ICJappointed an observer Mr Stuart Kerr a barrister of England and Wal - PDF document

1 (ICJ)appointed an observer, Mr. Stuart K
(ICJ)appointed an observer, Mr. Stuart Kerr, a barrister of England and Wales, tomonitor and report on the re-trial.Leyla Zana and her co-defendants had been Leyla Zana and her three co-defendants are now being re-tried and nine hearings have been held to date at the defendants in the exercise of their professional duties, led by (ECHR), such as the violation of theprinciples of the equality of arms, the independence and (no.1) (App. Nos. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96),para.40.2 Ibid.3 Please see Report on the retrial of Leyla Zana and three other Parliamentarians at Ankara State SecurityCourt on 23 May, 20 June, 18 July, 15 August, 15 September, published by the InternationalCommission of in circumstan

2 ces whereinthe re-trial is proceeding at
ces whereinthe re-trial is proceeding at a rate of only one day per month, thus violating theCourtÕs obligation to proceed with expedition where bail is refused. The ICJ/CIJL is therefore of the opinion that the defendantsÕ rights to liberty and securityhave also been violated.II. Violation of the Right to a Fair Trial(1) Unreasonable delay in the proceedingsAt the hearing on 21 November, the prosecution had not succeeded in securingthe attendance of any of the four witnesses from the defendants andsubmissions from the lawyers for the defence, the trial was adjourned the trial. The trial hasthus far been heard at the rate of one day per month yet no adequate justificationhas been provided for proceeding in such a

3 slow manner, particularly given thatthe
slow manner, particularly given thatthe defendants continue to be held in detention.5The protracted nature of the proceedings must be considered in conjunction with the provisions the ECHR as well as other treaties towhich Turkey is a State party. The ICJ/CIJL considers that hearing a trial over a published by legal system to comply with thereasonable time guarantee provisions of art. 6(1) of the ECHR.6Furthermore, it is the opinion of the ICJ/CIJL that, having regard to the legal andfactual complexity of the case as well as the conduct of the accused and thejudicial and prosecuting authorities, there are no factors that could justify suchprotracted proceedings.7 There is no as all the evidence which theprosecution

4 needed to have compiled to present its c
needed to have compiled to present its case to dilatory tactics which couldbe said to have hindered the progress of the trial. Furthermore, given the factthat the defendants have been withthe aim of remedying the defects that existed in the first trial, the ICJ/CIJL findsthat the delay in the proceedings is unreasonable and that the Court has failed toact with the special diligence required of it.The ICJ/CIJL urges the Turkish Government to organise its legal system in orderthat its Courts can comply with the provisions trial by the State Security Court that year. Despite the current re-trial, thedefendants continue to remain in detention informed the (App No 37641/97) 2December of a criminalcharge, that person c

5 an expect special diligence on the part
an expect special diligence on the part of the competentauthorities to reach such determination of guilt or innocence with expedition.The ICJ/CIJL considers that the periods of inactivity earlier commented on the guilt of the defendants in a pre-trial to ensure that its Courts comply with international standards and calls that the State Security Court has not cured the defects identifiedby the ECtHR in 2001. given for such a state of affairs, and the reasonable suspicionthat the Court is not an independent or impartial tribunal for the reasons statedabove, still prevail today.The ICJ/CIJL urges the Government to ensure that at the next hearing, which hasbeen scheduled for 16 January 2004, the abovementioned shortcom