The applicants stated that they did not know these persons, and that they did not accept the parts of the statements that were against them.

The applicants complained of the conditions in which they were detained in the transit zone, alleging that there were no bedrooms or beds and that they were housed in the mosque located there; that they

the decisions of the domestic courts, and asked them to choose the means by which they wanted their property rights in respect of the plot of land of 0.4863 hectares to be restored.

They assembled the villagers in the village square telling them that they would carry out a search of the buildings. Then they threw white powder on the buildings and set them on fire.

She had then hidden in the flat with her son. After her husband had been hit, the officers had continued firing into the flat. The officers had not informed them that they were police officers.

The court found that the applicants had legally occupied apartment no. 93 since 1986, had acquired the right to possess it and that there were no grounds to conclude that they had lost their right to housing

They gathered them in a square outside the village. The security forces accused the villagers of assisting the PKK. They then dispersed among the houses and set them on fire.

He first informed the applicants of the nature and cause of the accusations against them and then read out the statements they had made to the officers during their detention in custody.

that the conditions do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim

In this respect it is stated that the applicants did not fully use this right since they did not request the inclusion of their specific questions into the letters rogatory; it is stated, however, that

The soldiers then entered the village, gathered all the villagers near the village mosque, asked the villagers whether there were any PKK members in the area and whether they had been giving them food.

their diplomas, unless they had paid the requisite schooling fees. 1.5.

At the end of their detention, the prosecutor at the State Security Court took statements from the applicants in which they all rejected the charges against them as well as the allegations of G. and the

They were ill-treated while in custody. Three of them were taken to the garrison of the Russian army, where they claim they were guarded and tortured by soldiers of that army.

They turned on the light and shouted at the applicants while pointing their machine guns at them.

At the end of their shift they would return to the gendarmerie station together with the soldiers.

Secondly, the defendants complained that they were not legally summonsed and were not notified of the date and time of the hearing, and that the examination of the case in their absence deprived them of

    The applicants then went to the campus to check whether their son was indeed there but he was not.

The male members of the family were taken into the courtyard where they were ordered to take off their shirts and were body searched. The military also searched the household.