SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 51829/09
by Osman AKBAŞ and Others
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29 April 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,Nona Tsotsoria,Işıl Karakaş,Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 August 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Osman Akbaş and Mr Mehmet Sıddık Emire, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1973. The third applicant, Mr Alaaddin Muhammet Şilo, is Syrian national who was born in 1979. All three are currently remanded in custody at Diyarbakır prison. They are represented before the Court by Mr S. Yurtdaş, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 12 November 1999 the first and second applicants, and on 14 November 1999 the third applicant, were arrested during a military operation carried out by the security forces against the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party).
Without providing any medical report or evidence, the applicants alleged that they had been injured at the time of their arrest and had been ill-treated in police custody.
On 23 November 1999 the first and second applicants were remanded in custody pending trial.
On an unspecified date, the third applicant was also placed in pre-trial detention.
The applicants were accused of membership of the PKK and of carrying out armed activities on its behalf.
On 10 September 2009 the first-instance court ordered the applicants' continued detention on account of the nature of the charges and the reasonable suspicion against them.
According to the information in the case file, the criminal proceedings against the applicants are still pending at first instance before the 6th Chamber of the Diyarbakır Assize Court (2000/7 E).
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants alleged that they had been tortured in police custody and coerced into making self-incriminating statements.
Relying on Articles 5, 6, 7 and of the Convention, the applicants complained that the length of their pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings had exceeded the reasonable time requirement and that had been no effective remedy provided in the domestic system whereby they could have challenged their continued detention and the excessive length of the proceedings.
Finally, the applicants argued under Article 6 that they had been denied a fair hearing as the trial court had relied on their statements extracted from them through ill-treatment in police custody.
THE LAW
1. Relying on Articles 5, 6, 7 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants complained that their pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against them had been unreasonably lengthy and that there had been no effective domestic remedies in that respect.
The Court considers that these complaints should be examined under Articles 5 §§ 3 and 4, 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention. It further considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with the Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that they had been ill-treated in police custody.
The Court observes, on the basis of the case file, that the applicants have not submitted any detailed information as to this complaint. They have also failed to provide any convincing evidence, such as relevant medical reports. Moreover, they have not shown that they were unable to obtain such evidence. The Court therefore considers that this complaint is unsubstantiated and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention as being manifestly ill-founded.
3. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants argued that the criminal proceedings against them had not been fair because the court had admitted in evidence their police statements, obtained from them by illegal methods.
The Court considers that this complaint is premature, as the criminal proceedings against the applicants are still pending before the first-instance court. Consequently, this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see, for example, Koç v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36686/07, 26 February 2008).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants' complaints concerning the length of their pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against them, as well as the alleged absence of effective domestic remedies in that respect;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

	Sally Dollé	Françoise Tulkens 
	Registrar	President