CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 17 octobre 1994

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                      AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 22494/93                       by Hasan ILHAN                       against Turkey        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 17 October 1994, the following members being present:             MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                S. TRECHSEL                A. WEITZEL                F. ERMACORA                E. BUSUTTIL                G. JÖRUNDSSON                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                J.-C. SOYER                H.G. SCHERMERS                H. DANELIUS           Mrs. G.H. THUNE           MM.   F. MARTINEZ                C.L. ROZAKIS           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                J.-C. GEUS                M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                G.B. REFFI                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                J. MUCHA                E. KONSTANTINOV                D. SVÁBY                G. RESS             Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 23 July 1993 by Hasan Ilhan against Turkey and registered on 20 August 1994 under file No. 22494/93;        Having regard to :   -     reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   -     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on      10 March 1994 and the observations in reply submitted by      the applicant on 11 May 1994;          Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant, a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, born in 1921, lives at Yardere Köyü (formerly Ahmetli village). He is represented before the Commission by Professor Kevin Boyle and Ms. Françoise Hampson, both university teachers at the University of Essex.        The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows:        On 21 April 1992 the applicant was in Ahmetli village, Kaynak pasture in the Mardin Central region, when military units attached to the Gendarmerie Command at Mardin went to search the village. They found nothing illegal, but the village head man and the villagers were rounded up and told to leave the village. They were threatened with being killed if they did not leave.        The security forces then burnt and destroyed some village houses. Three babies, so young that they had not yet been named, were killed during the attack. A 90 year old woman, Sultan ilhan, was also killed. Hand grenades were thrown into the villagers' home. Sheepfold and haystacks and winter wood stores were destroyed by fire, with inflammable materials found in the houses. Those parts of burnt out houses that remained standing were demolished with pickaxes. Livestock was killed and the eggs of incubating hens were smashed. Cats and kids (i.e. young goats) were thrown under military vehicles and run over. Dogs were killed in a hail of bullets. The villagers were not allowed to bury the four who had been killed until three days later. As the military units left, they said: "You must leave the village. If we come back and find you here, we will kill you all." When the villagers asked where they could go if they left their village, they were told: "Your road to hell is open."        The villagers left the village and went to stay with relatives in nearby Yardere village, about 1,5 kilometres away. Some time later, the villagers returned to their village to tend their vineyards and orchards. They made tents in which to live and erected them in their vineyards and orchards.        On 30 June 1992 military units encircled the village at about 9 a.m. They saw the tents. They destroyed more houses, including that of the applicant. The security forces went into what was left of his home and smashed up the refrigerator, electrical equipment (eg. his television, cassette player etc) and other goods (eg. wardrobes). When they saw that the villagers would not be separated from their village, the military set fire to the earth in which the vineyards and orchards were planted. This implies that they used some substance to set alight to growing trees. The burning of the ground and crops and trees was achieved by the use of petrol, paraffin and other similar inflammable materials and sometimes by the use of a powder. In the applicant's vineyard and orchard, the following were burnt down:        vines .......... 5 000      peach trees ....    120      fig trees ......    700      almond trees ...    500      apricot trees ..    700      prune trees ....    460      oak trees ...... 1 000 000        All these trees were completely burnt. The applicant's losses amount to 1 5000 000 000 (one and a half thousand million) Turkish Liras. The applicant owned 10 hectares of land.        The applicant complained to the authorities. After the second attack, he wrote to the Central Office of the Motherland Party. On 16 July 1992 he received a reply in which Mesut Yilmaz, the General Secretary promised to pursue the matter. On 30 July 1992 he was sent a copy of a letter regarding his petition from the Department of National Defence in Ankara to the Interior Ministry, because the complaint concerned the High Command of the Gendarmerie General, which the Senior Counsel said was attached to the Interior Ministry. On 19 August 1992 the applicant received a reply from the Chief Adviser to the Prime Minister, saying that the application for compensation had been passed to the relevant authority and that he would be informed of the result by the relevant authority. Since that date the applicant has received no information about any investigation or compensation.        In the early weeks of March 1993 the applicant was on his way from Mardin to the village. He was stopped and searched at Akincilar Military Post. When the replies from Government and party leaders were found on him, the applicant was thrown into the station, beaten up and abused. The soldiers burnt the documents.        The applicant is currently staying at Yardere village, 15-20 kilometres from his home village.   COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains of violations of Articles   3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of the First Protocol.        As to Article 3 he states that he is a victim of the inhuman and degrading practice of clearing villages, a form of collective punnishment. He also refers to discrimination on grounds of race or ethnic origin.        As to Article 5 he complains of complete lack of security of the person.        As to Article 6 he refers to the impossibility of challenging the deprivation of property before it took place, which represents a denial of access to court for the determination of civil rights. He also refers to the failure to initiate proceedings before an independent and impartial tribunal against those responsible for the destruction of property, as a result of which civil proceedings cannot be brought in regard to these events.        As to Article 8 the applicant complains of the destruction of his home.        As to Article 13 he refers to the lack of any independent national authority before which his complaints can be brought with any prospect of success.        As to Article 14 he complains of an administrative practice of discrimination which has affected the enjoyment of his rights under Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of the First Protocol.        As to Article 18 he alleges that the interferences in the exercise of his Convention rights were not designed to secure the ends permitted under the Convention.        As to Article 1 of the First Protocol, the applicant complains of the destruction of his vineyards and orchards.        As to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the applicant states that he has done everything in his power to have the incident investigated and his losses compensated. He has had no response to his petitions and applications, apart from letters of acknowledgement. When soldiers found those replies upon his person, they burned them.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced before the Commission on 23 July 1993 and was registered on 20 August 1993.        On 11 August 1993 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the Turkish Government who were invited to submit their observations on its admissibility and merits before 18 January 1994. At the Government's request, the time-limits fixed in this case and in a number of other cases were extended, for half of the cases until 21 February 1994 and for the other half of the cases until 21 March 1994, it being indicated that the Government could themselves determine in which cases the observations should be submitted before 21 February 1994.        By letter of 10 March 1994 the Government submitted observations in which they raised a preliminary question as to the competence of Professor Boyle and Ms. Hampson to represent the applicant in the proceedings before the Commission. Professor Boyle's and Ms. Hampson's reply to these observations was submitted by letter of 11 May 1994.        On 30 August 1994 the Commission decided to reject the Government's objection to the competence of Professor Boyle and Ms. Hampson. This decision was communicated to the Parties by letters of 2 September 1994 in which the Parties were further informed that the Commission intended to examine the admissibility of the application at its session beginning on 10 October 1994.   THE LAW        The applicant complains of violations of Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Art. 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 18, P1-1) in connection with acts by the security forces in Ahmetli village. These acts included the destruction of the applicant's home as well as his vineyards and orchards.        In their observations of 10 March 1994 the Government raised a preliminary question regarding the competence of Professor Boyle and Ms. Hampson to represent the applicant (see above under PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION). The Government referred in this connection to a procès-verbal according to which the applicant had denied having complained to the Commission and to the applicant's affirmation that he had not raised before any domestic legal authority his complaints regarding the damage caused to him by the security forces. However, the Government, apart from questioning the competence of Professor Boyle and Ms. Hampson to represent the applicant, did not invoke any of the grounds of admissibility laid down in the Convention.        The Government have been informed that their objection to the competence of the applicant's representatives had been rejected and that the Commission intended to examine the admissibility of the application at its session beginning on 10 October 1994.        The Commission notes that the Government have not requested that the application be rejected on the ground that domestic remedies had not been exhausted.        The Commission further notes that the application raises important questions of fact and law which cannot be resolved at the stage of the admissibility but require an examination on the merits. Consequently, the application cannot be considered manifestly ill-founded.        No other ground of inadmissibility is applicable to the present case.   FOR THESE REASONS, the Commission, unanimously,   DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the Commission        President of the Commission   (H.C. KRÜGER)                         (C.A. NØRGAARD)