CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 7 mars 1996

.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 }                    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                        Application No. 23178/94                              Sükran Aydin                               against                                 Turkey                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                      (adopted on 7 March 1996)                            TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             Page     I.    INTRODUCTION      (paras. 1-43). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        A.    The application           (paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        B.    The proceedings           (paras. 5-38) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        C.    The present Report           (paras. 39-43). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS      (paras. 44-160). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6        A.    The particular circumstances of the case           (paras. 45-58). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6        B.    The evidence before the Commission           (paras. 59-148) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8             1) Documentary evidence              (paras. 59-100). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8             2) Oral evidence               (paras. 101-148). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16        C.    Relevant domestic law and practice           (paras. 149-158). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24        D.    Relevant international material           (paras. 159-160). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION      (paras. 161-222) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28        A.    Complaints declared admissible           (para. 161) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28        B.    Points at issue           (para. 162) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28        C.    The evaluation of the evidence           (paras. 163-181). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28        D.    As regards Article 3 of the Convention           (paras 182-189) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34             CONCLUSION           (para. 190) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                               Page            E.    As regards Articles 6 para. 1 and 13 of the Convention           (paras. 191-204). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36             CONCLUSIONS           (paras. 205-206). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39        F.    As regards Article 25 of the Convention           (paras. 207-217). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39             CONCLUSION           (para. 218) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43        G.    Recapitulation           (paras. 219-222). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43       DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK. . . . . . . . . . 44   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. G.H. THUNE. . . . . . . . 45   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. N. BRATZA, JOINED BY MM. S. TRECHSEL, J.-C. SOYER, H.G. SCHERMERS AND B. MARXER. 46     APPENDIX   : DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE             ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION. 47I.INTRODUCTION   1.    The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.     A.    The application   2.    The applicant is a Turkish citizen resident in Derik and born in 1976. She is represented before the Commission by Professor K. Boyle and Ms. F. Hampson, both teachers at the University of Essex.   3.    The application is directed against Turkey. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. B. Çaglar.   4.    The applicant complains that she was tortured while held in custody by the State security forces, being subject, inter alia, to rape. She invokes Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention.   B.    The proceedings   5.    The application was introduced on 21 December 1993 and registered on 7 January 1994.   6.    On 5 April 1994, the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits before 5 July 1994. At the Government's request, this time-limit was subsequently extended until 5 August 1994.   7.    By letter of 29 July 1994 the Government asked for a further extension of the time-limit until 12 September 1994. The Commission's Secretary answered, by letter of 4 August 1994, that the President of the Commission had not granted a further extension of the period concerned.   8.    By letter of 6 September 1994 the Commission's Secretary pointed out to the Government that the period for the submission of the Government's observations had expired long ago. It was added that the application was being considered for inclusion in the list of cases for examination by the Commission at its October or November session.   9.    On 28 November 1994, the Commission declared the application admissible, no observations having been submitted by the Government.   10.   The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 5 December 1994 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished. They were also invited to indicate the oral evidence they might wish to put before delegates.   11.   On 27 January 1995, the Government submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. By letter dated 15 February 1995, the Government proposed the names of persons to be called as witnesses.   12.   On 8 April 1995, the Commission decided to take oral evidence in respect of the applicants' allegations. It appointed three delegates for this purpose: Mrs. G.H. Thune, Mrs. J. Liddy and Mr. N. Bratza. It notified the parties by letter of 10 April 1995, proposing certain witnesses.   13.   By letter dated 21 April 1995, the applicant's representatives made proposals as regards witnesses.   14.   On 28 April 1995, the Commission's Secretariat requested the Government to provide the names of certain witnesses and to submit the copies of documents relating to the subject-matter of the application.   15.   On 15 May 1995, the Government provided the requested documents and on 6 June 1995, the names of the witnesses. By letter dated 26 May 1995, the Commission's delegates requested the opportunity to inspect in Ankara the original custody record for Derik gendarme headquarters.   16.   By letter dated 9 June 1995, the applicant's representatives submitted complaints of intimidation of the applicant's father by the security forces. By letter dated 26 June 1995, the Government responded to the allegations.   17.   Evidence was heard by the delegation of the Commission in Ankara from 12 to 14 July 1995. Before the Delegates the Government were represented by Mr. B. Çaglar, Agent, assisted by Mr. T. Özkarol, Mr. A. Someren, Ms. B. Pekgöz, Mr. A. Kurudal, Ms. S. Eminagaoglu, M. M. Kilic, M. T. Toros and Mr. A. Kaya. The applicant, who did not appear herself, was represented by Professor K. Boyle and Ms. F. Hampson, counsel, assisted by Ms. A. Reidy and Ms. D. Deniz (interpreter). Further documentary material was submitted by the Government and the applicant's representatives during the hearings. At the conclusion of the hearings, and later confirmed by letter of 25 July 1995, the Delegates requested the Government to provide certain documents and information concerning matters arising out of the hearings.   18.   On 7 August 1995, the applicant's representatives informed the Commission that the applicant wished to continue with her application and agreed to attend a hearing in Strasbourg.   19.   On 28 August 1995, the Government provided a videotape of a television programme and on 30 August copies of some of the requested documents. On 6 September 1995, they provided a video film and plans of the Derik gendarme headquarters.   20.   On 9 September 1995, the Commission decided to take further evidence in the case in Strasbourg, to which the applicant would be invited to attend with other witnesses. The date was fixed at 18 October 1995.   21.   By letter dated 14 September 1995, the Commission's Secretariat reminded the Government that it had not supplied certain information which had been requested by the Delegates nor documents and information which had been offered by the Government at the hearing in July.   22.   By letter dated 14 September 1995, the applicant's representatives complained to the Commission that the applicant's father had been subject to unwarranted contact by the security forces.   23.   By letters dated 26 September and 11 October 1995, the Government submitted comments on the procedure adopted by the Commission in the case. By letter dated 9 October 1995, the Government submitted copies of domestic court judgments (decisions on rape allegations by the Military Court of Cassation and Mardin Assize Court) by 12 October 1995, part of the information referred to in the Commission's letter of 14 September 1995. By letter dated 13 October 1995, the Government informed the Commission that the witness, Ali Kocaman, was not fit to travel and would not appear.   24.   On 18 October 1995, the Commission's Delegates heard oral submissions from the representatives of the parties regarding the absence of the applicant and other matters.   Before the Delegates the Government were represented by Mr. B. Çaglar, Agent, assisted by Mr. T. Özkarol, Mr. A. Kurudal and Mr. A. Kaya. The applicant was represented by Ms. F. Hampson, counsel, assisted by Ms. A. Reidy and Mr. Yildiz. The Delegates adjourned the hearing. On 19 October 1995, the Delegates heard evidence from the applicant. The parties submitted various documents on 18 and 19 October 1995. These included an undated statement from Ali Kocaman presented by the Government, accompanied by a medical report, relating to his absence from the hearing.   25. On   27 October 1995, the Commission decided to invite the parties to present their written conclusions on the merits of the case and to request the Government to submit information on certain points.   26.   On 9 November 1995, the applicant's husband contacted the Secretariat which was in Diyarbakir with the Commission's Delegates in respect of taking evidence in other applications.   27.   On 15 November 1995, the applicant's representatives complained to the Commission of harassment of the applicant and her family from the security forces and requested the application of Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure in relation to directing the Government to stop all contact by state officials with the applicant and   her family concerning her application. The allegations were transmitted by the Commission to the Turkish Government for urgent response. The Government requested an extension in the time-limit for response until 15 December 1995.   28.   By letters dated 27 and 28 November and 4 December 1995, the applicant's representatives made further submissions regarding alleged intimidation, which were brought to the attention of the Government.   29.   On 8 December 1995, the Commission decided not to apply Rule 36 of its Rules of Procedure. It decided to draw to the attention of the Government the serious consequences which might arise from intimidation and harassment of an applicant and members of his/her family in connection with an application before the Commission. It invited the Government to respond to the applicant's allegations by its next session.   30.   By letter dated 22 December 1995, the applicant's representatives made further complaints relating to the intimidation and harassment of members of the applicant's family. These were sent to the Government who were reminded of their lack of response to the earlier complaints drawn to their attention.   31.   On 10 January 1996, the applicant submitted her   observations on the merits.   32.   On 12 January 1996, the Government made submissions relating to the allegations of interference with the right of individual petition under Article 25 of the Convention.   33.   On 19 January 1996, the   Commission noted the Government's response to the allegations of interference with the right of individual petition under Article 25 of the Convention and decided to proceed immediately to the adoption of a report on the merits.   34.   By letter dated 15 February 1996, the Government enclosed a magazine article including an interview with the applicant, which it alleged was in breach of the confidentiality of the proceedings.   35.   By letter dated 20 February 1996, the Government furnished some further details relating to the plan of Derik gendarme headquarters.   36.   By letter received by the Commission on 4 March 1996, the Government submitted observations in Turkish, without accompanying translation into an official language and without the supporting documentation referred to therein.   37.   On 7 March 1996, the Commission decided that no action was required in respect of the magazine article submitted by the Government. Having regard to the lateness of the submission of the Government's observations, which were in Turkish and without supporting documentation, the Commission decided not to take them into account.   38.   After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.    The present Report   39.   The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:             MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President                H. DANELIUS                C.L. ROZAKIS                E. BUSUTTIL                G. JÖRUNDSSON                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                J.-C. SOYER                H.G. SCHERMERS           Mrs. G.H. THUNE           Mr.   F. MARTINEZ           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                J.-C. GEUS                M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                B. MARXER                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                J. MUCHA                E. KONSTANTINOV                D. SVÁBY                G. RESS                A. PERENIC                C. BÎRSAN                P. LORENZEN     40.   The text of this Report was adopted on 7 March 1996 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   41.   The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:        (i)   to establish the facts, and        (ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose           a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under           the Convention.   42.   The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is attached hereto as an Appendix.   43.   The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.     II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   44.   The facts of the case, particularly concerning events in or about 29 June 1993, are disputed by the parties. For this reason, pursuant to Article 28 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, the Commission has conducted an investigation, with the assistance of the parties, and has accepted written material, as well as oral testimony, which has been submitted. The Commission first presents a brief outline of the events, as claimed by the parties, and then a summary of the evidence submitted to it.   A.    The particular circumstances of the case   1.    Facts as presented by the applicant   45.   The various accounts of events as submitted in written and oral statements by the applicant and other members of her family are summarised in   Section B: "Evidence before the Commission". The version as presented in the applicant's final observations on the merits is summarised here.   46.   In the early hours of 29 June 1993, the applicant, her father, Seydo Aydin and her sister-in-law Ferahdiba Aydin were taken from their village Tasit, in Derik district, by village guards and gendarme officers. They were taken to Derik gendarme headquarters. During her detention, the applicant was blindfolded. She was taken to a "torture room" where she was beaten, stripped naked, placed in a tyre and hosed with pressurised water. In another separate room, she was   stripped and raped by a member of the security forces. She and the other members of her family were released after three days on or about 2 July 1993.   2.    Facts as presented by the Government   47.   The Government have not presented any final written submissions on the merits regarding the assessment of the oral evidence and other material before the Commission.   48.   In their observations following the admissibility of the application, they submitted that the custody record for the Derik gendarme headquarters indicated that the applicant and the other members of her family were not held in detention as alleged and that intelligence reports and other evidence revealed that the applicant had been engaged in intimate relations with two members of the PKK.   49.   During the taking of evidence in Ankara on 12-14 July 1995 and in Strasbourg on 19 October 1995, the Government Agent pointed to alleged discrepancies and inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence, including a failure to recognise the photographs of Derik gendarme headquarters, her description of the texture of the   military uniform of her assailant which did not appear to accord with the fact that the Turkish security forces wear summer uniform in July and that her father did not support her version that her clothes had been torn.   3.    Proceedings before the domestic authorities   50.   On 8 July 1993, the applicant, her father Seydo Aydin and her sister-in-law Ferahdiba Aydin went to the Derik public prosecutor's office to complain about their treatment in custody. The public prosecutor took statements from each of them. He sent them for a medical examination on the same day to the doctor in Derik State hospital, Dr. Deniz Akkus.He requested the doctor to establish the blows and physical violation marks if any, in respect of Seydo and Ferahdiba.   In respect of the applicant, he requested that she be examined to establish whether she was a virgin and the presence of any marks of physical violation or injury. A report was given by Dr. Deniz Akkus on 8 July 1993 in respect of each person.   51.   On 9 July 1993, the public prosecutor sent the applicant to be examined at the Mardin state hospital with a request to establish whether she had lost her virginity and if so, the time lapse. A report of that date was produced by Dr. Ziya Çetin.   52.   On 17 August 1993, a further report was issued by Diyarbakir Maternity hospital following the referral of the applicant by the public prosecutor on 12 August 1993 with a request to establish whether she had lost her virginity and if so, the time lapse.   53.   On 13 July 1993, the public prosecutor wrote to Derik gendarme headquarters inquiring as to whether the applicant, her father and sister-in-law had been held in custody there and if so, to give details of the dates and duration of the detention and the names of those interrogating. By letter dated 14 July 1993, the commander of the headquarters, Musa Çitil, replied that they had not been taken into detention. He supplied a copy of the entries for 1993 on 21 July 1993.   54.   On 22 July 1993, the public prosecutor wrote to Derik gendarme headquarters requesting them to send for inspection the custody ledger for the months June-July 1993.   55.   The public prosecutor sent the files (relating to the applicant) to the second specialist committee in Ankara. By letter dated 22 December 1993, the Chief Coroner requested that the applicant attend for an examination by the committee.   56.   The public prosecutor   wrote to the Chief of Security in Derik on 18 January 1994 and 17 February 1994 requesting that the applicant be brought to the office of the Attorney General. A letter of 18 April 1994 referred to receiving no reply. By letter dated 13 May 1994, the public prosecutor informed the Chief of Security at Derik that the applicant, her father and sister-in-law should attend at his office.   57.   By report dated 13 May 1994 in response to a request for information of 9 May 1994, the public prosecutor reported to the office of the Attorney General in Mardin that there was no evidence to support the applicant's unsubstantiated claims but that the investigation continued.   58.   On 18 May 1994, the applicant's father made a statement to the public prosecutor at Derik.   B.    The evidence before the Commission        1)    Documentary evidence   59.   The parties submitted various documents, photographs and plans to the Commission. The documents included reports about Turkey (including extracts on Turkey from the Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture (E/CN.4/1995/34) and the Amnesty International report "Turkey: The Health Professionals in the Emergency Zone, Southeast Turkey, Eur/44/146/94"), medical reports and statements from the applicant and witnesses concerning their version of the events in issue in this case. The Government also provided case-law from domestic courts and two video-cassettes, one recording a television programme about another allegation of rape in South-East Turkey (wherein a woman showed distress because apparently she had been wrongly named as the complainant) and one showing the Derik gendarme headquarters.   60.   The Commission had particular regard to the following documents:        a) Statements by the applicant        Statement of 8 July 1993 taken by Derik public prosecutor   61.   On 29 June 1993, at about 06.00 hours, a non-commissioned officer, accompanied by some village guards, arrived at the applicant's village (Tasit) and took the applicant, her father and her sister-in- law to Derik gendarme headquarters where they were detained for three days. They were kept in separate places. She was blindfolded. She was tortured to make her give information about the hiding places of terrorists. She was hit by fists, kicked in the eyes, arms and legs. They took off her clothes and on separate occasions she was raped three times. When she saw that she was bleeding, she realised that she had lost her virginity. Because she was blindfolded, she did not know who or how many raped her. Later, they were taken to the mountain and put under pressure to show where the terrorists were, shots being fired into the air to frighten them. They were released separately.        Statement of 12 August 1993 taken by Derik public prosecutor   62.   The applicant stated that she had been married to her cousin Abidin Aydin for the last fifteen days.        Statement undated taken by the Human Rights Association,      Diyarbakir submitted with application of 21 December 1993   63.   The applicant's representatives state that this statement was made on the same date, 15 July 1993, that the applicant thumbprinted a letter of authority in their favour. The statement states as follows.   64.   At about 17.00 hours on the evening of 29 June 1993, a group of village guards and special teams came to the applicant's village. In the morning, before the sun had risen, four people came into the applicant's house and asked them to identify those who came to their house at night (PKK terrorists). After insults and threats, the applicant and members of her family were taken to the village square where the villagers were assembled. The applicant, her father and sister-in-law were blindfolded and taken to Derik gendarme headquarters. They were separated from each other and held in different places. The applicant was taken to a torture chamber. They were stripped naked and forced into two car wheels, which were spun round.They were also beaten and sprayed with pressurised cold water. At about midday, the applicant and her sister-in-law were taken out of the torture chamber and returned to the room she had been kept in. She was taken back to the interrogation room. The door was locked. An individual in military clothing ripped off her dress and stripped her. He held her mouth to stop her shouting. He laid her on her back and raped her. Her sister-in-law had been   brought to the door and was being kept waiting, naked. When the man raping her had finished, he told her to get dressed. The applicant was covered in blood and in severe pain. In the evening she was taken to the interrogation room and was beaten, slapped and kicked badly for about an hour by a man with a beard in plainclothes with other people in the room joining in   and warning her that she should not tell anyone what had been done to her.   65.   On the third day, the applicant, her father and sister-in-law were released. She was released alone in the mountains near her village and was threatened that she should not tell anyone that she had been raped or other things would happen to her.        Statement of 1 April 1994 taken by the Human Rights Association      (HRA), Diyarbakir   66.   The applicant stated that while she was being detained she had been threatened that if she made her experiences public, particularly in Europe they would take her and her family into custody and kill them. After they were released, they left their village and went to live in Derik. The matter was published in a newspaper and she had complained to Europe. She was constantly afraid, remembering the threats that had been made. Because of the effect of rape on young girls in society, she has no relations with people and cannot talk even to members of her family or to her husband. She became pregnant after her marriage to her cousin, which took place after the rape, and some people thought that the child was not her husband's. Because of this, she and her husband went to a gynaecologist in Diyarbakir who was able to establish that her husband was the father of her child. The incident will affect her psychologically for the rest of her life.        b) Statements by other persons        Seydo Aydin        Statement of 8 July 1993 taken by Derik public prosecutor   67.   On 29 June 1993, at about 06.00 hours, a non-commissioned officer accompanied by some village guards, arrived at his village and took him, his daughter Sükran and his daughter-in-law to the Derik central gendarme headquarters, where they were held for three days. They were blindfolded and kept in separate places. He was tortured, officials hitting him on the face and legs with fists and sticks, trying to make him confess that he had sheltered terrorists in his house. He could not see who was torturing him, but they were speaking Kurdish. Later, they took him, his daughter and daughter-in-law into the mountains, and threatened to kill them to make them show where the terrorists were sheltered, shooting in the air to frighten them. They were released in separate locations. Later he talked to his daughter and daughter-in-law who said that they had been tortured. His daughter told him that she had been raped. He wanted the people who tortured them and raped his daughter to be punished.        Statement of 8 July 1993 taken by Derik public prosecutor   68.   On 23 or 29 (number almost illegible) June 1993, at about 06.00 hours, a non-commissioned officer accompanied by some village guards, arrived at his village and took him, his daughter Sükran and his daughter-in-law to the Derik central gendarme headquarters. On the way, the village guards were talking in Kurdish and he understood that they had been on an operation and in order not to return empty-handed, they intended to threaten and force them to confess that they sheltered terrorists in their house. During the three days in the headquarters, they were subjected to all kinds of rough treatment, physical and psychological torture. His daughter was raped and his daughter-in-law was tortured after being undressed. They were threatened that they should not reveal the incident to anyone or make any complaint.        Statement of 18 May 1994 taken by Derik public prosecutor   69.   He stated that the applicant and her husband had left the district two months before to find work and his daughter-in-law and her husband had also left. He did not know their addresses but would inform the prosecutor if he found out.        Additional statement of 18 May 1994 taken by Derik public      prosecutor   70.   On 29 June 1993, at about 06.00 hours, a non-commissioned officer, accompanied by about 10-15 village guards, arrived at his village and took him, his daughter Sükran and his daughter-in-law to the Derik central gendarme headquarters, claiming that two terrorists came to their house. They were blindfolded as soon as they were taken but at the gendarme headquarters the station commander sergeant took off his blindfold and interrogated him. He was blindfolded again afterwards.   71.   His daughter and daughter-in-law had left the district in March. He did not know their addresses but would inform the public prosecutor if he learned of their whereabouts.        Statement of 16 November 1995 taken by the Human Rights      Association (HRA) in Diyarbakir   72.   He stated that on 22 August he had informed Mahmut Sakar (a lawyer at the Human Rights Association) that he had been called to Derik security directorate in the previous month time after time and told to give the applicant's address or to bring her to Derik. He was threatened on these occasions. He confirmed the truth of the statement which he had given to Mahmut Sakar to be transmitted to the Commission (communicated to the Secretariat by the applicant's representatives by a letter dated 9 June 1995 with enclosure to the effect that on or about 28-29 May 1995 the security forces had visited the applicant's father, asked where the applicant was and told him that he should be careful, that he was becoming too involved).   73.   On 14 November 1995, he and his daughter-in-law Ferahdiba Aksin (Aydin) were called to Derik Security Directorate to give a statement. On 15 November 1995, when they went to the directorate they were told to go to the public prosecutor to give a statement which they did.   At the Derik public prosecutor's office, Ferahdiba was asked questions about what had happened when she was taken into custody and she made a statement in which she confirmed her previous account.        Ferahdiba Aydin        Statement dated 8 July 1993 taken by Derik public prosecutor   74.   Ferahdiba Aydin, aged 25-30 years, stated that on 29 June 1993, at about 06.00 hours, a non-commissioned officer accompanied by village guards, arrived at her village and took her, her father-in-law and her sister-in-law, Sükran to the Derik central gendarme headquarters. They were blindfolded and held in separate rooms for three days. Officers tortured her, claiming that they had sheltered terrorists. She was slapped on the face and hit on the arms. They stripped her clothes off, sat her on top of a car wheel and ill-treated her. She was not raped. She was tortured in this way five times. Later they were taken, blindfolded to the mountains and threatened to make them reveal the terrorists' hideout. She was told that her father-in-law and sister-in- law were killed and they threatened to kill her if she did not talk. They were released separately and threats were made that they would be killed if they told anyone. She stated that she lodged a complaint against the persons who tortured her. Guns were fired in the air to frighten them.        Ali Kocaman        Statement of 24 May 1995 taken by public prosecutor Cahit Cantepe   75.   From 1992 to 1994, Ali Kocaman, born in 1964, served under Derik gendarmerie district command. For one year, he was in the command of Derik Central Gendarmerie Station. He remembered the name, Sükran Aydin, but not the incident of Sükran and Ferahdiba Aydin being raped and Seydo Aydin being beaten since thousands of incidents occurred every day at the station. Officers whom he had assigned to patrol duties could have brought these people into custody on patrol but this could be checked in the custody record and the duty register would indicate the identities of the officers on patrol that day. He did not rape Sükran Aydin or Ferahdiba Aydin nor beat Seydo Aydin. The incident occurred a long time ago. He had received head injuries in a road accident and did not fully or clearly remember the   incident.        Undated statement presented by Government on 18 October 1995   76.   Ali Kocaman stated that following his accident he continued to have problems with his health, including loss of memory, problems with balance, headaches and fatigue. He accordingly stated that he was not in a fit state to travel to Strasbourg or to testify properly. The accompanying medical certificate referred to a medical examination carried out on 27 September 1995, which revealed that his general condition was good, that he complained of occasional forgetfulness and there was a restriction of peripheral vision in his left eye.        Harun Aca        Statement of 26 May 1994 taken by public prosecutor, Bekir Özenir   77.   Harun Aca, born in 1966, joined the PKK in 1992. From February 1993, he operated in the Derik region. On 4 April 1994, he surrendered to the security forces, applying to take advantage of the Amnesty Act for surrendered terrorists. During his time in the Derik region, they used Seydo Aydin's house, he and other members visiting it frequently. A terrorist told him that, in about April and May 1993, the applicant was having sexual relationships with two other terrorists.        Abit Aydin        Statement of 19 October 1995   78.   Abit Aydin stated that he was the husband of Sükran Aydin. After his wife began her case at the European Commission of Human Rights, they were harassed constantly by the state security forces where they lived in Derik. Because of this, they left Derik 7-8 months ago without telling anyone and went to live in Canicula and then in Bursa. They had difficulty finding work and getting enough to eat. In September 1995, they returned to Derik having received an invitation to go to Strasbourg to the Commission. His wife signed a statement that she would go and some time later they returned to complete the paperwork (passports etc).   79.   On their return to Derik about the middle of September 1995, three plainclothes policemen came to their house in Derik and took them to the Derik Security Directorate. They had to stand in a room for three or four hours. Later, someone came and questioned them, asking where they had been for the last 8-9 months, who had initiated their application to Europe against Turkey and who had shown them how to do that.   The police were aggressive and   told him to return the next day or he would be brought back again.   80.   Later the same day, the police returned to the house and took his wife a second time to the Security Directorate with her husband's cousin. She told him that she was given a paper to sign and that when she said she could not write, they made the cousin sign. She did not know what the paper said.   81.   The next day, the police took Seydo Aydin from his house and went to his house, where, on his return, he found them conducting a search and asking to be told where the guns were hidden. He, his wife and Seydo Aydin were taken to the Security Directorate. After being kept standing for two-three hours, they were released. Three-four days later, the police took them to see the public prosecutor. The prosecutor said that they were lying about the case, that no such incident occurred and that they were repeating a scenario written for them by Ferahdiba. He was taken from the room, leaving his wife with the prosecutor. She told him that the prosecutor repeated these things and made her sign a paper the contents of which she did not know.   82.   From the time of their return to Derik, they have been harassed almost every night, by having stones thrown at the house or the door being struck by something solid. The neighbours have said that it is security forces doing this. Prior to their return to Derik, while they were in Canicula, his father was threatened by two armed people outside the house, who said that they would kill him like a dog. He stated that they lived in great fear and have no guarantee of safety. His wife also stated that she was sick of persecution and terrified.        Statement of 8 November 1995   83.   On 1 November 1995, at about 20.40 hours, 10-15 police officers from Derik Security in civilian clothes, carrying radios and weapons carried out a search on their house. Nothing was found. The police officers asked why they had gone abroad. They replied that they were defending their civil rights. The police asked what the result was, to which they replied that they did not know.        c) Medical evidence        Concerning the applicant        Medical report dated 8 July 1993 of Dr. Deniz Akkus, Derik state      hospital   84.   This report stated that the applicant was not a virgin. There were tearmarks of the hymen at 6 and 11 o'clock. It was not possible to establish if the loss of virginity was recent or not. There was widespread bruising (ecchymosis) around the insides of the thigh.        Medical report dated 9 July 1993 of Dr. Ziya Çetin, Mardin state      hospital   85.   The report noted old defloration marks on the hymen 6th and 7th level. There was no hyperaemia. Defloration was older than a week.        Medical report dated 13 August 1993 from the Diyarbakir maternity      hospital   86.   The report stated that the applicant was subject to a virginity test. It noted an old defloration tear mark on the hymen 6-7 level. Hymen perforations recover between 7-10 days. Older   perforations could not be accurately dated. It would be more accurate to take into consideration   the datings referred to in previous medical reports.        Report of 7 July 1995 by Dr. Milroy, Department of Forensic      Pathology, University of Sheffield (United Kingdom)   87.   This report was submitted by the applicant's representatives in light of the three medical reports above. It notes that there was no record of any vaginal swabs or specimens being taken. It expresses the view that the findings indicated that vaginal penetration had occurred within the week before Dr. Çetin's examination (in the applicant's observations on the merits, it is noted that this is based on a faulty translation of Dr. Çetin's report). The finding of bruising on the inner thighs by Dr. Akkus   is a classic finding in rape cases, the thighs being forced apart by the assailant's hands.        Report dated 13 October 1995 by a team of professors from the      faculty of medicine at the University of Hacettepe (Turkey)   88.   This report was submitted by the Government and has regard to the three medical reports above and the report of Dr. Milroy.   89.   It comments that the lack of indication of coloration of the bruising in Dr. Akkus' report makes it impossible to date the incident, though the fact that no bruising remained when the applicant was examined at Diyarbakir maternity hospital 17 days later indicates that the incident causing the bruising must have been old. The existence of the bruising does not prove rape.   It considered that the absence of hyperaemia and the existence of cicatrisation show that medically the incident occurred at least 15-20 days earlier.   90.   The report disagrees with the opinion of Dr.   Milroy, commenting that he has not taken into account the findings of Dr. Çetin as to the absence of hyperaemia and the existence of cicatrisation. Further, if the bruising had been caused by a rapist, the marks on the applicant's legs would have been in the shape of fingers and not widespread, whereas widespread ecchymoses are normal for those who regularly ride on horses or donkeys. The marks could also have been caused deliberately by the person herself. It concluded that the defloration must have occurred at least 15 days before the report of 8 July 1993 and it was not possible medically to determine whether the loss of virginity was caused with the use of force.        Concerning the applicant's father, Seydo Aydin        Medical report dated 8 July 1993 of Dr. Deniz Akkus, Derik state      hospital   91.   The copy of the handwritten note was largely illegible and the contents clarified when read by Dr. Akkus before the Delegates.   92.   Seydo Aydin had a loose front tooth in the upper jaw which he stated was the result of a blow. There was a swelling on the front of the left ankle. Recovery might occur in four days.        Concerning the applicant's sister-in-law, Ferahdiba Aydin        Medical report dated 8 July 1993 of Dr. Deniz Akkus, Derik state      hospital   93.   Ferahdiba Aydin had a swelling on the left cheek bone and marks on her right arm. Recovery would occur in four days.        d) Custody records   94.   The Commission has been provided with a copy of the 1993 entries in the custody register for Derik gendarme headquarters. The Delegates were given the opportunity in Ankara to inspect the original register.   95.   The entries for 1993 indicated that 6 persons were held in custody at various times during the year on grounds, inter alia, of suspicion of harbouring the PKK (in two cases) and of being a deserter. One person is recorded as being held from 23 April to 26 April and another from 20 to 27 August 1993. They do not include the names of the applicant or other membe