CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 31 octobre 1997

.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. 22309/93                    Ahmet, Ahmet and Bedri isiyok                               against                               Turkey                      REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                    (adopted on 31 October 1997)                          TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             Page   INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1   PART I   : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3   PART II : SOLUTION REACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4                            INTRODUCTION   1.    This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Ahmet (son of Mehmet), Ahmet (son of Sabri) and Bedri isiyok against Turkey on 9 July 1993.   It was registered on 23 July 1993 under file No. 22309/93.   2.    The applicants were represented by Prof. Kevin Boyle and Ms. Françoise Hampson, both teachers at the University of Essex.   3.    The Government of Turkey were represented by their Agent, Prof. Dr A. Gündüz.   4.    On 3 April 1995 the Commission declared the application admissible to the extent that it related to the deprivation and endangering of life, the denial of access to court, the failure to initiate proceedings before a tribunal and the destruction of the applicants' homes. It then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:        "In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to      it:        a.    it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake      together with the representatives of the parties an examination      of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the      effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all      necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the      Commission;        b.    it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of      the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly      settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights      as defined in this Convention."   5.    The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 31 October 1997 it adopted this Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.   6.    The following members were present when the Report was adopted:             Mr.   S. TRECHSEL, President           Mrs. G.H. THUNE           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   E. BUSUTTIL                G. JÖRUNDSSON                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                A. WEITZEL                J.-C. SOYER                H. DANELIUS                F. MARTINEZ                C.L. ROZAKIS                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           Mrs. M. HION           MM.   R. NICOLINI                A. ARABADJIEV                               PART I                       STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   7.    The applicants, Turkish nationals, of Kurdish origin, are members of the same family living in the Diyarbakir province in south-eastern Turkey. The first two applicants are cousins and the third applicant is the nephew of the first applicant. They were born in 1950, 1951 and 1974 respectively.   8.    The facts of the present case are in dispute.   9.    The applicants recounted the following version of the events in question:   10.   On 12 January 1993 the applicants' hamlet of Çekirdek in the Kulp district of Diyarbakir province was bombed from 9.00 to 11.00 hours by three military helicopters. At around 12.30 hours, one of the helicopters was seen again, followed by two jets. At this point, the first applicant took his four children into a corner of the house and was about to go and check the animals in their fold. Before he could go outside, there was a great explosion and his home collapsed.   11.   As a result of the bombing, the first applicant had his ribs broken and was bruised. His family home was destroyed, the family's animals were killed and the feedstock for the animals was destroyed by burning. The second applicant's family home was also destroyed and the family's animals killed. The parents of the third applicant and three of his siblings were killed in the bombing, their family home was destroyed and the family's animals were killed.   12.   The applicants alleged that the State authorities were responsible for the bombing and, moreover, did not investigate the event in an adequate manner.   They invoked Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   13.   The Government submitted that when security purposes demanded this, security forces would carry out operations in the regions where PKK terrorists were active. As these security forces were given strict instructions to avoid causing damage to inhabitants of the areas in question, it was inconceivable that air attacks were directed against the civilian population. In any event, the allegation that Çekirdek hamlet was bombed by security forces was implausible as there was no concrete evidence supporting it.   14.   An investigation into the alleged event is currently pending before the Kulp District Administrative Board following a decision of non-jurisdiction by the public prosecutor of Kulp.                               PART II                          SOLUTION REACHED   15.   Following the decision on the admissibility of the application and a hearing of evidence before Delegates which took place in Ankara on 15 April 1996, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.   16.   In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.   17.   Following an exchange of correspondence, the Commission considered the question of a settlement on 1 March 1997, and made specific settlement proposals. By letter of 5 May 1997 the Government informed the Commission that they were willing to accept the terms of the proposal. By letter received on 26 June 1997 the applicants informed the Commission that they also agreed to a settlement of the case on the proposed terms, subject to a number of conditions concerning the execution of the settlement.   18.   On 28 August 1997 the Commission sent the parties a draft protocol for settlement. Following an exchange of correspondence, in the course of which a number of small amendments were made to the draft protocol, the parties signed the following Agreement on 21 October 1997:        (1)   the Government will pay to the applicant Bedri isiyok the           equivalent of 100,000 French francs, and to each of the two           applicants called Ahmet isiyok the equivalent of 80,000           French francs, within three months from the day when the           Commission approves the friendly settlement, it being           understood that the sums are to be paid net of any direct           or indirect tax charge or other deductions and in Turkish           Lira at the international exchange rate in force on the           date of payment;        (2)   the Government will forward to the Commission a copy of the           transfer of the sums under (1), which will be transmitted           to the applicants' legal representatives;        (3)   the Government will pay directly to the applicants'           representatives in the United Kingdom, within three months           from the day when the Commission approves the friendly           settlement, the legal costs incurred by the applicants in           the proceedings before the Commission amounting to           8,123.04 Pounds Sterling, this being the total sum of legal           costs of 8,877.50 Pounds Sterling, minus 754.46 Pounds           Sterling received by way of legal aid from the Commission;        (4)   simple interest at the following annual rates shall be           payable for each day beyond the expiry of the three month           periods mentioned above until payment has been made:             (a)   3.87% in relation to the sum payable to the                applicants, this being the current French default                interest rate, and             (b)   8% in relation to the sum payable in Pounds Sterling,                this being the current British default interest rate;        (5)   the applicants declare that with this settlement the           proceedings before the Commission in the present           application have terminated.   19.   At its session on 31 October 1997, the Commission noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.   20.   For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.           M. de SALVIA                          S. TRECHSEL          Secretary                            President      to the Commission                     of the Commission