Case of Ipek and Others v. Turkey Within the Scope of the Right to Liberty and Security

Eda BELTAN

In 2001, the applicants were arrested on suspect for being a member of PKK and conducting activities for that organization. The applicants stated that the degree of suspicion regarding the arrestment was absent and reasonable period of time was exceeded. The applicants applied ECHR against Turkey claiming that Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Convention were violated.

3, 4 and 5 Articles of European Convention on Human Rights, Right to Liberty and Security.

Facts

The applicant Mr. Murat Özpamuk was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of being a member and conducting activities in cities on behalf of an illegal organization, namely PKK. At the event of the search conducted by the police in their premises, the applicants Mr. Çetin İpek and Seyithan Demirel were present and were also arrested and taken into custody (1 December 2001). The police did not find anything illegal or incriminating but upon the police request the state prosecutor extended applicants detention for two (2) days. During the questioning the applicants could not benefit from the assistance of a lawyer despite their age, being 16 years old at that time. The applicants were brought before the prosecutor, then to Diyarbakır State Security Court (SSC) that ordered their remand in custody and charged them for membership of an illegal organization and aiding and abetting an illegal organization. On 5 December, 2001 at the first hearing the applicants were released pending trial.

Allegations

The applicants alleged that the article 5 § 1, 3, 4 and 5 and article 6 of the Convention were violated. The applicants submitted that there had been no reasonable suspicion warranting their arrest and also complained that their detention in police custody had exceeded the reasonable time requirement. On the other hand the government submitted that the application should be dismissed associated with the failure to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

Analysis According to Relevant Domestic and International Law

ECHR holded that there has been a violation of Article 5 because of a breach of domestic law.