed to his file.

THE CLAIM OF VIOLATION OF THE CONVENTION ARTICLE 6

The applicant claimed that he was deprived of the right of fair judgment in the court; Senior Deputy Attorney of The Supreme Court did not answer the written opinion formally; the written document was not notified. The applicant stated to benefit from Article 6.

The government stated that it was the responsibility of the national (domestic) judge to decide the necessity of testimony of a witness in the hearing; next, the applicant was arrested when he was selling drugs and he confessed inevitably; there was adequate evidence; and also the judge found the statement sufficient and finally the written statement was considered.