SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 15979/08
by Ahmet ASLANBAKAN
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 20 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,Antonella Mularoni,Ireneu Cabral Barreto,Danutė Jočienė,Dragoljub Popović,Nona Tsotsoria,Işıl Karakaş, judges,and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 February 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ahmet Aslanbakan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and is serving a prison sentence in the Kırıkkale F-type prison.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 18 August 1980 the applicant was arrested on the charge of membership of the DEV-SOL (Revolutionary Left), an illegal organisation. During his detention in police custody, he was allegedly subjected to ill‑treatment.
In 1981 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant, along with 1242 other persons, on the charge of attempting to undermine the constitutional order, an offence proscribed by Article 146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code. On 1 November 1991 the Istanbul Martial Law Court gave its judgment in the case. The applicant does not know whether he was convicted as he was not served with the judgment.
Following promulgation of the Law of 26 December 1994 abolishing the jurisdiction of the martial law courts, the Court of Cassation acquired jurisdiction over the case and the case file was sent to it. On an unspecified date the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court and remitted the case to the Üsküdar Assize Court.
According to the information in the case file, the criminal proceedings against the applicant and 1242 other persons are still pending before the Üsküdar Assize Court (case no. 2004/393).
The applicant is currently serving a prison sentence arising from another conviction.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment while detained in police custody.
The applicant maintains under Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Convention that he was tried by a martial law court and that the domestic courts did not provide him with the documents relating to his trial.
The applicant finally complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment while detained in police custody. He further submits under Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Convention that he was tried by a military court and that the domestic courts did not provide him with the documents relating to his trial.
The Court considers that the applicant’s complaint under Article 2 should be examined under Article 3 of the Convention.
However, the Court finds that the aforementioned complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence.
It follows that this part of the application should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
2. The applicant alleges under Article 6 of the Convention that he did not have a trial within a reasonable time.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning right to a hearing within a reasonable time;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

	Sally Dollé	Françoise Tulkens 
	Registrar	President