CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 28 novembre 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 Nos. 23184/94 and 23185/94                      Keje SELÇUK and ismet ASKER                                against                                Turkey                       REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                     (adopted on 28 November 1996)                           TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                  Page I.    INTRODUCTION      (paras. 1-27). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1        A.    The application           (paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1        B.    The proceedings           (paras. 5-22) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1        C.    The present Report           (paras. 23-27). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS      (paras. 28-137). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5        A.    The particular circumstances of the case           (paras. 29-44). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5        B.    The evidence before the Commission           (paras. 45-118) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7             1) Documentary evidence              (paras. 45-63) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7             2) Oral evidence               (paras. 64-118) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11        C.    Relevant domestic law and practice           (paras. 119-137). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION      (paras. 138-216) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24        A.    Complaints declared admissible           (para. 138) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24        B.    Points at issue           (para. 139) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24        C.    Concerning the existence of valid applications           (paras. 140-143). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24             Decision           (para. 144) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25        D.    The evaluation of the evidence           (paras. 145-166). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25        E.    As regards Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1           of Protocol No. 1           (paras. 167-171). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33             CONCLUSIONS           (paras. 172-173). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34                           TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                Page        F.    As regards Article 3 of the Convention           (paras. 174-177). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34             CONCLUSION           (para. 178) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35        G.    As regards Article 2 of the Convention           (paras. 179-180). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35             CONCLUSION           (para. 181) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35        H.    As regards Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention           (paras. 182-186). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35             CONCLUSION           (para. 187) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36        I.    As regards Articles 6 para. 1 and 13 of the Convention           (paras. 188-198). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36             CONCLUSIONS           (paras. 199-200). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38        J.    As regards Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention           (paras. 201-204). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39             CONCLUSIONS           (paras. 205-206). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39        K.    Recapitulation           (paras. 207-216). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. N. BRATZA. . . . . . . . . . .41   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. I. CABRAL BARRETO. . . . . . .42   APPENDIX I:     DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE                ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLICATION 23184/94. . . . . .43   APPENDIX II:    DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE                ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLICATION 23185/94. . . . . .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 islamköy in the Kulp district of the province of Diyarbakir. They were born in   1938 and 1933 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 and property were burned and that they were forcibly and summarily expelled from their village by State security forces in June 1993.   They invoke Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of the First Protocol. The second applicant, ismet Asker, also invokes Article 2 of the Convention in relation to the alleged events.   B.    The proceedings   5.    The applications were introduced on 15 December 1993 and registered on 7 and 11 January 1994 respectively.   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 applications to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.   7.    As regards Application No. 23185/94, in the absence of any observations submitted by the Government and following notification to the Government that the application would be examined by the Commission, the Commission declared the application admissible on 28 November 1994.   8.    As regards Application No. 23184/95, the Government's observations were submitted on 27 September 1994 after one extension in the time-limit and the applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 23 November 1994.      On 8 December 1994, the Commission refused the Government's request to adjourn the examination of the case pending the investigation by the public prosecutor and requested them to submit any further observations which they might wish to make by 23 January 1995. On 3 April 1995, the Commission declared the application admissible.   9.    The text of the Commission's decisions on admissibility was sent to the parties on 5 December 1994 and 26 April 1995 respectively 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 which they might wish to put before delegates.   10.   On 7 February 1995, the Government submitted further observations in Application No. 23185/94 and on 15 May 1995, provided a requested document. On 23 May 1995, the applicant's representatives submitted further observations in reply.   11.   On 1 July 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, Mr. N. Bratza and Mr. E. Konstantinov. It notified the parties by letter of 21 July 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 apparently involved in investigating the alleged incident.   12.   On 11 August 1995, the Government submitted a document relating to Application No. 23184/94.   13.   By letter of 12 September 1995, the applicant's representatives made proposals as to witnesses in both cases. By letter of 15 September 1996, the Government identified one of the witnesses proposed by the Commission.   14.   A further request for outstanding information and documents was sent to the Government by the Secretariat on 26 September 1995.   15.   By letter of 9 January 1996, after the expiry of the time-limit set for that purpose, the Government proposed 4-5 additional witnesses. On 26 January 1996, the Government provided copies of documents in one of the investigation files requested. On 30 January 1996, the Government proposed an additional witness.   16.   Evidence was heard by the delegation of the Commission in Ankara from 5 to 6 February 1996. Before the Delegates the Government were represented by Mr. A. Gündüz, Agent, assisted by Mr A. Sölen, Mr. A. Kurudal, Ms. N. Erdim, Mr. Abdülkadir Kaya, Mr. A. Polat, Mr. Ahmet Kaya, Mr. C. Aydin, Ms. T. Toros, Ms. M. Gülsen and Ms. A. Emülser. The applicants were represented by Ms. F. Hampson, and Mr. O. Baydemir, 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 14 February 1996, the Delegates requested the Government to provide certain documents and information concerning matters arising out of the hearings and providing explanations for the absence of certain witnesses. The time-limit expired on 5 April 1996.   17.   On 8 March 1996, the Commission decided to invite the parties to present their written conclusions on the merits of the case, following transmission to the parties of the verbatim record. The Commission joined the two applications.   18.   On 20 May 1996, after an extension of the time-limit, the applicants' representatives submitted their final observations on the merits. On 25 June 1996, after a further extension in the time-limit, the Government submitted their final observations, appending a number of documents.   19. By letter dated 23 September 1996, the Secretariat informed the Government that it had not provided certain documents and items of information requested following the hearings in Ankara. The Government were requested to clarify whether they intended to provide the information or whether they were unable to, and were informed in light of the Commission's intention to resume examination of the case that their response should reach the Commission by 1 November 1996 at the latest.   20.   By letter dated 30 October 1996, which arrived on 4 November 1996, the Government submitted further documents.   21.   By letter dated 19 November 1996, the Government submitted copies of extracts of duty logs.   22.   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   23.   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:             Mr.   S. TRECHSEL, President           Mrs. G.H. THUNE           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   E. BUSUTTIL                G. JÖRUNDSSON                A. WEITZEL                J.-C. SOYER                H. DANELIUS                F. MARTINEZ                L. LOUCAIDES                J.-C. GEUS                M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                B. MARXER                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                J. MUCHA                D. SVÁBY                G. RESS                A. PERENIC                C. BÎRSAN                P. LORENZEN                K. HERNDL                E. BIELIUNAS                E.A. ALKEMA                M. VILA AMIGÓ   24.   The text of this Report was adopted on 28 November 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.   25.   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.   26.   The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application No. 23184/94 is attached hereto as Appendix I and the decision in No. 23185/94 attached as Appendix II.   27.   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   28.   The facts of the case, particularly concerning events in or about 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 islamköy        a. Facts as presented by the applicants   29.   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.   30.   About six months prior to June 1993, the villagers at islamköy had been threatened by the security forces that the homes of ten named villagers would be burned down. It had later appeared that the threat had been retracted. There had been no clashes in the village between the security forces and the PKK but the PKK used the road which ended near the village and the security forces regularly visited the village. 31.   On 16 June 1993, the security forces came to islamköy in large numbers. Two houses were burned. Recep Cömert, the commander, gave orders for the house of ismet Asker to be burned. Soldiers poured gasoline on the house and set fire to it, even though ismet Asker and his wife Fatma were inside. Villagers who came to put out the fire were threatened by the security forces and prevented from helping. The house and its contents were totally destroyed.   32.   The security forces then went to the house of Keje Selçuk. Despite her pleas to Recep Cömert, her house was set on fire, also by gasoline. Villagers were again prevented from assisting and Recep Cömert pushed Keje Selçuk to the ground. She understood that she was being told to leave the village.   33.   ismet Asker left the village and went to complain to the Kulp district governor, naming Recep Cömert as the officer in charge. He was sent to the gendarmes.   34.   Ten days after the burning of the houses, the security forces returned to the village. Recep Cömert was present and gave the order to set fire to the mill belonging to Keje Selçuk and three others. Villagers were prevented from trying to put out the fire. Two other houses were set on fire in the village and destroyed that day. Another house was set alight   but the fire was put out.   35.   Keje Selçuk had left the village and was staying with her daughter- in-law in Diyarbakir. Her brother-in-law Nesih Selçuk telephoned her to inform her that the mill had been destroyed.        b.    Facts as presented by the Government   36.   The Government submit that applications by Keje Selçuk and ismet Asker have been concocted by others and that they are apparently acting under the influence of the PKK and/or with a view to obtaining money. The villagers of islamköy were under real and intense pressure from the PKK, who purported to replace the State and punished any recourse to the Turkish authorities. The applicants' homes and possessions were burned by the PKK as a punishment and warning. In the case of ismet Asker, his son was doing his military service and the PKK urged people not to send their sons into the army. In the case of Keje Selçuk, she has two sons, one in the army and the other a civil servant who had stood up against the PKK. The Government also point to the incident in a neighbouring hamlet, Tur, where a hundred or so PKK terrorists locked the people in the mosque and set fire to the buildings, the people having to escape by breaking down the door. The village of islamköy had on the other hand had good relations with the security forces, had had village guards and neither applicant was suspected by the authorities of any anti-Government activity but were both law-abiding.   37.   The Government dispute that any order or paper was issued six months before the incidents in June, threatening ten households. They also submit that it is not clear from the evidence that Keje Selçuk's mill was burned at all, or that it was at that time in a functional state, but even if it was destroyed, this was not done by the security forces.   38.   ismet Asker did not, as he alleges, make any petition to the Kulp district governor, since the records reveal that no petition was registered and ismet Asker has no acknowledgement receipt or registration number, which would be the case if he had made such a petition.   2.    Proceedings before the domestic authorities   39.   Following the communication of the applications 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 Chief Public Prosecutors' office in Diyarbakir, which in turn made enquiry of the public prosecutor's office in Kulp by letter dated 4 May 1994 as to whether the applicants had applied to them and requesting that an investigation be initiated if they had not.   40.   Since no petitions had been received from the applicants, the Kulp prosecutor opened investigation file 1994/57. By letter dated 11 May 1994, the public prosecutor in Kulp requested the gendarmerie in Kulp to ascertain the addresses of the applicants and to invite applicants to present themselves to the prosecutor's office as soon as possible.   By letter of 18 May 1994 the public prosecutor enquired of the district governor whether any petition had been filed by ismet Asker. By letter dated 26 May 1994, Gendarme Captain Ali Ergulmez replied, on behalf of the district governor, that an examination of the records disclosed that no complaint had been filed by ismet Asker. On 16 June 1994, the public prosecutor's office reminded the gendarmerie that it had had no response to its enquiries as to the whereabouts of the applicants.   41.   On 20 June 1994, ismet Asker made a statement in the office of the public prosecutor. Keje Selçuk made a statement to the public prosecutor on 21 June 1994.   42.   On 18 August 1994, the public prosecutor sent a request to the district gendarmerie commander for information to be given promptly as to whether an operation led by Recep Cömert had been carried out at islamköy on 16 June 1993 and whether the applicants' houses had been burned by those units. No reply is included with documents from the investigation file provided to the Commission.   43.   On 30 November 1994, the Kulp public prosecutor, Erdal Yatmis, issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction in regard to the applicants' complaints against Recep Cömert and the security personnel under his command alleging offences against property in the winter months of 1993. The decision stated that, while the applicants had complained to the effect that on the date of the offence intensive clashes took place in islamköy between the security forces and terrorists and that their houses burned down during those clashes under the orders of Recep Cömert, it transpired from the investigation that the incident occurred while the members of the security forces were carrying out their administrative duties. Pursuant to the provisions of the Public Officer Legal Proceedings Procedure and Articles 1/b and 4/i of the Decree establishing the State of Emergency Regional Governor's Office as well as Article 2 of Law No. 3713, the Kulp Administrative Council was the body with authority to conduct an investigation in relation to the defendants. The public prosecutor's office therefore decided to transfer the file to the Kulp District Governor's office for the necessary measures to be taken.   44.   On 30 November 1995, the investigation file was referred to the Governor of Kulp district.   B.    The evidence before the Commission        1)    Documentary evidence   45.   The parties submitted various documents to the Commission. The documents included reports about Turkey, domestic case-law 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) Statements by applicants        Keje Selçuk        Statement dated 22 July 1993, taken by the Human Rights Association      (HRA), Diyarbakir   47.   On 16 June 1993, 400 gendarmes from the Kulp gendarmerie under the command of officer Recep Cömert carried out a raid on islamköy at about 7-8.00 hours. First, they set fire to the house of ismet Asker, with all his property. Then, they came to the applicant's house, ejected her and her children, gathered their goods into one room, poured petrol over them and set them on fire. After the house had burned down, he (Recep Cömert) told the villagers that, if they did not leave, the security forces would burn their houses, and the villagers inside, without blinking an eye.   48.   About ten days later, the same gendarmes returned to the village. They threw petrol over, and set fire to, the houses of Serif Tanrikulu, A. Kerim Ergül and Kazim Sahin as well as the mill owned by the applicant and three others, including Nesih Selçuk. The gendarmes beat with sticks and truncheons some of the villagers who tried to put out the fires. The villagers whose homes had been burned were forced to move to the towns. The applicant went to live with her daughter in Diyarbakir. She had not applied to any institution in respect of her complaints. She referred to ismet Asker's petition to the Kulp district governor remaining unanswered.        Statement dated 21 June 1994, taken by the public prosecutor      (unidentified)   49.   Gendarmes came to the village about a year before. They wanted ismet Asker and herself to leave the village but they had not done so. She took some of her belongings out of her house and then the gendarmes set fire to it. They burned ismet Asker's house also. When she asked why they burned her house and were driving her out of the village, they said that it was because she harboured terrorists and supplied them with meals. She had never done so. She did not know the soldiers or their commanding officer. There had been no incidents before in the village.   50.   The applicant's statement taken by the HRA (above) was read out to her. She stated in reply to questioning that she did not know the commanding officer, that she did not know whether villagers were hit with truncheons or whether they had come to the village and set fire to houses after her own house had been burned down. She had never said those things but it was what they had written down. All she wanted was compensation for the damage caused.        Statement dated 28 October 1994 taken by Servet Ayhan (HRA)   51.   A policeman had come to her daughter's house on 17 June 1994 and said that she should give a statement to the public prosecutor. When she went to the prosecutor's office, they would not allow her daughter to enter with her and a person that she did not know interpreted. The prosecutor had asked her questions relating to her complaints. She had replied that she did know the commander's name, Recep. She explained in this statement that she knew him as he had come to the   village from time to time. When the HRA had asked for his surname, she had found out his surname from the villagers and given it to them. In answer to the prosecutor, she had explained that she had been present when her house was burned down, and had only been able to save the clothes that she was wearing. When her mill had burned down, she had been staying with her daughter in Diyarbakir and her business partner had informed her of it.        Statement dated 22 August 1995, taken by the HRA, Diyarbakir   52.   After the applicant had made her application, she had been called to the gendarme station and asked to sign a paper but did not know what was in it. Since her house was burned between 7.00 and 8.00 hours many villagers had witnessed it including Nesih Selçuk, Necmettin Korkmaz and ismet Asker. She wanted to continue with her case.        ismet Asker        Petition to the District Governor, dated 25 June 1993   53.   On 16 June 1993 his two storeyed house with eight rooms was burned down completely during an operation at Islam village (Islamköy). The property destroyed included 10 woollen mattresses, 3 carpets, 9 kilim rugs, kitchenware, crockery, a wooden grain bin, 2 tons of wheat, sacks of rice, tea, sugar and his store of 180 poplar trunks. His home had been burned unnecessarily   and he and his family had been left homeless and in a desperate situation. He asked for recompense for his house and goods and respectfully requested his petition to be processed.        Statement dated 14 July 1993 taken by the HRA, Diyarbakir   54.   On 16 June 1993, about 400 gendarmes under orders of Recep Cömert from the Kulp district gendarmerie organised a raid on the village. First they came to his house and told him and his wife Fatma to get their things from the house. As they did so, they realised the house was burning and rushed out through the back door. The gendarmes seemed to intend to burn them alive. The gendarmes threatened the villagers who arrived to help put out the fire. After waiting for his house to burn down completely, the gendarmes went to the house of Keje Selçuk and burned it with all the goods inside. Then they left.   55.   The previous winter, the security forces had sent a list of names concerning ten families telling them that they should leave the village by summer. He did not understand why, since at one point they said that they would not burn things, they then came in an operation without warning to burn his house.   56.   Ten days after the raid, gendarmes under Recep Cömert came again. They completely burned down the houses of Serif Tanrikulu, A. Kerim Ergül and Kazim Sahin as well as the mill belonging to Keje Selçuk and three others. After that, Recep Cömert addressed the villagers, threatening them and stating that if the villagers did not leave the village, they would be burnt together with their houses.   57.   The applicant made an application to the Kulp district governorship on 25 June 1996 relating to the first incident. The district governor asked him through an interpreter (since the applicant did not know Turkish) whether he knew anyone amongst the gendarmes, and he replied that he knew Captain Recep Cömert. The district governor stated that he would accept the petition.        Statement dated 20 June 1994, taken by a magistrate in the public      prosecutor's office   58.   In the winter of 1993 the Kulp district gendarmerie company commander came to the village, assembled the villagers and threatened them, saying that if they did not leave the village he would burn it. In August 1993, as far as he could remember, Cömert carried out a raid on the village with a large number of soldiers. They set fire to his house without giving reasons. A gendarme had told them to fetch their things before they began burning it. When he and his wife were in the house, they realised it was on fire and ran outside. They did not know how it was set on fire. The soldiers prevented him and the villagers from putting out the fire.   After his house burned, they went to burn down Keje Selçuk's house. He did not know who it was who had burned his house until later, when other villagers told him that they were soldiers under the orders of Recep Cömert.   59.   He had suffered damage to property amounting to 200.000.000 (million) TL. He submitted a petition to the Kulp district governor's office and they later took a statement from him at the gendarmerie. He received no response to his petition. After the incident, he went to a building site in Diyarbakir looking for work and told his story to the contractor. The contractor told him to go to the provincial governor's office to ask for help. A person with the contractor, whom he did not know, wrote out a petition   and made him sign it. He did not know what was in it. He was not aware of giving a statement to the HRA.   60.   Before his house burned down, PKK activists (took) food and supplies (from) the village. He had nothing to do with the PKK.        b) Statements by other persons        Servet Ayhan        Statement dated 28 October 1994   61.   The HRA staff who took Keje Selçuk's statement made mistakes. She was not in the village when the second incident took place. Nesih Selçuk had witnessed it.        Sedat Aslantas        Statement dated 12 April 1995   62.   The HRA people took statements at their association premises. The only exception was when they performed investigations at the scene of incidents. They would take statements there. There was no logic to statements having been taken at a construction site.        c) Official Records   63.   The Government have supplied copies of the duty log of Kulp gendarmerie for the dates 15-19, 21-26 June 1993. These daily records indicate the routine duties eg. guard duties, training at the gendarmerie station. They also indicate patrols to villages in the area or "village duty". Such visits are recorded as   having taken place on 17 June   (a motorised patrol to Narli involving 10 gendarmes), on 21 June (a patrol on foot to Karabalak of 10 gendarmes), on 22 June    (a motorised patrol to Dolmetepe and Özbek involving nine gendarmes led by Recep Comërt) and on 23 June (a motorised patrol to Yaylak and Baloglu of nine gendarmes led by Recep Comërt).        2)    Oral evidence   64.   The evidence of 10 witnesses heard by the Commission's Delegates may be summarised as follows:        ismet Asker   65.   ismet Asker stated that he was born in 1933. In June 1993, at about 08.00 hours, soldiers came to the village. There was no road beyond his house, so they got out of their vehicles and continued in to the village on foot. There were many soldiers about (he only guessed that there were 400) and seven tanks and 27-28 vehicles. He was near the front door watering the wheat when the soldiers arrived. At that moment, his wife was at the house holding a breakfast tray. He went into the house where the soldiers were looking around, having forced a door. He went outside again. They set the house on fire and he went inside to try to save his furniture. A soldier whispered in his ear that he could take out his furniture. There was too much smoke and they were unable to save anything, except for some mattresses. The house was set on fire by gasoline or petrol. He saw the container in a soldier's hand when he was on the upper floor, throwing furniture out. There was a lot of wood and the flames reached the ceiling: he and his wife were almost trapped inside. He had thought that if he and his wife stayed inside they would not set the house on fire.   66.   The commander was there when they burned his house. He asked the commander why they burned his house. The commander, swearing, told him to go away (he understood from the gesture). While he said at one point that he did not know the commander's name, he referred to a diminutive name Reco and the name Recep and said that this was the only name he knew from all the soldiers present. It was Recep and members of his team who burned down his house.   67.   The soldiers prevented his relatives and the villagers from putting out the fire or removing the furniture. They were rough but he did not see any beatings himself.   68.   Ten days later, the soldiers returned to the village at night. He saw the soldiers when he left in the morning to go to Kulp. The soldiers asked for his identity card. He did not see the mill burned with his own eyes but he saw smoke and, when he asked, he was told that they had burned the mill. The mill had been functional before. This was the same day he went to Kulp to hand in his petition.   69.   He submitted a petition to the district governor. He usually put his thumbprint on documents but he had signed the petition. On being shown the copy of the petition, he said that it was his signature. A man whom he did not know wrote the petition for him. The governor signed it and sent it to the police. He had received no response to his petition.   70.   Previously the terrorists had used the road passing the village. There had been village guards at one time and in those days the soldiers had gone into the mountains. The soldiers had come to the village before by helicopter.   71.   Six or seven months before the incident, news had come to the village warning that villagers should move from outside areas into the village and then they might not be burned. He was told by a number of people, including his younger sister, that his name was on the paper. It was an order from the police.   Ten houses were chosen, as it was said that terrorists went there. He had moved some of his furniture out of the house at this stage, sending some of it to his son and sister. His house stood alone on the road at the edge of the village. They (the PKK) used to knock on his door, but he was hard of hearing and they would go away and leave him alone. Even if he had bread, he said that he did not.   72.   As regarded his statement to the HRA, it was written in an office (possibly Osman's office), not at a construction site. He chose Osman (Osman Baydemir) for his lawyer. He told him what to write.        Fatma Asker   73.   Fatma Asker was born in 1938. At about 08.00 hours, when she was holding a tray and teapot, four soldiers came to the door and asked whose house it was. When she told them, they told her to call her husband. He was outside in the fields not far away. There were 27 military vehicles filled with soldiers. Their commander was Recep, whom she recognised as he had come to the village many times before. By the time her husband came, the soldiers had set the house on fire. She saw a soldier holding a white plastic bag with a gasoline container inside. Recep told him to pour and the soldier poured gasoline in four places. Recep was angry with her and told her that if she interfered he would kill her. She went into the house to try to save furniture and shoes but there was so much smoke that she thought that she would be suffocated. The soldiers knew that they were in the house. Recep was standing by the house. He did not let the villagers help her or her husband. When their house had burned down, Recep and the soldiers went next to burn the house of Keje Selçuk. She did not see Sait Memis, Celal Seker or Sah Simsek in the village that day. Tevfik Karaaslan was there that day.   74.   That night, she stayed in a neighbour's house. Since Recep had told them to go, they left the village to go to Diyarbakir. Ten days later they returned to the village to harvest their wheat. Early in the morning, when she and her husband were travelling to Kulp, as they passed the upper part of the village, she could see the mill below burning. Before this happened, the mill had been working and they had taken their wheat there. Two houses were also burned. She did not see who started the fire. On the road to Kulp they met soldiers who stopped them. There were soldiers in the village also. She did not recognise any of them. She did not see anyone being beaten.   75.   There had been news in the village that they would have to leave or houses would be burned but she did not know where it came from and it did not say whose houses were to be burnt.   76.   The PKK used to come and go in the area of the village, using the road to reach the mountains but there had been no clashes. The PKK were armed: they held meetings, and they forced the villagers to give them their mules and foodstuffs. Her husband had a grocery store, with matches, light bulbs etc but did not sell food. They were poor and did not give the PKK what they did not have. But they were alone and when they had something they gave it out of fear. When asked by the Government Agent why Recep burned their house, she said that they (the security forces) used to say that PKK members came to the village, that they fed them and were not friends.   77.   All the villagers had left the village.   They were frightened. She and her husband had received no help from the State.        Keje Selçuk   78.   Keje Selçuk stated that she was born in 1938 and was a widow. One of her sons worked for the rectorate of religious affairs. She lived in a two-storey house with four rooms. In June 1993, in the morning when she had eaten breakfast, Necmettin Korkmaz warned her that soldiers were in the village. She saw smoke and the neighbours were saying that the soldiers had burned ismet Asker's house. There were many soldiers around the village and many vehicles. Recep, whom she knew since he had been to the village on previous occasions, and five soldiers came to her house. Recep poured gasoline on the house and set in on fire. When she protested and pleaded, they answered that she helped outsiders and fed the PKK. She took the Koran to show it to Recep. When she asked where she should go now, Recep said that she should leave the village. He pushed her away. When her brother came to put out the fire, Recep swore at him. The soldiers did not let her brother, Nesih Selçuk or Necmettin Korkmaz put out the fire. Though she did not speak Turkish, she could understand when he told her to get out and the motion which he made with his hand. Her own children were not there but there were children of the neighbours at her house.   79.   She remained in the village at the house of a neighbour (Necmettin Korkmaz) that night and in the morning went to her daughter's   house. Ten days later, her brother-in-law rang her in Diyarbakir and told her that the mill, which she owned with him and two others, had been burned by the soldiers. He said nothing about villagers being beaten.   80.   Previously, the soldiers used to come to the village, search it quickly and leave. Threats had been made to the village. First, they said that ten houses would be burned, then that all the houses should be evacuated and burned and then later they said that they would not burn them. Villagers said that they heard this from the soldiers. Her house, in the centre of the village, but separated from the other houses by a creek, was on the list of ten houses to be burned.   81.   She went to Diyarbakir and told her story. She did not remember the names of the people who took her statement. She did not know the name Sedat Aslantas. No-one told her anything about how to apply for compensation to the administrative courts. She also gave her statement to the public prosecutor. She had told the prosecutor the name of Recep. She received no help from the State.   82.   She knew Celal Seker, Sah Simsek and Sait Memis but they lived far away and they were not there when her house was burning. The first two were or had been village guards. No-one lived in the village any more. Even the village guards were afraid.        Necmettin Korkmaz   83.   The witness, aged 73, was a muhtar in islamköy for 32 years and was muhtar in June 1993. The village consisted of 145 households and, including the nomads nearby,   had 3 110 people.   On the day of the incident, at about 07.00 hours, the witness heard children shouting that there was a fire. He took an axe and found the house of ismet Asker was burning. He shouted to the villagers to put out the fire. The officer Recep, a senior sergeant, was there however, holding a container and a bag saying that he would kill them if they tried to help. He knew Recep as he had been to the village before and had been in Kulp for 5-6 years. Recep said that he was going to Keje's house and the witness pleaded with him. The witness told Keje to take the Koran to him to dissuade him. Recep pushed Keje who fell on her back. He saw Recep pour gasoline on three parts of Keje's house and burn it. He ordered the soldiers to kill anyone coming near and used obscene words. Recep said that he was burning ismet Asker's house because he provided food for terrorists. There were many soldiers in the village.   84.   Ten days later, Recep returned. There were soldiers in the fields. The witness saw smoke coming from the mill. He saw with his own eyes that Recep gave the orders and the soldier with him was pouring petrol. Recep told the other soldiers to shoot anyone who came near. He said that the mill was burned so that the PKK could not use it. Kazim Sahin's house was burned also. At a date around this time, of which the witness was not sure, General Aydin arrived in a helicopter and wanted to know what had been happening. The General had asked who had burned Keje's house and the witness had said that it was Recep. The General had called Recep, who was present and scolded him. The witness stated that General Bahtiyar Aydin had stayed as a guest in the village on three occasions. One or two months after the mill incident, the witness gave up and went to live in Istanbul.   85.   The village had previously had very good relations with the security forces. They used to conduct searches.   The PKK generally used to come to the village, take a look and leave. He denied se