CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 4 mars 1998

.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 }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 30846/96                       by idris ANIK                       against Turkey        The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 4 March 1998, the following members being present:              MM     J.-C. GEUS, President                  M.A. NOWICKI                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs    G.H. THUNE            MM     F. MARTINEZ                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA                  A. ARABADJIEV              Ms     M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 15 December 1995 by idris ANIK against Turkey and registered on 26 March 1996 under file No. 30846/96;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant, born in Sirnak, is a Turkish citizen resident in Diyarbakir. He is represented before the Commission by Mr Hasip Kaplan and Ms Merih Acar, lawyers practising in istanbul.        The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.        On 28 March 1992 the applicant's daughter, B.A., was arrested and taken into custody at the Security Directorate of Sirnak. She was allegedly subjected to torture and later shot dead while in detention.        On 1 April 1992 the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the Public Prosecutor of Sirnak against the security forces.        On 26 May 1992 the Public Prosecutor discharged the security forces and terminated the proceedings on the grounds that there was no evidence substantiating torture and as it appeared that the applicant's daughter had committed suicide in her cell with a police rifle which had been forgotten there.        On 28 May 1992 the decision of the Public Prosecutor not to commit for trial was served on the applicant. On 12 June 1992 the decision became final since no objection was raised against it.   COMPLAINTS   1.    The applicant complains that his daughter was arrested on 28 March 1992 and killed while she was in police custody. He alleges that his daughter's right to life and her right to security of person have been violated in contravention of Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention.   2.    The applicant further submits that Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention have been violated since there were no effective remedies in domestic law.   3.    Relying on the same facts, the applicant also submits that Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention have been violated.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 15 December 1995 and registered on 26 March 1996.        On 21 November 1997 the Commission, pursuant to Article 47 para. 2 (a) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to invite the respondent Government to submit information with regard to the date on which the Sirnak Public Prosecutor's decision dated 26 May 1992 not to commit for trial was served on the applicant.        The Government's replied on 5 January 1998. They sent a document, attached to their letter, which substantiates that the Sirnak Public Prosecutor's decision was served on the applicant on 28 May 1992.   THE LAW        The applicant complains of the killing of his daughter by security forces while in detention. He invokes Articles 2 (Art. 2) (the right to life), 5 (Art. 5) (the right to security of person), 6 (Art. 6) (the right of access to a court), 13 (Art. 13) (the right to effective remedies for Convention breaches), 14 (Art. 14) (the prohibition of discrimination) and 18 (Art. 18) of the Convention (the prohibition to impose restrictions authorised by the Convention for ulterior purposes).        However, the Commission is not required to determine whether or not the facts alleged by the applicant in the present case disclose any appearance of a violation of the above provisions of the Convention as the applicant has failed to submit his complaints to the Commission within the six months time limit prescribed by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.        The Commission notes that in the present case the Public Prosecutor of Sirnak discharged the security forces and terminated the proceedings on 26 May 1992. On 28 May 1992 the decision was served on the applicant.        The application filed with the Commission on 15 December 1995 must therefore be considered as having been introduced after the expiry of the six months time limit prescribed by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention and must accordingly be declared inadmissible under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,          DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.      M.-T. SCHOEPFER                               J.-C. GEUS       Secretary                                   President to the Second Chamber                       of the Second Chamber