CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 9 septembre 1997

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s6A5D7EE7 { width:29.33pt; display:inline-block } .sFD1C8E96 { width:16.01pt; display:inline-block } .s70DF58E9 { width:3.3pt; display:inline-block } .sA047E36C { width:24.66pt; display:inline-block } .s893D1BA2 { width:9.98pt; display:inline-block } .s4D28B2E2 { width:24pt; display:inline-block } .s2D8A4020 { width:32.63pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sE32B62BB { width:25.96pt; display:inline-block } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s38A5FCD7 { width:19.28pt; display:inline-block } .s5BA4079A { width:22.66pt; display:inline-block } .s636F3465 { width:13.3pt; display:inline-block } .sEB86F1CA { width:25.34pt; display:inline-block } .s6F7073C7 { width:15.95pt; display:inline-block } .s7B92CF83 { width:23.33pt; display:inline-block } .sFD8ACFD7 { width:5.34pt; display:inline-block } .s4E78A3E7 { width:1.31pt; display:inline-block } .s6B7D3C75 { width:9.91pt; display:inline-block } .sEA7DAF3 { width:30.64pt; display:inline-block } .sA943D94B { width:29.31pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3D66DD5D { width:15.98pt; display:inline-block } .sB11B45BD { width:19.32pt; display:inline-block } .sC82ACC0A { width:20.67pt; display:inline-block } .s9782B425 { width:22.01pt; display:inline-block } .s21B1FE17 { width:12.67pt; display:inline-block } .sBF11BE31 { width:22.68pt; display:inline-block } .s4B5E05E0 { width:12.65pt; display:inline-block } .s2CB99A5F { width:30pt; display:inline-block } .s8AFB426F { width:32.67pt; display:inline-block } .s17A98FAE { width:27.33pt; display:inline-block } .sCD4D2F1A { width:24.67pt; display:inline-block } .s275C5FB8 { width:26.67pt; display:inline-block } .sE0EA7154 { width:21.33pt; display:inline-block } .sB3245FE2 { width:15.83pt; display:inline-block } .sFAEFE316 { width:32pt; display:inline-block } .s64B1589E { width:19.33pt; display:inline-block } .sE4B66E67 { width:21.73pt; display:inline-block }                               EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                               Applications Nos. 23179/94, 23180/94, 23181/94 and 23182/94     Emine Y_lmaz, Mizgin Ovat, Halit _ahin and Rabia Dündar     against     Turkey           REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 9 September 1997)         TABLE OF CONTENTS                     Page   I.   INTRODUCTION     (paras. 1-31)               1     A.   The application     (paras. 2-4)             1     B.   The proceedings     (paras. 5-26)             1     C.   The present Report     (paras. 27-31)             4   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   (paras. 32-154)             6     A.   The particular circumstances of the case     (paras. 33-40)             6     B.   The evidence before the Commission     (paras. 41-134)           7       1.   Documentary evidence       (paras. 41-86)           7       2.   Oral evidence       (paras. 87-134)         15     C.   Relevant domestic law and practice     (paras. 135-154)           23   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   (paras. 155-230)             27     A.   Complaints declared admissible     (para. 155)             27     B.   Points at issue     (paras. 156-157)           27     C.   Concerning the existence of valid applications     (paras. 158-168)           28         Decisions     (para. 169)             30     D.   The evaluation of the evidence     (paras. 170-189)           30     E.   As regards Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and     Article 1 of Protocol No. 1     (paras. 190-196)           34       CONCLUSIONS     (paras. 197-199)           35     F.   As regards Articles 6 para. 1 and 13 of the Convention in respect of the applicant Ovat     (paras. 200- 214)           35       CONCLUSIONS     (paras. 215-216)           39     G.   As regards Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention     (paras. 217-220)           39       CONCLUSIONS     (paras. 221-222)           40     H.   Recapitulation     (paras. 223-230)           40   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS G.H. THUNE AND MR M.A. NOWICKI               41   APPENDIX I:   DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE       ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLICATION 23179/94   42   APPENDIX II:   DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE       ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLICATION 23180/94   49   APPENDIX III:   DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE       ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLICATION 23181/94   57   APPENDIX IV:   DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE       ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLICATION 23182/94   64 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 Güldiken in the Lice district of Diyarbak_r province, apart from the applicant _ahin who resides in the village of Ça_da_ in the same district. They were born in 1935, 1973, 1962 and 1953 respectively. They were represented before the Commission by Mr 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 A. Gündüz.   4.   The applicants complain of a raid on the village of Güldiken by State security forces in June 1993 during which their property was destroyed. They invoke Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Furthermore, Articles 8 and 18 of the Convention are invoked by the applicants Y_lmaz, Ovat and Dündar, Article 6 by the applicants Ovat and Dündar, Article 5 by the applicant Dündar, and Article 13 by the applicant Ovat.     B.   The proceedings   5.   The applications were introduced on 20 December 1993 and registered on 7 January 1994, apart from Application No. 23179/94 (Y_lmaz) which was registered on 11 January 1994. As regards Application No. 23181/94, the applicant's name was given as Ali _ahin. However, the letter of authority was signed by a Halit _ahin. The applicants' representatives were requested to clarify this matter.   6.   On 5 April 1994 the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of Applications Nos. 23181 (_ahin) and 23182/94 (Dündar) to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on their admissibility and merits. The same decision was taken on 9 May 1994 in respect of Applications Nos. 23179 (Y_lmaz) and 23180/94 (Ovat).   7.   On 14 July 1994 the applicants' representatives informed the Commission that the applicant in Application No. 23181/94 was in fact called Halit _ahin and that the name Ali _ahin arose from a mistake by the person in Turkey who had recorded the applicant's original statement.   8.   The Government's observations in Applications Nos. 23179 (Y_lmaz), 23180 (Ovat) and 23181/94 (_ahin) were submitted on 5 December 1994 after one extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose.   The applicants replied on 13 February 1995 in the case of Application No. 23180/93 (Ovat) and on 27 February 1995 in the case of Applications Nos. 23179 (Y_lmaz) and 23181/94 (_ahin).   9.   As regards Application No. 23182/94 (Dündar), 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.   10.   The Commission declared Application No. 23180/94 (Ovat) admissible on 3 April 1995. Applications Nos. 23179 (Y_lmaz) and 23181/94 (_ahin) were declared admissible on 15 May 1995.   11.   At the same time as the texts of the Commission's decisions on admissibility were sent to the parties they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished. In Application No. 23182/94 (Dündar) the Government submitted observations on 27 January 1995.   12.   On 9 September 1995 the Commission decided to take oral evidence in respect of the applicants' allegations. It appointed three delegates for this purpose: Mr G. Jörundsson, Mrs J. Liddy and Mr G. Ress. It notified the parties by letter of 13 September 1995, proposing certain witnesses and requesting the Government to identify the commander(s) of the security forces in operation in the area at the relevant time and the Public Prosecutors of Lice and Kulp who had started an investigation into the alleged incident following the communication of Application No. 23182/94 (Dündar). The Government were also requested to provide the contents of the investigation files relating to the alleged incident including those to which reference was made in the Government's observations on Application No. 23182/94 (Dündar).   13.   By letter dated 13 October 1995 the applicants' representatives requested that one further witness, the business partner of applicant _ahin, be heard.   14.   On 2 November 1995 the Government provided the name of the commander of the security forces and of the Lice and Kulp Public Prosecutors.   15.   By letter of 16 November 1995 and 16 February 1996 the Commission again requested the Government to submit copies of the investigation files.   16.   On 13 March 1996 summonses were sent to the applicants and witnesses to be heard by the Delegates. Copies of the summonses to the applicants and the witnesses whose attendance had been requested by the applicants were sent to the Diyarbak_r branch of the Human Rights Association.   17.   On 16 March 1996 the Government submitted the contents of the investigation file concerning the applicant Dündar. The investigation file documents concerning the applicants Ovat, _ahin and Dündar were submitted on 19 March 1996.   18.   On 2 April 1996 the applicants' representatives informed the Commission that the applicant Ovat had married and that her husband would not allow her to attend the hearing. That day the summons which had been issued to this applicant was returned to the Commission on the basis that the address was incomplete. The summons issued to the applicant Dündar was returned on 3 April 1996 for the same reason.   19.   Evidence was heard by the Delegates of the Commission in Ankara on 16 and 17 April 1996 from the applicant Y_lmaz, Taha Y_lmaz (son of the applicant Y_lmaz), K_ymet Uvat (sister of the applicant Ovat), Özcan Küçüköz and Ahmet Karakaya (Public Prosecutors) and Nevzat Ar_k (commander of the security forces in Lice district). Before the Delegates the Government were represented by Mr A. Gündüz, Agent, assisted by Ms. A. Emüler, Ms. T. Toros, Mr A. _ölen, Mr A. Kurudal, Mrs B. Pekgöz, Ms. S. Emina_ao_lu, Mr A. Kaya and Mr C. Aydin. The applicants were represented by Mr K. Boyle, counsel, assisted by Ms. C. Nolan, Mr M. _akar, Mr O. Baydemir and Ms. D. Deniz (interpreter). A map of the area where the alleged incident was said to have taken place was submitted by the Government during the hearings.   20.   On 22 May 1996 the Commission decided to invite the parties to present their written conclusions on the merits of the cases, following transmission to the parties of the verbatim record of the hearing.   21.   On 24 May 1996 the summonses which had been issued to the applicant _ahin and the witness Behçet Aksoy were returned to the Commission on the basis that they were no longer at the addresses indicated.   22.   By letter of 30 July 1996 the Government submitted supplementary observations in Application No. 23180/94 (Y_lmaz), appending two documents.   23.   On 23 August 1996 the applicants' representatives submitted their final observations on the merits. On 10 September 1996, after an extension of the time-limit, the Government submitted their final observations.   24. On 13 September 1996 the Commission granted the applicant Y_lmaz legal aid for the representation of her case.   25.   On 9 September 1997 the Commission decided to join the four applications.   26.   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   27.   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       A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK       A. WEITZEL       J.-C. SOYER       H. DANELIUS       F. MARTINEZ       C.L. ROZAKIS       L. LOUCAIDES       J.-C. GEUS       M.P. PELLONPÄÄ       M.A. NOWICKI       I. CABRAL BARRETO       B. CONFORTI       N. BRATZA       I. BÉKÉS       J. MUCHA       D. ŠVÁBY       G. RESS       A. PERENI_       C. BÎRSAN       P. LORENZEN       K. HERNDL       E. BIELI_NAS           E.A. ALKEMA     Mrs   M. HION     MM.   R. NICOLINI       A. ARABADJIEV   28.   The text of this Report was adopted on 9 September 1997 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.   29.   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.   30.   The Commission's decisions on the admissibility of the applications are annexed hereto as Appendices I - IV.   31.   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   32.   The facts of the case, particularly concerning events on or about 23-25 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 Güldiken (Pecar)   33.   The village in which the alleged events took place has been referred to in documents and by witnesses as both Güldiken and Pecar. As with many of the villages in the South-East, it has an older, Kurdish or Ottoman name (Pecar) and a newer, official Turkish name (Güldiken). For the sake of convenience, the report refers throughout to the latter, which it appears is the name of official usage.     a.   Facts as presented by the applicants   34.   The various accounts of events as submitted in written 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.   35.   On 23 June 1993 an attack by the PKK was carried out on Üçdamlar (Kurdish name: Bowert) Gendarme Station. In the wake of this attack, security forces carried out a follow up operation in pursuit of the PKK members who had attacked the station. This operation incorporated the villages in the surrounding area, including Sa_göze and Güldiken.   36.   On 24 June 1993 security forces, led by Captain Nevzat Ar_k, burned the houses and belongings of the inhabitants of Güldiken, including those belonging to Emine Y_lmaz, Mizgin Ovat and Rabia Dündar and a van belonging to Halit _ahin. During this incident the men in the village were severely beaten. The villagers were forced to leave Güldiken, many barefoot, to seek shelter elsewhere.     b.   Facts as presented by the Government   37.   In their written observations on the merits of the applications the Government submit that it appears from the oral evidence and the other material before the Commission that, even assuming that valid applications have been made, the applicants have failed to prove their allegations. In their observations on the admissibility they submitted that no terrorist attack on Üçdamlar Gendarme Station had been carried out on 23 June 1993, that no armed clash had taken place between PKK terrorists and security forces in Güldiken on 23 or 24 June 1993 and that they had received no information of any houses or vans having been destroyed in Güldiken on 24 June 1993.   38.   In their observations on the admissibility of Application No. 23180/94 (Ovat), the Government further stated that at about 09.00 hours on 23 June 1993 a team of gendarmes was trapped and fired at by terrorists while they were climbing G_ld_ri_ hill in order to keep watch. One gendarme was killed. The terrorists fled away when other gendarmes in armoured vehicles came to the rescue of the trapped team. A search was carried out, lasting all day, which resulted in the body of one terrorist being found.   2.   Proceedings before the domestic authorities   39.   Halit _ahin's statement to the Diyarbak_r branch of the Human Rights Association (paras. 72-75) was accompanied by a copy of a document which he alleged was a request submitted to the Lice First Instance Court by the co-owner of his van, Behçet Aksoy, for assessment of the damage to the van. However, the Government deny that Behçet Aksoy applied for an establishment of evidence or brought an action for damages before the Lice courts. No further information as to these proceedings has been provided.   40.   Following the communication of the applications by the Commission to the respondent Government, three preliminary investigations were opened by the Lice Public Prosecutor's office, one of which concerned the allegations of both Halit _ahin and Rabia Dündar. In view of the fact that the accusations of the applicants concern members of the security forces, in all three investigations a decision of lack of jurisdiction was issued in accordance with Article 4.i of Decree no. 285. The investigations were subsequently referred to the Lice District Administrative Council where Gendarme Lieutenant Colonel M. Asaf Gökçek was appointed as investigator on 4 April 1995. No further details concerning these investigations having been submitted, the Commission must assume that they are still pending.     B.   The evidence before the Commission   1.   Documentary evidence   41.   The parties submitted various documents to the Commission. These included reports drawn up in the course of the investigation on the domestic level into the applicants' allegations and statements from the applicants concerning their version of the events in the case.   42.   The Commission had particular regard to the following documents:     a.   Official documents concerning Application No. 23179/93 (Y_lmaz)     i.   Letter dated 6 January 1995 from a Kulp Public Prosecutor to the Kulp District Gendarme Headquarters   43.   In this letter the Kulp District Gendarmerie is requested to investigate the allegations made by Emine Y_lmaz to the Diyarbak_r branch of the Human Rights Association.     ii.   Letter dated 16 January 1995 from Kulp District Gendarme Headquarters to the Public Prosecutor's Office at Kulp   44.   In this reply to the letter mentioned in para. 43, the Public Prosecutor's Office is informed that the location of the alleged incident falls outside the Kulp District Gendarmerie's area of responsibility.     iii.   Decision of lack of jurisdiction (ratione loci) of 23 January 1995   45.   This decision, issued by a Public Prosecutor at Kulp, Ahmet Karakaya, lists as accused of the offences of misconduct while on duty as a public officer, ill-treatment and threatening of persons and setting fire to houses, Recep Cömert, former Commander of the Kulp District Gendarmerie, Nevzat Ar_k, Commander of the Lice District Gendarmerie, and soldiers attached to Üçdamlar Gendarme Station. Since the alleged events did not take place in Kulp district, the Public Prosecutor's office there did not have jurisdiction and the investigation was referred to the Public Prosecutor's office at Lice.     iv.   Decision of lack of jurisdiction (ratione materiae) of 6 March 1995   46.   This decision was taken by a Public Prosecutor at Lice, Özcan Küçüköz. It names the same defendants as the decision of 23 January 1995 (para. 45), but the offences of which they are accused are ill-treatment of persons and setting fire to houses. It states that from the examination which has been conducted it has transpired that the investigation of the actions of the officers about whom the complaints were made fall within the scope of Article 4.i of Decree no. 285 and that for that reason the investigation is referred to the District Administrative Council.     b.   Official documents concerning Application No. 23180/94 (Ovat)     i.   Handwritten report dated 24 June 1993 drawn up by six members of the Gendarmerie belonging to Üçdamlar Gendarme Station   47.   This document was submitted as an appendix to the Government's observations on the admissibility of the application. It states that an armed combat took place at about 09.00 hours on 23 June 1993 when PKK terrorists opened fire on a team from Üçdamlar Gendarme Station consisting of a private and a corporal under the command of an expert sergeant as they were climbing _dri_ hill. At the same time the Üçdamlar Gendarme Station was held under harassing fire. Reinforcements set out in armoured vehicles from Üçdamlar Gendarme Station to support the ambushed team upon which the terrorists escaped to the north-east, firing at short intervals in order to divert the attention of the reinforcements. One gendarme corporal was wounded at the scene and died later. The report describes what kind of guns and ammunition had been used and relates that a number of empty Kaleshnikov cartridges were found. In the course of the search which continued throughout the day, one person identified as a terrorist was found dead.     ii.   Letter dated 12 August 1994 from the Diyarbak_r Public Prosecutor's Office to the Lice Public Prosecutor's Office   48.   In this letter the Lice Public Prosecutor's Office is requested to commence an investigation into the allegations which are the subject of Mizgin Ovat's application to the Commission, to ascertain whether and why Ovat has moved to Diyarbak_r and whether she is involved with the PKK terrorist organisation, and to ascertain the composition of her family.     iii.   Letter dated 13 October 1994 from Gendarme Captain _ahap Yaral_ of Lice District Gendarme Headquarters to the Lice Public Prosecutor's Office   49.   In reply to a letter from the Lice Public Prosecutor's Office, Yaral_ writes that in 1993 numerous attacks were carried out by the PKK terrorist organisation on Güldiken village and that the PKK covered all their food needs from the village. On 1 July 1993 the PKK set fire to the village and destroyed animals following which the villagers left the area. The letter goes on to say that Mizgin Uvat (sic) also left and that no information had been received as to her whereabouts.   50.   As an appendix to the letter a handwritten record is enclosed which contains the same information as the letter and is signed by the Commander of Üçdamlar Gendarme Station, an Expert Gendarme Sergeant and by Hanifi Sala, muhtar (mayor) of Güldiken.     iv.   Letter dated 18 October 1994 from Lice Public Prosecutor to the Diyarbak_r Public Prosecutor's Office   51.   The Diyarbak_r Public Prosecutor's Office is requested to summon Mizgin Ovat in order for her to state her complaint and evidence in connection with the incident.     v.   Letter dated 10 November 1994 from Lice Public Prosecutor to the Diyarbak_r Public Prosecutor's Office   52.   In this letter the Diyarbak_r Public Prosecutor's Office is informed of the continuation of the investigation. The Lice Public Prosecutor writes, inter alia, that in a reply dated 13 October 1994 received from the District Gendarme Headquarters (see para. 49) it was stated that no such incident had taken place.     vi.   Letter dated 23 May 1995 from Lice Public Prosecutor to the Diyarbak_r Public Prosecutor's Office   53.   A Lice Public Prosecutor, Özcan Küçüköz, informs the Diyarbak_r Public Prosecutor's Office of the results of the investigation carried out at their request. He states, inter alia, that it has proved impossible to obtain information about Mizgin Ovat or her whereabouts and that according to the District Registry Office there was nobody registered under the name of Ovat. The Diyarbak_r Public Prosecutor's Office is finally informed that a decision of lack of jurisdiction has been taken and that the investigation has been transferred to the District Administrative Council.     vii.   Decision of lack of jurisdiction (ratione materiae) of 23 May 1995   54.   This decision is appended to the letter of 23 May 1995 (para. 53). It was issued by Lice Public Prosecutor Özcan Küçüköz and indicates that the security forces are accused of having committed the offences of ill-treatment of persons, the killing of animals and setting fire to houses on 24-25 June 1993. It states that from the examination which has been conducted it has transpired that the investigation of the actions of the officers about whom the complaints were made falls within the scope of Article 4.i of Decree no. 285 and that for that reason the investigation is referred to the District Administrative Council.     c.   Official documents concerning Applications Nos. 23181 and 23182/94 (_ahin and Dündar)     i.   Letter dated 4 May 1994 from Diyarbak_r Public Prosecutor to the Lice Public Prosecutor's Office   55.   In this letter the Lice Public Prosecutor's Office is asked whether Ali _ahin (sic) and Rabia Dündar have brought their allegations to the attention of the authorities and, if not, the Public Prosecutor's Office is requested to commence an investigation.     ii.   Letter dated 9 May 1994 from Lice Public Prosecutor to the Diyarbak_r Public Prosecutor's Office   56.   The Lice Public Prosecutor Özcan Küçüköz writes that enquiries have established that Ali _ahin (sic) and Rabia Dündar did not submit any complaints to the Public Prosecutor's Office, but that an investigation has been opened.     iii.   Letter dated 7 June 1994 from Gendarme Captain _ahap Yaral_ of Lice District Gendarme Headquarters to the Lice Public Prosecutor's Office   57.   In reply to a letter from the Lice Public Prosecutor's Office, Yaral_ states that on 24-25 June 1993 no operation of any kind was carried out by the Gendarme Headquarters on Güldiken village and neither were any houses or a van burned.     iv.   Decision of lack of jurisdiction dated 21 February 1995   58.   This decision, issued by Lice Public Prosecutor Özcan Küçüköz, lists as complainants Ali (Halit) _ahin (sic) and Rabia Dündar, as defendants the security forces, and as offence the setting fire to a house and a van. It states that it has transpired from the examination which has been conducted that the investigation of the actions of the officers about whom the complaints were made falls within the scope of Article 4.i of Decree no. 285 and that for that reason the investigation is referred to the District Administrative Council.     d.   Official documents concerning Application No. 23180/94 (_ahin)     Letter dated 22 December 1994 from Lice Public Prosecutor to the Diyarbak_r Public Prosecutor's Office   59.   In this letter Lice Public Prosecutor Özcan Küçüköz states in respect of the allegation that Ali _ahin's (sic) van was burned by soldiers in Güldiken that examination of the court's records has established that _ahin's business partner Behçet Aksoy did not apply for an assessment of damage.     e.   Official documents concerning Applications Nos. 23180 and 23182/94 (Ovat and Dündar)     i.   Letter dated 13 May 1996 from the Director of the Lice District Registry Office to the Lice Public Prosecutor's Office   60.   In reply to a query made by the Lice Public Prosecutor's Office the Director of the Registry Office encloses with this letter a copy of the family register of Mehdin Uvat, registered at No. 81, Güldiken village. This copy has not been submitted to the Commission. The letter goes on to say that, as regards Rabia (Lamia) Dündar (sic), the examination of the District Registry did not reveal an entry for a person with such a surname.     ii.   Letter dated 14 May 1996 from a Public Prosecutor to the   Ministry of Justice (International Law and External Relations General Directorate)   61.   It appears that this letter was sent in reply to a request from the Ministry of Justice of 2 May 1996. The letter encloses a copy of the family register concerning Nergis Uvat, registered at Güldiken village. This copy has not been submitted to the Commission. The letter goes on to say that according to the District Registry Office there is no entry concerning Lamia (Rabia) Dündar (sic).     f.   Official documents concerning all four applications     i.   Letter dated 20 March 1995 from the Office of the Administrative Council of the Lice District Governor's Office to the Provincial Governor's Office   62.   The letter refers to the investigations conducted by the Lice Public Prosecutor's Office and their referral to the Lice District Governor's Office. Permission is requested for the appointment of an investigator. This letter was submitted by the Government in all four applications, despite the fact that the decision of lack of jurisdiction in Application No. 23180/94 (Ovat) was not taken until 23 May 1995 (para. 54)     ii.   Letter dated 3 April 1995 from a Gendarme Senior Colonel of the Diyarbak_r District Gendarme Headquarters to the Diyarbak_r Provincial Governor's Office   63.   While referring to the letter of the Lice District Administrative Council of 20 March 1995 (para. 62), the author recommends that Gendarme Lieutenant Colonel M. Asaf Gökçek be appointed as investigator. This recommendation was approved by the Provincial Governor on 4 April 1995, vide a note at the bottom of the letter.     g.   Statements by the applicants     i.   Emine Y_lmaz' statement dated 3 August 1993 taken by Sedat Aslanta_ of the Diyarbak_r branch of the Human Rights Association   64.   Emine Y_lmaz used to live in the village of Çotuk (Kurdish name: Ma_tak). On 8 December 1992 that village was visited by security units from Kulp who ordered the inhabitants to leave the village under threat of force. Emine Y_lmaz and her family went to Güldiken where they moved into the house of a relative who was residing elsewhere. On 10 December 1992 Ma_tak was destroyed in an aerial bombardment.   65.   One month after having settled in Güldiken, security forces commanded by Nevzat Ar_k came from Lice District Gendarme Station and arrested Emine Y_lmaz' sons Taha and Abdullah. When they were released after five days they showed obvious signs of torture. However, they could not afford any medical treatment.   66.   Around 17.00 hours on 23 June 1993 Emine Y_lmaz and her husband were travelling from Diyarbak_r to Güldiken on the minibus service run by Naif Akgül when the vehicle was stopped by soldiers about 500 metres from Üçdamlar Gendarme Station. All the passengers were told to get off the bus. They made Naif Akgül drive the minibus about 500 metres before forcing him to set fire to it. Then Naif Akgül and five people from Sa_göze village were arrested. Emine Y_lmaz, her husband and a number of other people from Güldiken walked the two kilometres to the village. As they inferred that the village was going to be raided, all the young people left Güldiken that evening.   67.   At around 06.00-07.00 hours on the morning of 24 June 1993 about 500-600 soldiers from Lice District and Diyarbak_r Province Gendarme Stations effected an operation on the 200-household village of   Güldiken. They first went to the house of the village muhtar Abdülvasih Tekay and forced Naif Akgül, whom they had brought with them, to set fire to this house. They sent 100-150 soldiers to each of the four neighbourhoods of the village and burned down and destroyed the houses. When they came to Emine Y_lmaz' house they took her husband and beat him and threatened him for some time in front of the house. They collected all the goods in the three roomed house into one room without allowing the family to take anything out, poured petrol over the property and set it alight. After they had burned the whole house, the Lice District Gendarme Headquarters Commander Nevzat Ar_k told Emine Y_lmaz and her husband and daughter that this time they had only burned their house but that next time they would kill all of them. When the soldiers were heading for other houses, Emine Y_lmaz and a few other women hid in the irrigation channel a few metres further on.   68.   In the meantime the soldiers were forcing the old men in the village to lie face down on the ground and were beating them with rifle butts. The soldiers installed themselves in the village for two or three days. Those villagers able to flee did so. Emine Y_lmaz, her husband and her daughter walked to another village and, after staying there for a few days, continued to Diyarbak_r where they settled in the house of her married daughter.     ii.   Mizgin Ovat's statement dated 24 July 1993 taken by Sedat Aslanta_ of the Diyarbak_r branch of the Human Rights Association   69.   As soon as the sun had risen on 24 June 1993, 500-600 soldiers connected to Lice and Diyarbak_r Gendarme Stations carried out a raid on the 200 household village of Güldiken. The reason was an armed attack carried out by PKK guerillas on the Gendarme Station in the Üçdamlar hamlet of Güldiken on 23 June 1993. After that attack, on the evening of 23 June 1993, security forces set fire to the minibus belonging to Naif Akgül.   70.   As soon as the soldiers entered Güldiken they set fire to the van of Behçet Aksoy. At about 08.00 hours they blockaded the whole village. They ejected Mizgin Ovat and her family from their house. They poured petrol over the house and set fire to it. They fired indiscriminately right and left. The soldiers ill-treated the men in the village. They collected all villagers, i.e. women, girls, children, etc., next to the irrigation channel which runs through the centre of the village and started to burn down the houses. Women and children started to cry and were threatened by the soldiers. They threw themselves into the irrigation channel from fear and waited there for hours.   71.   Mizgin Ovat's family consists of seven persons (father Muhittin, mother Ay_e, sister Sema, brothers Ciyan, Habip and M.Can and herself). Their house was burned down on 25 June 1993 after which the family was told by the soldiers to leave the village. They fled to another village and from there to Diyarbak_r. They were able to save two cows from their animals, whereas one goat and nearly twenty chickens were slaughtered and eaten by the soldiers.     iii.   Halit _ahin's statement dated 2 July 1993 taken by Sedat Aslanta_ of the Diyarbak_r branch of the Human Rights Association   72.   In this statement the applicant's name is given as Ali _ahin.   73.   On 25 June 1993 he went to Güldiken to load poplar wood. At around 10.00 hours, soldiers and commandos connected to the Lice Gendarme Station organised a raid on the village. As a clash had broken out between soldiers and guerillas in neighbouring villages the day before, the inhabitants of Güldiken knew that the soldiers would raid their village. For this reason, they were leaving the village, especially the men. On the day of the incident _ahin was in Güldiken with his business partner Behçet Aksoy and two other men. There were also about 40 women in the village. As soon as the soldiers entered the village, they started to fire indiscriminately and set light to and demolish the houses. _ahin and his companions wanted to flee but could not as there was nowhere they could flee to. When the soldiers saw them, they started to beat them, hitting them with their rifle butts.   74.   The soldiers then set fire to his van and burned it despite his pleas. A week later he went back to the village to fetch his vehicle which was completely burned out. He has suffered 120,000,000 Turkish Liras in material damages.   75.   When _ahin made this statement he was accompanied by Behçet Aksoy and one of the other villagers who stated to have witnessed the burning of the van. They said that the person who had assaulted them the most was the commander of the soldiers, Captain Nevzat Ar_k.     iv.   Rabia Dündar's statement dated 29 July 1993 taken by Sedat Aslanta_ of the Diyarbak_r branch of the Human Rights Association   76.   At around 05.00 hours on 24 June 1993 a raid was carried out on the 200 household village of Güldiken by around 600 soldiers and Special Team members from Lice and Diyarbak_r Gendarme Stations. Rabia Dündar's house was surrounded by 25 soldiers at around 06.00 hours and she, her husband and their eight children were besieged in their own house. The security forces, who were under the command of Captain Nevzat Ar_k, took them all out of the house by the arm and refused to let them take anything with them. All the contents of the house were then put into one room, petrol was poured onto them and they were set alight. During the fire, the soldiers said to the family: "You help terrorists, if the terrorists are fish in water, then you represent the water, and we shall kill the fish by drying up the water".   77.   After their house had been burned down, Rabia Dündar and her family moved to Diyarbak_r where they rented a two-roomed house.     h.   Statements by other persons     Hanifi Sala     Undated statement   78.   The record of this statement was submitted with the Government's observations on the admissibility of Application No. 23180/94 (Ovat). The statement was taken by two gendarme sergeants from Üçdamlar Gendarme Station; it is signed by them as well as by Hanifi Sala, the muhtar of Güldiken.   79.   Hanifi Sala stated that he knew the former muhtar of Güldiken, Abdülvasih Tekay, who was now living in Diyarbak_r at an address unknown to Sala. He did not know Ali _ahin, but he knew Emine Y_lmaz and Mizgin Ivat (sic). Y_lmaz and Ivat used to live in the Çiftlik hamlet of Güldiken, but Sala did not know where they had gone following the evacuation of the village due to migration. He did know, however, that Mizgin Ivat was wanted for draft evasion. He further stated that the State provided aid per household for the people emigrating from the village.   80.   Sala denied that there had ever been a raid on the village in 1992 or any other year, but in December 1992 terrorists had set fire to Çotuk hamlet. Sala confirmed that Naif Akgül used to run a minibus service between Güldiken and other villages in the district but Akgül had left after the villagers migrated. Sala had no information about whether or not Akgül's minibus had been put on fire.   81.   Asked whether there had been any clashes in Güldiken village or its hamlets in June 1993, Sala said that there had been no clashes between the security forces and the terrorists in Güldiken and that he had not heard of or seen a vehicle being set on fire.     Behçet Aksoy     Statement dated 1 July 1993   82.   This document, which was submitted with Application No. 23181/94 (_ahin), is headed "To the offices of the judge of the Lice court of first instance" and allegedly constitutes a request for the determination of evidence.   83.   On 25 June 1993 Behçet Aksoy took his van to Güldiken to transport poplar wood. While in the village, a group of gendarmes came to Güldiken and started to burn some of the houses and his van.   84.   Behçet Aksoy submits that he is unable to work now that his van has burned out. For this reason he requests that a determination of the damage be carried out in preparation for the case which he intends to open.     Sariye Uvat     Statement dated 5 August 1993 taken by the Diyarbak_r branch of the Human Rights Association in the context of Application No. 23186/94 (Mente_ and others v. Turkey, Comm. Rep. 7.3.96, para. 59, currently pending before the Court)   85.   At about 06.00 hours on 25 June 1993, approximately 400 soldiers from the Lice Gendarme Headquarters organised a raid on the Piroz hamlet of Sa_göze village. The villagers in the hamlet had heard about a raid on Pecar (Güldiken) village one day before.     Selahattin Can     Statement dated 10 July 1995 given before the Commission's Delegates in the context of Application No. 23186/94 and contained in the Commission's Report of 7 March 1996 (Mente_ and others v. Turkey, loc. cit., paras. 95-99).   86.   On 25 June 1993 Selahattin Can was visiting an uncle in Sa_göze. At about 07.00-08.00 hours soldiers surrounded the village and told the villagers to go to the area near the school. One or two days before this visit, the terrorists had apparently carried out a raid on the Gendarme Station at Üçdamlar village and this was the reason for the operation in the village. A colonel said to the villagers that terrorists had been there and asked where they had gone.   2.   Oral evidence   87.   Of the applicants, only Emine Y_lmaz gave evidence before the Commission's Delegates at the hearing in Ankara. The Delegates were informed that Mizgin Ovat had married since the introduction of the application and that her husband did not allow her to testify. Although Halit _ahin had apparently confirmed to his representatives that he would attend the hearing he did not appear. It furthermore appeared that the representatives had had difficulties in contacting Rabia Dündar who was said to have moved to another region after having married. She also did not appear. No further explanations for Halit _ahin's and Rabia Dündar's failure to attend have been provided.   88.   Nor did it prove possible to ensure the appearance of all the other persons summoned by the Delegates to be heard during the hearing in Ankara.   89.   Behçet Aksoy, the business partner of Halit _ahin, failed to attend without providing an explanation. Similarly, Abdülvasih Tekay and Hanifi Sala, respectively the muhtar of Güldiken at the time of the alleged incident and his successor, did not appear. In respect of the latter, the Government submitted that the summons had been sent to his address but that he was not there.   90.   The evidence of six witnesses heard by the Delegates may be summarised as follows:     i.   Emine Y_lmaz   91.   Emine Y_lmaz said that she was born in 1935. Her evidence was somewhat confusing as it was not always clear whether she was describing events in Çotuk or Güldiken.   92.   She had moved from the village of Çotuk, where she had lived most   of her life, three to four months prior to the alleged events. One evening, while she had still been living in Çotuk, helicopters had circled the mountains around the village and she and her family had gone to Güldiken. The next day, from Güldiken, she had seen how helicopters and jets had bombarded Çotuk. Her house and all her belongings had been destroyed. In Güldiken she had moved into a house, which was more like a shed, which had been made available by the State to a person called Abdülkerim following an earthquake in 1975. Abdülkerim had moved away; the household goods in the house belonged to him. The house was situated in the _emezi neighbourhood of Güldiken village.   93.   One evening in June 1993, as she and her husband had been   returning from Diyarbak_r to Güldiken, the bus they were travelling on had been stopped by soldiers near Üçdamlar Gendarme Station. The passengers had been told to get out of the bus. The driver and four other passengers had been beaten up and then put back into the vehicle upon which the bus had been taken away and set alight. The five people had been taken into custody and tortured. She had learned about this afterwards from the driver who was called Hüseyin. Hüseyin ran the bus service together with Naif Akgül. Emine Y_lmaz and her husband had been forced to walk to Güldiken, but the soldiers had told the men present that they would be coming to Güldiken the next morning. When they had informed the Güldiken muhtar, Abdülvasih Tekay, of this upon their return he had said that the soldiers must have been joking. She denied that any of the men had left the village that night as a precaution.   94.   The next day, at sunrise, a large number of soldiers she had been unable to count had come to Güldiken in helicopters, armoured personnel carriers and jeeps. Although she said that the soldiers had assembled the women, she later said that initially they had thought a search was going to be carried out, which was a regular event, but when they had realised that something bad was happening they had hidden in the irrigation channel. The men, even the young ones, had been made to lie on the ground and had been beaten and kicked. Afterwards, her husband had been covered in blood. She had witnessed the muhtar being beaten very hard.   95.   The houses in the village had been burned by the soldiers. She had not actually seen the house she was staying in being set alight. Although she had not recognised any of the soldiers, people had told her that one of them was a Sergeant Mustafa and another one, the Commander of the Gendarme Station, was Nevzat.   96.   About two hours before evening prayer the inhabitants of Güldiken had fled while the soldiers had stayed on and had taken up positions in the village. She and her family had gone to Lice where they had moved into a shed. In the first month of autumn Lice had been burned dow