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. 23186/94                              Azize Mentes                         Mahile Turhalli                        Sulhiye Turhalli                           Sariye Uvat                                 against                                 Turkey                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                      (adopted on 7 March 1996)                            TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                               Page I.    INTRODUCTION      (paras. 1-24). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        A.    The application           (paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        B.    The proceedings           (paras. 5-19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        C.    The present Report           (paras. 20-24). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS      (paras. 25-142). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4        A.    The particular circumstances of the case           (paras. 26-44). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4        B.    The evidence before the Commission           (paras. 45-124) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6             1) Documentary evidence              (paras. 45-71) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6             2) Oral evidence                (paras. 72-124). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13        C.    Relevant domestic law and practice           (paras. 125-142). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION      (paras. 143-227) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28        A.    Complaints declared admissible           (para. 143) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28        B.    Points at issue           (para. 144) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28        C.    The evaluation of the evidence           (paras. 145-181). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28        D.    Concerning the applicants Azize Mentes, Mahile Turhalli           and Sulhiye Turhalli             1.    As regards Article 8 of the Convention                (paras. 182-185) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37                  CONCLUSION                (para. 186). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38             2.    As regards Article 3 of the Convention                (paras. 187-190) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38                  CONCLUSION                (para. 191)   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39             3.    As regards Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention                (paras. 192-196) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39                  CONCLUSION                (para. 197). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39             4.    As regards Articles 6 para. 1 and 13 of the Convention                (paras. 198-208) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40                  CONCLUSIONS                (paras. 209-210) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42             5.    As regards Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention                (paras. 211-214) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42                  CONCLUSIONS                (paras. 215-216) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43        E.    Concerning the fourth applicant, Sariye Uvat           (paras. 217-218). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43             CONCLUSION           (para. 219) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43        F.    Recapitulation           (paras. 220-227). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44     PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK . . . . . . 45   DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. I. CABRAL BARRETO . . . . . . . . 50   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. N. BRATZA. . . . . . . . . 51     APPENDIX   : DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE             ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION. . . . . . . . 52   I.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 applicants are Turkish citizens who were residents of the village of Saggöze (Riz) in the Genç district of the province of Diyarbakir. They were born in or about 1967, 1948, 1940 and 1961 respectively. They were 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 applicants allege that their homes were burnt and that they were forcibly and summarily expelled from their village by State security forces on 25 June 1993.   They invoke Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention. The fourth applicant, Sariye Uvat, invokes Article 2 of the Convention in relation to the death of her twins who were born prematurely after the expulsion from her home.     B.    The proceedings   5.    The application was introduced on 20 December 1993 and registered on 11 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.   7.    The Government's observations were submitted on 8 September 1994, after the expiry of the time-limit fixed for this purpose.   The applicants replied on 2 November 1994.   8.    On 9 January 1995, the Commission declared the application admissible.   9.    The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 19 January 1995 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.   10.   On 20 May 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 22 May 1995, proposing certain witnesses and requesting the Government to identify certain security force personnel and two public prosecutors. The Government were also requested to provide the contents of the investigation files of the two public prosecutors involved in investigating the alleged incident.   11.   By letter dated 31 May 1995, the applicants' representatives requested a further witness to be heard.   12.   By letter dated 3 July 1995, the Commission's Secretariat requested the Government to provide the outstanding information in regard to the identities of relevant witnesses and the contents of the investigation files.   13.   On 6 July 1995, the Government submitted further comments on the facts of the case, with annexed documents relating to terrorist activities in the area.   14. By letter dated 7 July 1995, the Government requested that two witnesses be heard by the Delegates.   15.   Evidence was heard by the delegation of the Commission in Ankara from 10 to 12 July 1995. Before the Delegates the Government were represented by Mr. B. Çaglar, Agent, assisted by Mr. T. Özkarol, Mr. O. Someren, Ms. B. Pekgöz, Mr. A. Kurudal, Ms. S. Eminagaoglu, Mr. M. Kilic, Ms. T. Toros and Mr. A. Kaya. The applicants were 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 during the hearings. At the conclusion of the hearings, and later confirmed by letter of 24 July 1995, the Delegates requested the Government to provide certain documents and information concerning matters arising out of the hearings and again requested to be provided with the contents of the investigation files of the two public prosecutors. The applicants were also requested to provide certain information and documents.   16.   On 31 August 1995, the applicants' representative provided the information and documents requested. On 5 September 1995, the Government provided some of the documents requested.   17.   On 9 September 1995, the Commission decided to invite the parties to present their written conclusions on the merits of the case. By letter dated 9 October 1995, the Secretariat reminded the Government of the information and documents, requested in the earlier letter of 24 July 1995, which had still not been provided.   18.   On 23 November 1995, the applicants submitted their final observations on the merits. On 1 December 1995, the Government submitted comments and factual information relating to the applicants' relatives.   19.   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   20.   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                A. WEITZEL                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                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                J. MUCHA                E. KONSTANTINOV                D. SVÁBY                G. RESS                A. PERENIC                C. BÎRSAN                P. LORENZEN                K. HERNDL   21.   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.   22.   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.   23.   The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is attached hereto as an Appendix.   24.   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   25.   The facts of the case, particularly concerning events in or about 25 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.    Concerning the alleged events in the village of Saggöze (Riz)   26.   The village in which the alleged events took place has been referred to in documents and by witnesses as both Saggöze and Riz. As with many of the villages in the south-east, it has an older, Kurdish or Ottoman name and a newer, official Turkish name. For the sake of convenience, the report refers throughout to the former, which it appears is the name of official usage.        a. Facts as presented by the applicants   27.   The various accounts of events as submitted in written and oral statements by the applicants are summarised in Section B below. The version as presented in the applicants' final observations on the merits is summarised here.   28.   The applicants, Turkish nationals, all lived in hamlets of the village of Saggöze, in the Genç district of the province of Bingöl in South-East Turkey. The applicants, Azize Mentes,   Mahile Turhalli and Sulhiye Turhalli lived in the lower neighbourhood in Saggöze village and the applicant, Sariye Uvat, lived in Piroz, a separate hamlet of the village.   29.   On 23 June 1993, an attack was carried out by the PKK (Kurdish Workers' Party), an armed terrorist group, on Üçdamlar gendarme station. On the evening of the same day, the security forces stopped a minibus belonging to Naif Akgül, which regularly took people between Diyarbakir and the Lice area, as it approached the gendarme station. The security forces set fire to the minibus. The security forces carried out a follow-up operation in pursuit of the PKK who had attacked the station. On 24 June 1993, security forces came to the Pecar (Güldiken) village and burned some of the houses.   30.   On the evening of 24 June 1993, security forces arrived in the area surrounding Saggöze village by helicopter. On the morning of 25 June 1993, gendarmes entered the village and gathered people from the upper neighbourhood in the area in front of the school. Gendarmes in the lower area carried out a search and then proceeded to burn houses in the lower neighbourhood of Saggöze village. Villagers pleaded with the gendarmes not to burn their houses but were told to remain quiet or they too would be thrown on the flames. When asked why they were burning the houses, the gendarmes told the villagers that it was a punishment for helping the PKK.   31.   The house where Azize Mentes lived (which probably belonged to her father-in-law) was burned completely, along with her furniture, firewood, barn and a shed with winter feed for the animals. Mahile Turhalli's house was burned and the gendarmes threatened to throw her into the burning house if she tried to retrieve some of her children's clothes. Sulhiye Turhalli's house was burned, after she and her children had been thrown out and she had been kicked, cursed at and a gun put to her face. In all, ten to thirteen houses in the lower neighbourhood were destroyed. The soldiers told the applicants that they were burning their houses because they helped the terrorists. 32.   The intention of the gendarmes in Saggöze village appeared to have been to burn the whole village in revenge for the attack by the PKK on the gendarme station. However, the arrival of a commanding officer at midday, a colonel who ordered the burning to stop, saved the upper village.   33.   The house of the applicant, Sariye Uvat, in the hamlet of Piroz was burned by the security forces in a separate incident.   34.   The applicants were forced to leave Saggöze and now live elsewhere.   35.   Later, in the autumn of 1993 the remaining population of the village left and in March 1994 the remainder of the village was burned down. By this date in 1994, the entire area seems to have been burned, devastated and depopulated.   36.   The burning of the applicants' homes is consistent with a practice of burning houses as part of the policy by the security forces to combat the PKK, especially where the authorities view villages as giving support to the PKK.        b.    Facts as presented by the Government   37.   The Government have not presented any written submissions on the merits regarding the assessment of the oral evidence and other material before the Commission. In their observations on admissibility, they submitted as follows concerning the facts of the case.   38.   Since 1983 the PKK has sought to use the applicants' village as a place of shelter and supply base. The villagers under the incursions of the terrorists were forced to leave the village. The terrorists used the houses from time to time and when the security forces took action against them, the terrorists fled setting the houses on fire.   39.   There were no operations by the security forces in the area on 25 June 1993. In fact, the applicants had been absent from the village for 6-7 years by that point. They are the close relatives of six named individuals who are suspected of being members of the mountains branch of the PKK.   40.   The Government have provided further factual information relating to relatives of the applicants (see Evidence before the Commission) who have been detained on charges alleging, inter alia, that they have aided and abetted the PKK terrorist organisation. They further submit that other members of the applicants' families are currently working for the PKK in rural areas. They submit that it is not a remote probability that the applicants have been subject to pressure by their relatives who aid and abet and work for the PKK.     2.    Proceedings before the domestic authorities   41.   Following the communication of this application by the Commission to the respondent Government on 15 April 1994, it appears that the Ministry of Justice (International Law and External Relations General Directorate) contacted the public prosecutors' office in Genç informing them in two separate notifications (one letter dated 9 May 1994) of the complaints made by the applicants.   42.   On 25 April 1994, a public prosecutor at Genç, Ata Köyçü, issued his decision that there was no ground to prosecute the security forces in relation to the applicants' allegations. The decision was based on four statements from persons taken on 21 April 1994 (Selahattin Can, Omer Yarasir, Mehmet Yolagelen and Ekrem Yarar) and concluded that there was no operation on the day of the incident, though clashes had taken place in the area from time to time in respect of nearby PKK camps, and that the villagers had evacuated the village as a result of persecution by the terrorists.   43.   On 30 May 1994, another public prosecutor at Genç, Kadir Karaca, issued a decision that there was no ground to proceed in respect of the complaints, referring to the previous decision above and with further statements taken from three persons on 27 May 1994 (Selahattin Can, Omer Yarasir and Ekrem Yarar). He found that the applicant villagers had left the village 6-7 years previously due to the threats of the terrorists, that the houses had been destroyed by terrorists fleeing from security forces and that the applicants were close relatives of PKK militants in the mountains.   44.   Following further contact by letter dated 2 January 1995 by the Ministry of Justice with the Genç prosecutors' office concerning the subject-matter of the application, a third decision not to prosecute was issued on 17 February 1995 by public prosecutor, Selik Sözen. It referred to the findings of the previous two investigations and explained that two investigations had been undertaken on the earlier occasion following the principle of division of work applied by public prosecutors.   According to that principle, since two documents, bearing different reference numbers and dates, had been received, it was necessary for two different prosecutors to carry out separate investigations, notwithstanding the similarity of the subject-matter. The decision stated that the reason it was not possible to hear the applicant complainants was that they were no longer in the village and it was not possible to establish their exact addresses with a view to continuing the investigation. It concluded that there had been no military personnel in the village and that no offence, or offender, had been identified.     B.    The evidence before the Commission        1)    Documentary evidence   45.   The parties submitted various documents, photographs and maps to the Commission. The documents included reports about Turkey, reports concerning terrorist activity in the region, and statements from the applicants and witnesses concerning their version of the events in the case.   46.   The Commission had particular regard to the following documents:        a)    General reports and official documents        Report of 8 August 1994   from Ministry of Justice to Ministry of      Foreign Affairs   47.   The report, issued by the Directorate General for International Law and External Relations of the Ministry of Justice, refers to the information which had been received relating to the applicants' complaints and to the decisions not to prosecute issued by the Genç public prosecutors' office. It concludes that the events alleged did not take place, that no operation was carried out in Saggöze on the date in question, that the complainants had left the village 6-7 years previously   and that the villagers had left the village as the result of terrorism. It lists the names of fourteen individuals, members of the applicants' families, who are alleged to be PKK   sympathisers. It states that following an operation in June 1991 when 20 members of the PKK were killed, two leaders of the PKK, "Amed" Zeki Parmaksiz and Sakik Semdin, held the local villages responsible and decided that the villages should be evacuated. The villagers from Geyikdere left, but when the villagers of Saggöze did not, the PKK put pressure on them and set fire to their houses. The report includes the details of the applicants' addresses and personal circumstances, the source of which is given as a letter dated 1 July 1994 from the Head of Public Order Branch of the Diyarbakir Police Headquarters. The police source is also cited as stating that Azize Mentes   left the village to live in Diyarbakir in 1987, Mahile Turhalli in 1990, and Sulhiye Turhalli fifteen years before and that Sariye Uvat left her village in 1990.        Decisions of public prosecutors concerning relatives of the      applicants   48.   The Government have provided three decisions of non-jurisdiction concerning relatives of the applicants who have been detained on suspicion of terrorist-related activities, namely decisions dated 19 October 1994 concerning Bahri Mentes, dated 28 October 1994 concerning Mehmet Gündogan and dated 25 November 1994 concerning Abdurrahman Turhalli. Since the offences charged concern aiding and abetting the PKK terrorist organisation, the decisions indicate that the Genç public prosecutors lacked jurisdiction and the cases had been transferred to the Chief Prosecutor's Office attached to the Diyarbakir State Security Court.        b) Statements by applicants        Azize Mentes        Statement dated 22 July 1993 taken by the Human Rights      Association, Diyarbakir   49.   At about 6.00-7.00 hours on 25 June 1993, 500-600 soldiers, gendarmes and special team members carried out a raid on Saggöze village. Many of the young men and old men had left the village before this occurred, since they guessed a raid would take place when soldiers began blockading the mountain.   50.   The soldiers carried out a search and then surrounded the village. In the lower neighbourhood of about ten houses, where the applicant lived, the soldiers shouted at the women and children. They said, "Where are the terrorists? You are all helping them, we'll burn down all your houses and burn you alive inside them." The soldiers set the houses on fire with a "lav" weapon. The applicant was unable to salvage anything from her house. She lost all her property, including 3 tons of wood, 25 poplar trees in the garden and all the winter foodstores in the barn. After the houses were burned, the gendarme commander told them to leave the village.   51.   The applicant went to live with her husband, three children, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and two brothers-in-law in Diyarbakir, where they live in a house with two bedrooms in a shanty town area. They used to earn their living with agricultural farming but now could not get any work or bring in any income.        Mahile Turhalli        Statement dated 14 July 1993 taken by the Human Rights      Association, Diyarbakir   52.   At about 6.00-7.00 hours on 25 June 1993, 500-600 soldiers blockaded the village of Saggöze. About 16 helicopters flew over the village and landed on one side of the village and another 15 helicopters landed on the other side. The soldiers carried out a search of the village, which they repeated. They found nothing. The young men of the village had left the village the day before as they had received word of the raid. The soldiers took the old men, including her husband, to the space in front of the school and made them lie on their faces in the sun from 7.00 to 12.00 hours, beating and swearing at them. The women and children were held in the inner part of the village.   53.   The soldiers poured petrol over the houses in the neighbourhood where the applicant lived and burned them down, not allowing any possessions to be removed. The soldiers said that they were doing these things since the villagers helped the terrorists by sheltering them in their homes and giving them food. They threatened to burn them alive and kill them if they saw the villagers again. Before the soldiers left, they shouted to the villagers to leave. After they left, they surrounded the mountains around the village and kept it under surveillance for three days. The villagers whose houses were burnt down, including the applicant, walked ten hours to the Diyarbakir road and reached Diyarbakir by hitching rides in passing vehicles. The applicant now lives with her husband and children with relatives in Diyarbakir. Before they had worked in their fields and orchards and now they were unable to secure an income.        Sulhiye Turhalli        i.    Statement dated 16 July 1993 taken by the Human Rights           Association, Diyarbakir   54.   On 25 June 1993, helicopters of the Turkish security forces began arriving in the mountains around the village. At about 6.00 hours, the security forces, consisting of about 400-500 men, mostly special team members,   carried out a raid on the village. 16 helicopters landed in front of the village and 15 behind. The soldiers began searching the village neighbourhood by neighbourhood, and repeated the process twice. The soldiers took the old men (the young men were not in the village) to the area near the school and made them lie face down in the sun from 7.00 to 12.00 hours.   55.   The women and children were ejected from their houses by the soldiers, who set the houses on fire with "lav" weapons. The children fainted from fear. The soldiers beat and swore at the women and children and threatened to throw them on the fires. The soldiers began to leave at about 16.00 hours. The applicant and the other villagers whose houses had been burned could not leave the village immediately as the village vehicle (bus) had been destroyed. They sheltered for a while in houses which had not been burned and then the applicant, with a few of her women neighbours walked for ten hours to the Diyarbakir road and from there, were given rides in passing vehicles. All the applicant's possessions were burned and she now lives with her 7 children in very bad conditions in Diyarbakir.        ii.   Statement dated 2 November 1994 taken by the Human Rights           Association, Diyarbakir   56.   This applicant gave a further statement, with Mahile Turhalli and Sariye Uvat, in response to statements from other villagers submitted by the Government.   57.   The applicants were not related to Selahattin Can, Omer Yarasir, Mehmet Yolagalen or Ekrem Yarar. Can, Yarasir and Yarar lived in a hamlet called Mordaglik at least 7 km away from them, at a distance of two hours walk. Yolagalen lived in Xizginosk hamlet at least 10 km away. These men were not present in the village on the day of the raid.   58.   These other villagers blamed the applicants for the operations against the village, since the applicants had the same names as people in the PKK. Earlier, when the villagers were choosing the muhtar, there was always a conflict between the applicants and these others. The houses of these others were not damaged and they have promised to help the Government in return for benefits. The applicants were forced to leave the village after their houses were burned.        Sariye Uvat        Statement dated 5 August 1993 taken by the Human Rights      Association, Diyarbakir   59.   At about 6.00 hours on 25 June 1993, approximately 400 soldiers from the Lice gendarme headquarters organised a raid on the Piroz hamlet of Saggöze village which has 19 households. The villagers in the hamlet had heard about a raid on Pecar (Güldiken) village one day before and they left in the middle of the night before the soldiers arrived. The applicant and the others walked six hours to the Sarimcayi road and got rides from passing vehicles into Diyarbakir. When the soldiers arrived in the hamlet, they set fire to all the houses and remained in the area for two days before leaving. The applicant heard about this from villagers from Saggöze, whose houses had also been burned down on the same day.   60.   The applicant was nine months pregnant at the time of the raid. Because of the long walk in difficult conditions, she gave birth a few days prematurely. The twin boys died when they were 10 days old. She should have been admitted to hospital but did not have the money. The applicant and her family (husband and five children) lived briefly with a relative in Diyarbakir and then moved to live in a three-bedroomed house in the shanty town area with the family of another villager.        c) Statements by other persons        Aysel Gündogan        Statement undated, faxed on 3 November 1994, taken by the Human      Rights Association, Diyarbakir   61.   Aysel Gündogan lived in Saggöze village. On   25 June 1993, at about 6.00-7.00 hours, the security forces carried out a raid on the village and burned down ten houses, which were the homes of Abdullah Satilmis, Abdullah Mentes, Sadik Sag, Ahmet Sag, Hasan Turhalli, Selahattin Turhalli, Azize Mentes , Mahile Turhalli, Sulhiye Turhalli and Sariye Turhalli. The men had run away when it was known that the soldiers were coming. The soldiers beat the women when they tried to put the fires out.   Azize,   Mahile, Sulhiye and Sariye   were in the village when this happened and watched helplessly with the others. There was a conflict between these women and Selahattin Can, Omer Yarasir, Mehmet Yolagalen and Ekrem Yarar, which concerned the elections for the muhtar.   These four men lived in another hamlet, at least two hours away. Because of the high mountains, it was not possible to see from their hamlet to the village. She lived herself three minutes away from the houses which were burned in the raid. There was no fighting in the village on the day of the raid. It was after their houses were burned that the people (applicants) moved away.        Selahattin Can        i.    Statement dated 21 April 1994 taken by Ata Köycü, Genç           public prosecutor   62.   On 26 June 1993, Can was living in Saggöze village. There was no incident where the men where tied up or the houses bombed by 30 helicopters. There had been from time to time clashes between the PKK and the security forces. The terrorists had settled in houses in the mountainous parts of the village which had been deserted by people leaving under the threat of terrorists. The security forces carried out an operation against these terrorists, who then fled from the village, burning the houses. He had been forced to leave the village because of threats from the terrorists.        ii.   Statement dated 27 May 1994 taken by Kadir Karaca, Genç           public prosecutor   63.   In June 1993, Can was living in the Tanriverdi hamlet of Saggöze village. On 25-26 June, he went to the village. The security forces carried out an operation but stayed outside the village: there was no incident in which the elders were forced to lie on the ground or the houses were fired at. He knew the four applicants but they had left the village 5-6 years before and had not returned. They are close relatives of terrorists in the mountains and make these allegations because of that. He left the village because of the terrorists and came to live in Genç. From time to time the terrorists came and sheltered in the empty houses in the village which had been deserted by villagers because of the terrorists. There were   frequent clashes between the security forces and the PKK.        Omer Yarasir        i.    Statement dated 21 April 1994 taken by Ata Köycü, Genç           public prosecutor   64.   Yarasir left Saggöze village in November 1993 as a result of terrorism and came to live in Genç. The mountainous terrain around the village suited the terrorists and there were clashes between the PKK and security forces at various times. This was why they were forced to leave. He was in the village on 26 June 1993 and on that day the security forces did not tie up the village men or bomb the village with 30 helicopters.        ii.   Statement dated 27 May 1994 taken by Kadir Karaca, Genç           public prosecutor   65.   Yarasir was in the village in June 1993. It was true that the security forces carried out an operation in those months but it was not true that they emptied the houses and tortured the people by keeping them in the sun. Terrorists lived in a large number of camps in the mountains around. They came often to the village and because of their threats all the people left and no-one remained. Terrorists came and stayed in some of the deserted houses. When the security forces came, the terrorists burned the houses and fled. He knew the four applicants who were from the village but had settled in Diyarbakir 6-7 years previously and had not come back to the village on the date mentioned. They are close relatives of people in the PKK organisation.        Mehmet Yolagalen        Statement dated 21 April 1994 taken by Ata Köycü, Genç public      prosecutor   66.   Yolagalen is a member of the Saggoz village council of elders. On 26 June 1993, he was in the village and no incident as alleged occurred. The men of the village were not tied up nor was the village held under fire from 30 helicopters. There were terrorist camps around the village and there were clashes between the PKK and security forces from time to time.        Ekrem Yarar        i.    Statement, undated, taken by Ata Köycü, Genç public           prosecutor   67.   Yarar left Saggöze village about two years before and moved to Genç. He went to the village from time to time. He had been and still was the mayor. Because the terrain round the village was mountainous, there were PKK camps nearby. There were clashes from time to time between the PKK and the security forces and the camps were bombed. The villagers started to leave the village as they had no guarantee of safety from the terrorists. For the last year, there has been no-one in the village, everyone leaving because of the terrorist camps. The security forces did not come to the village, force the men to lie on the ground and burn the houses. He was not in the village at that time. There were only a few people living there then. He went there from time to time and he would have been told if such an incident had occurred.        ii.   Statement dated 27 May 1995 taken by Kadir Karaca, Genç           public prosecutor   68.   Yarar, the mayor of Saggöze village, lived in Genç because of the terrorists. He knew the applicants who were from the village. They had left the village 6-7 years ago to live in Diyarbakir. They had no relatives left in the village and they never came back to the village afterwards. Azize Mentes's brother-in-law was a terrorist in the mountains and Mahile and Sulhiye Turhalli are close relatives of the PKK Bingöl regional leader Yusuf Turhalli, codenamed "Dr. Ali". Sariye Uvat is also a close relative of them. There were terrorist camps near the village and clashes broke out often, the security forces organising operations against the terrorists. The terrorists constantly threatened the villagers and the villagers all left the village because they were not safe. The claimed incident where security forces made citizens lie in the sun and destroyed the houses did not occur. The allegations have been made by the applicants because they are close relatives of the terrorists in the mountains. He has heard that the terrorists burned the houses when the security forces launched operations against them.        Mizgin Ovat        Statement dated 24 July 1993 taken by the Human Rights      Association in the context of Application No. 23180/94   69.   Early on the morning of 24 June 1993, 500-600 gendarmes organised a raid on the village of Pecar (Güldiken) in retaliation for the armed attack on the Üçdamlar gendarme station by the PKK the day before. The evening before the security forces had burned the minibus of Naif Akgül which ran to and from the Lice district. The young people of the village had already left after this incident. The soldiers surrounded the village and began burning down the houses. The house of Mizgin Ovat was burned down on 25 June 1993.        Emine Yilmaz        Statement dated 3 August 1993 taken by the Human Rights      Association in the context of Application No. 23179/94   70.   On the evening of 23 June 1993, at about 17.00 hours, Emine Yilmaz and her husband were among the passengers on the minibus run by Naif Akgül between Diyarbakir and the village of Pecar, when it was stopped by gendarmes from Üçdamlar gendarme station about 2 km from Pecar and taken to the station, where there were 2 helicopters, 10-15 armoured cars and 15 military vehicles. The driver was forced by the gendarmes to set his bus on fire with petrol and then he and a number of the other passengers, including some from Saggöze village, were taken into custody. The applicant and her husband walked to Pecar where they arrived in the evening. The villagers guessed that the gendarmes would be carrying out an operation in the area and many of the young people left.   71.   At about 6.00-7.00 hours on 24 June 1993, about 500-600 gendarmes from Lice district and Diyarbakir province gendarme stations arrived at the village of Pecar. The house of the mayor was burned down, as well as houses in the neighbouring hamlets and that of Emine Yilmaz.        2)    Oral evidence   72.   The evidence of 11 witnesses heard by the Commission's delegates may be summarised as follows:        Azize Mentes   73.   Azize Mentes stated that she was 28 years old and that she used to live in Saggöze village. The village is situated at the foot of a mountain and the surrounding terrain is mountainous and covered with woodlands. The village was scattered with seven different neighbourhoods. She lived in a lower neighbourhood, which was about five minutes walk from the upper neighbourhood where the school was situated. There were about 60 houses in these two neighbourhoods. The security forces had visited the village six or seven times. She remembered the soldiers assembling the entire population of the village outside the schoolhouse on three occasions and on these other occasions they carried out a search and went away again. Before the incident occurred on 25 June 1993, she had been staying in Diyarbakir for ten days, returning to the village about twenty days beforehand.   74.   Soldiers arrived near the village in helicopters at about 19.00 hours on 24 June 1993. There were many soldiers (700, 800, a million or more). They surrounded the village. On the morning of 25 June 1993, the soldiers began searching the houses, looking for weapons. While many of the young men were absent, working elsewhere, the older men were there. Her own husband was in Diyarbakir.   75.   There were four soldiers in front of her house while it was being searched. About half an hour after the search, at about 09.00 hours, four soldiers came from the school and said that the houses should be burned down. Ten houses in the lower neighbourhood were burned. When the houses were burning, the children were crying and they begged them not to burn the houses.   They were told, "if you speak any further we will throw you on the fire".   They watched the houses burn until ashes. While initially, she stated that her own house caught fire from the other burning houses, she later   described the soldiers putting dust in the house, using a small weapon with flames coming out, which caused the dust to ignite. Soldiers said that they burned the houses because they helped the terrorists and that if their houses were burned they could not stay and help them any more.   She said there was no clash when the houses were burned.   She was not allowed by the soldiers to take any of her things out of her house before it burned down.   76.   At about midday, 13.00 hours, another helicopter arrived and an order was given to stop the burning, which saved the other houses f