Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Seyhan and Others v. Türkiye:
1. The Seyhan and Others v. Türkiye case, involving over 850 applicants, addresses the fairness of trials and convictions in Türkiye for membership in the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure” (FETÖ/PDY), particularly in cases where the use of the encrypted messaging app ByLock was a key piece of evidence. The court examined whether the Turkish courts violated Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the Convention. The core issue was whether the domestic courts provided adequate safeguards regarding the ByLock data, allowing the applicants to effectively challenge the evidence against them. The Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1, citing the domestic courts’ uniform approach to ByLock evidence as conclusive proof of guilt, which did not allow for effective challenges. The Court decided not to separately examine the admissibility and merits of the Article 7 complaints.
2. The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the subject matter of the case, focusing on the applicants’ convictions and the role of ByLock evidence. It then addresses the joinder of the numerous applications due to their similar subject matter. The core of the decision lies in the Court’s assessment of alleged violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 7 of the Convention. The Court examines the arguments presented by both the applicants and the Turkish Government, referencing its previous rulings in similar cases, particularly Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye and Demirhan and Others v. Türkiye. The decision also addresses other alleged violations of the Convention, ultimately deciding that it is not necessary to examine them separately due to the finding regarding Article 6 § 1. Finally, the judgment discusses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, concerning just satisfaction for the applicants.
3. **** The most important aspect of this decision is the confirmation that Turkish courts’ approach to ByLock evidence, treating its mere use as conclusive proof of guilt, violates Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. This has significant implications for numerous individuals convicted on similar grounds in Türkiye. The Court highlights that this violation stems from a systemic issue within the Turkish judicial system’s handling of ByLock evidence, rather than isolated incidents. The decision also emphasizes that the applicants have the possibility to seek the reopening of domestic proceedings in light of the principles enunciated in Yüksel Yalçınkaya.
