This decision was rendered by the European Court of Human Rights in Akdag v. Turkey (application no. 75460/10), ECHR.Ukrainian Aspect reports.

Thus, after his detention and lengthy interrogation, Hamdie Akdag admitted that she was a member of the Kurdistan Workers' Party banned in Turkey. She gave detailed evidence of her involvement in the illegal organization. The interrogation record indicated that the woman had waived her right to be represented.

Later, when the suspect was able to consult with a lawyer, she gave up her initial testimony. Akdag also stated in court that she had been beaten on the head at the police station, threatened with rape and killed. That is why she was forced to sign the testimony.

However, the Turkish court, basing its judgment on Akdag's initial testimony, found her guilty and sentenced her to prison. After a failed appeal, Akdag appealed to the ECtHR.

The applicant's complaint about the use of threats and force in Strasbourg was rejected on the ground of lack of evidence, but in part with the participation of the ECtHR's lawyer, she questioned the accuracy of her refusal by the defense lawyer, having obtained access to a lawyer and refused her testimony. At the same time, neither the lawfulness of the refusal of a lawyer nor the testimony given at the police station without the presence of a lawyer were analyzed by the national courts. Such lack of review could not be offset by any other safeguards and the overall fairness of the case was thus compromised.

As a result, the ECtHR found that there had been a violation of § 1 and § 1. "c" of item 3 of Art. 6 (right to a fair trial / access to a lawyer) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. But in the fair satisfaction case, the court decided that the admission of the violation had already offset the non-pecuniary damage.