CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 23 avril 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE32676A4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sC9EEB897 { width:411.42pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s4673F580 { width:321.53pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .sE76CCFE2 { width:24.11pt; display:inline-block } .sBCE88E5A { width:292.75pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s8344FE65 { width:286.08pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .sB105E5F6 { width:23.45pt; display:inline-block } .s8D3E23FF { width:279.41pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .sF9C0A319 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .sCDC838F7 { width:308.18pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .sDD6C358F { width:266.06pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s27C6991 { width:259.39pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .s2BB35D83 { width:294.84pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s70F2274A { width:289.4pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .sF2CE8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9744DA65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEDC5336B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9F02D3B9 { width:273.59pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s98996631 { width:303.6pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDEEF8E99 { margin-left:52.4pt; padding-left:18.4pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s70D8659F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:70.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s1CB4D29A { width:273.69pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s94C36C9A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s595305E7 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal; text-decoration:underline } .s44EE2A41 { width:24.79pt; display:inline-block } .s765F4CC2 { width:129.85pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .sA316C3C4 { width:23.9pt; display:inline-block } .s4BC13242 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:99.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-99.25pt; font-size:12pt } .sD3D1773B { width:35.45pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s85325123 { width:28.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sFA4DBA46 { width:86.62pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .sD29AF45E { width:20.57pt; display:inline-block } .sFF596A0C { width:10.57pt; display:inline-block } .sDD9D749C { width:101.28pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s34E50F0D { width:432.35pt; display:inline-block } .sBD57CE53 { width:21.68pt; display:inline-block } .sA8146E40 { text-align:justify; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s88056A31 { width:14.35pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s936EB0A2 { width:17.01pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s40DF141B { width:8.35pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s1C105E14 { font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s61D4D4FB { text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sDB59ECB2 { width:16.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA904E5F0 { width:7.65pt; display:inline-block } .sFD1C8E96 { width:16.01pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s9782B425 { width:22.01pt; display:inline-block } .sE0EA7154 { width:21.33pt; display:inline-block } .s378F6197 { page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s12A80A14 { width:32.99pt; display:inline-block } .sE2756EA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:70.9pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-70.9pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s58B5484 { width:29.23pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s48495C9C { width:15.01pt; display:inline-block } .s36603326 { width:18.34pt; display:inline-block } .s9AFF8173 { width:17.68pt; display:inline-block } .sCBC20640 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sC0E143C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:7.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-7.65pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s8C6C4B { width:7.65pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6A184BC2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal } .sE0395384 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-36pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s38685CCB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sFA66E556 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-36pt; font-size:12pt } .s6006223D { width:2.35pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB3C5666F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt; font-size:12pt } .sA23A8A73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-36pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sADA066E4 { margin-left:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s42A0AEC7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s423BED31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s62E9666B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-36pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s740DBB2E { text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s7A24C19E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-42.55pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s15514A1D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s5B629078 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:12pt } .sD8D7341E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sAF1EE20D { width:14.08pt; display:inline-block } .s589818D7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s9F2A5D62 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s8C3725F6 { width:14.08pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBC70BA36 { width:18.34pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4EDB3034 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:72pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-72pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s43CDEF81 { width:43.65pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s1D7B2102 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-56.7pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sDB69AEDD { width:15.68pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s933D64C4 { width:0.99pt; display:inline-block } .s5B366099 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sB8E5A13A { text-align:justify; font-size:12pt; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; list-style-position:inside } .s8C1ECD2D { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:normal } .s645ABF3E { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF114237 { width:19.02pt; display:inline-block } .s24DDE3D1 { text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1565CC90 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s556ED54D { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s9A1628E1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-36pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sD327920 { width:1.96pt; display:inline-block } .s2E0B4473 { width:5.29pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sEE672C4F { width:5.97pt; display:inline-block } .sEDB370AC { width:19.68pt; display:inline-block } .s72FB07A8 { width:32.32pt; display:inline-block } .sD5CC7934 { width:25.02pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6EFAC577 { width:17.69pt; display:inline-block } .s1188E1D8 { width:5.99pt; display:inline-block } .sE9B312F6 { width:5.29pt; display:inline-block } .s8AFB426F { width:32.67pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s2979E4D7 { width:21.6pt; display:inline-block } .s9E7DF94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF00A2B95 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                       Application Nos. 22947-8/93       Nebahat Akkoç     against     Turkey                     REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 23 April 1999)   TABLE OF CONTENTS   Page   I.   INTRODUCTION   (paras. 1-50) ............................................ 1     A.   The application     (paras. 2-4) ........................................ 1     B.   The proceedings     (paras. 5-45) ....................................... 1     C.   The present Report     (paras. 46-50) ...................................... 4     II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   (paras. 51-229) .......................................... 6     A.   The particular circumstances of the case     (paras. 52-79) ...................................... 6     B.   The evidence before the Commission     (paras. 80-229) .................................... 10       1) Documentary evidence     (paras. 80-157) .................................... 10       2) Oral evidence     (paras. 158-207) ................................... 25     C.   Relevant domestic law and practice     (paras. 208-220) ................................... 36     D.   Relevant international material     (paras. 221-229) ................................... 38     III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   (paras. 230-356) ........................................ 42     A.   Complaints declared admissible     (para. 230) ........................................ 42     B.   Points at issue     (paras. 231-232) ................................... 42 TABLE OF CONTENTS   Page     C.   Concerning the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant     (paras. 233-246) ..................................... 43       As regards Article 10 of the Convention     (paras. 233-245) ..................................... 43       CONCLUSION     (para. 246) ......................................... 46   Concerning the death of the applicant’s husband (paras. 247-289) ..................................... 46       1. As regards Article 2 of the Convention     (paras. 247-279) ..................................... 46       CONCLUSION     (para. 280) ......................................... 53       2. As regards Articles 6 and/or 13 of the Convention     (paras. 281-288) ..................................... 54       CONCLUSION     (para. 289) ......................................... 55       3. As regards Article 14 of the Convention     (paras. 290-293) ..................................... 55       CONCLUSION     (para. 294) ......................................... 55       4. As regards Article 1 of Protocol No. 1     (paras. 295-298) ..................................... 56       CONCLUSION     (para. 299) ......................................... 56     E.   Concerning the applicant’s periods of detention     (paras. 300-348) ..................................... 56       1. The evaluation of the evidence     (paras. 300-326) ..................................... 56       2. As regards Article 3 of the Convention     (paras. 327-333) ..................................... 64   TABLE OF CONTENTS Page       CONCLUSION     (para. 334) ......................................... 66       3. As regards Article 18 of the Convention     (paras. 335-338) ..................................... 66       CONCLUSION     (para. 339) ......................................... 67       4. As regards former Article 25 of the Convention     (paras. 340-347) ..................................... 67       CONCLUSION     (para. 348) ......................................... 68     F.   Recapitulation     (paras. 349-356) ..................................... 69     PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR S. TRECHSEL ................. 70   APPENDIX I :   PARTIAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO       THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION ........... 71   APPENDIX II :   FINAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO       THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION ........... 79   APPENDIX III :     SUMMARY OF THE SUSURLUK REPORT .............. 87     I.   INTRODUCTION             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             The applicant is a Turkish citizen resident in Adana and born in 1953. She is represented before the Commission by Professor K. Boyle and Professor F. Hampson, both lecturers at the University of Essex.             The application is directed against Turkey. The respondent Government were represented by their Agents, Mr. A. Gündüz and Mr. S. Alpaslan.             The applicant complains that she has been subject to a disciplinary sanction in respect of an article published in a newspaper, that her husband was killed in circumstances for which the Government are responsible, that she has been deprived of an effective remedy and access to court in respect of her husband’s death, that she has been deprived thereby of her right to compensation or widow’s pension, that her husband was subject to discrimination and that she has been detained by the police during which detention she was tortured and came under pressure in respect of her application to the Commission. She invokes Articles 2, 3, 6, 10, 13, 14, 18 and former Article 25 [1] of the Convention.   B.   The proceedings             Applications Nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93 were introduced on 1 November 1993 and registered on 22 November 1993.             On 28 February 1994, the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para.   2   (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to invite the respondent Government to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint made by the applicant in Application No. 22947/93 in respect of the alleged violation of her freedom of expression resulting from the decision of the Provincial National Education Disciplinary Committee on 14 May 1993. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.   On the same date, the Commission decided to communicate to the Government the complaints made by the applicant in Application No. 22948/93.             The Government requested an extension in the time-limit set for the submission of their observations, which expired on 10 and 13 June 1994 respectively. They did not submit any observations.             On 31 March 1994, the applicant made submissions to the Commission, alleging that she had been detained, tortured and intimidated in respect of her applications. On 14   April 1994, the Commission decided to join the two applications, Nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93 and to invite the Government to submit observations on the complaints raised by the applicant under Articles 3 and 25. The time-limit set for this purpose expired on 13   June 1994, without any observations being received.             On 11 October 1994, the Commission declared the applications admissible.         The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 13   October 1994 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished. They were also invited to indicate the oral evidence they might wish to put before delegates.         On 21 October 1994, the applicant submitted complaints to the Commission that she was receiving threats. These were sent to the Government.   On 9 January 1995, the Government submitted observations, raising, inter alia , former Article 29 of the Convention.   On 2 March 1995, the Commission decided not to apply former Article 29 of the Convention and to invite the parties to submit any evidence or further observations on the merits that they might wish.   On 22 May 1995, the applicant submitted further evidence and observations.   On 1 December 1995, the Commission decided to take oral evidence in respect of the applicant's allegations under Article 3 and former Article 25. It appointed three Delegates for this purpose: MM. Pellonpää, Cabral Barreto and Bratza.   By letter dated 2 February 1996, the applicant submitted proposals concerning the taking of evidence and witnesses.   By letter dated 26 February 1996, the Delegates requested the Government to identify particular witnesses and provide documents from the investigation file. By letter dated 20   March 1996, the Government made submissions concerning the proposed witnesses.   By letter dated 4 April 1996, the Commission repeated its request for the Government to identify particular witnesses.   On 10 June 1996, the Government identified certain witnesses.         Evidence was heard by the Commission's Delegates in Ankara on 5 July 1996. Before the Delegates, the Government were represented by Mr. A. Gündüz and Mr. S. Alpaslan, Acting Agents, assisted by Mr. A. ölen, Mr. A. Kurudal, Ms. N. Nerdim, Mr. A. Emülser, Mr. C. Çakir, Mr. O. Sever, Ms. B. Pekgöz, Ms. M. Gülen and Ms. A. Emüler. The applicant was represented by Ms. F. Hampson and Mr. O. Baydemir, as counsel, assisted by Ms.   A.   Reidy and Mr. Mahmut Kaya (interpreter).   During the hearing, the applicant requested that certain allegations should not be made public. The Commission has acceded to the applicant’s request and has not taken these matters into account in its subsequent examination of the case.           By letter dated 10 July 1996, the Commission requested the Government to provide explanations for the non-attendance of two witnesses and to submit particular documents and information. The applicant was requested, by letter of the same date, to provide information and documents.         On 7 September 1996, the Commission decided to call one of the witnesses who had failed to appear to a hearing to take place in Strasbourg.         By letter dated 12 September 1996, the Government provided some of the documents requested by the Commission. By letter dated 25 September 1996, the Secretariat drew to the attention of the Government that some documents and information were still outstanding, including medical reports and X-rays of the applicant submitted by her in criminal proceedings.         By letter dated 2 October 1996, the applicant informed the Commission of difficulties in obtaining the information/documentation requested.         By letter dated 30 October 1996, the Government informed the Commission concerning the absence of one of the witnesses at the hearing in Ankara.         By letter dated 14 November 1996, the Government provided further information and informed the Commission that Mr. Ahmet Baaran, the witness proposed to be heard in Strasbourg on 4 December 1996, had died on 15 August 1996. It was stated that the Government had requested the medical reports and X-rays from the appropriate authorities.         By letter dated 25 November 1996, the Secretariat requested the Government to clarify their response and to confirm whether or not certain records existed.         By letter dated 31 January 1997, the Secretariat drew it to the attention of the Government that no reply had been received to previous requests for documents and information. They were requested to respond by 10 March 1997.         By letter dated 26 March 1997, the applicant submitted various medical reports.         By letter dated 16 May 1997, the Government informed the Commission that the applicant’s X-rays could not be provided as the applicant’s file was before the Court of Cassation but that, assuming that they were in the file,   they would be forwarded when the file was returned to the first instance court.         On 23 May 1997, the applicant provided further information.         By letter dated 4 June 1997, the Commission's Delegates requested that the Government clarify the position as regarded the applicant’s X-rays by 23 June 1997.         By letter dated 8 August 1997, the applicant provided further information.         By letter dated 27 August 1997, the Secretariat requested that the Government respond to enquiries concerning the X-rays.         By letter of 10 September 1997, the Government provided further information. They stated that the X-rays had been requested from the relevant authorities.         On 19 September 1997, the Commission examined the state of proceedings of the application and decided to request, as a matter of urgency, that the X-rays and medical report be provided by 7 November 1997.         On 6 December 1997, in the absence of any response from the Government, the Commission decided to invite the parties to submit their final observations on the merits by 5   February 1998.         By letter dated 20 January 1998, the Government requested an extension of three months for the submission of their observations on the merits, which was granted by the President.   A similar request was granted to the applicant. Pursuant to a further request by the Government, the time-limit was extended until 13 May 1998.         On 6 May 1998, the Government submitted three X-ray films and on 12   May   1998, their final observations on the merits.         On 6 June 1998, Dr Meyer of the Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, submitted a brief report on the X-rays at the request of the Commission Delegates.         On 9 June 1998, the three X-ray films were sent to the applicant’s representatives, who were requested to submit any comments or medical reports by 21 August 1998. On 27 July 1998, the applicant returned the films.         On 17 November 1998, the applicant submitted her final observations, after a further extension in the time-limit for that purpose.         On 14 December 1998, the applicant submitted observations and a medical report with regard to the X-ray films.         On 19 April 1999, the Commission decided that there was no basis on which to apply former Article 29 of the Convention in respect of the arguments raised by the Government in respect of the applicant’s complaints relating to the alleged interference with her freedom of expression, the death of her husband and her alleged torture in custody. It observed also that in her observations on the merits of 27 July 1998 the applicant invoked for the first time Article 13 of the Convention in respect of an alleged failure to investigate her allegations of torture. Recalling that in the decision on admissibility of 11 October 1994 it considered that the applicant’s allegations about her detention and ill-treatment in February 1994 should be considered under Articles 3 and 25 of the Convention and that it was on the basis of these provisions that the Delegates proceeded to take evidence and to invite the Government to submit its observations, the Commission did not find it appropriate to consider further the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.         After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with former 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         The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of former Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:       MM   S. TRECHSEL, President       E. BUSUTTIL       G. JÖRUNDSSON       A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK       A. WEITZEL       J.-C. SOYER       H. DANELIUS     Mrs   G.H. THUNE     Mr   F. MARTINEZ     Mrs   J. LIDDY     MM   L. LOUCAIDES       J.-C. GEUS       M.P. PELLONPÄÄ       B. MARXER       M.A. NOWICKI       I. CABRAL BARRETO     Sir   Nicolas BRATZA     MM   I. BÉKÉS       D. ŠVÁBY       G. RESS       A. PERENIĆ       P. LORENZEN       K. HERNDL       E. BIELIŪNAS       E.A. ALKEMA       M. VILA AMIGÓ     Mrs   M. HION     MM   R. NICOLINI       A. ARABADJIEV         The text of this Report was adopted on 23 April 1999 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with former Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.         The purpose of the Report, pursuant to former 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.         The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is annexed hereto.         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         The facts of the case, particularly concerning events during the detention of the applicant in February 1994, are disputed by the parties. For this reason, pursuant to former 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.   Facts as presented by the applicant         The various accounts of events as submitted in written and oral statements by the applicant are summarised in   Section B: "The evidence before the Commission". The version as presented in the applicant's final observations on the merits is summarised briefly here.     Concerning the disciplinary proceedings         The applicant is a former teacher and former head of the Diyarbakır Branch of the Education and Science Workers Union, Eğit-Sen. On 31 October 1992, the applicant made a statement to the Diyarbakır Söz newspaper, giving an account of a meeting which had taken place on 27 October 1992 between the applicant and a delegation of Eğit-Sen and the National Education Director. The applicant alleged that the teachers were verbally abused, harassed and in some cases assaulted by the police, which statements were published in an article titled “11 teachers detained in Diyarbakır”.         The Diyarbakır Provincial Education Disciplinary Committee took a decision on 14   May 1993 blocking the applicant’s promotion as a penalty for the statement made to the newspaper. The decision was confirmed by the Diyarbakır Administrative Court on 4   October 1994 and upheld by the Council of State on 5 December 1995, which sent the case back to the Administrative Court to revise only the severity of the penalty.     Concerning the death of the applicant’s husband         The applicant’s husband, Zübeyir Akkoç, was of Kurdish origin and also a teacher who was involved in the Eğit-Sen trade union. On 13 January 1993, at about 07.00 hours, Zübeyir Akkoç was killed by gun fire on his way to work at a primary school. Ramazan Aydın Bilge, who was accompanying him, was also killed. Her husband was dead when he arrived at the hospital. No classical autopsy was carried out. Two gendarmes arrived at the scene of the incident, allegedly having been notified by radio. They made no attempt to discover in which direction the perpetrators had fled and appear to have only taken one statement, from Abdullah Elgören, notwithstanding the large crowd that evidently had gathered at the scene.         Prior to her husband’s killing, and following the incident at the National Education Directorate, the applicant had received several threats over the telephone and had been harassed by the security forces.   In the telephone calls, she was told, “It is your turn, we are going to kill you too.” She reported the threats to the public prosecutor but her complaints were ignored. Her husband had been detained by the police on several occasions prior to his death. When she was detained in February 1994, the members of the security forces told her that they had killed him.         The public prosecutor opened a file 1993/339 into the killing, classifying it as an unknown perpetrators killing. On 27 March 1997, the prosecutor issued an indictment against Seyithan Araz for the killing of Zübeyir Akkoç, but not that of Ramazan Aydın Bilge. Seyithan Araz is alleged to have carried out activities for Hizbullah and evidence shows that many of the actions alleged to have been carried out by Hizbullah had been done with the collaboration of the security forces.   The applicant maintains that her husband was killed by persons acting for the security forces, as a result of his connection with her and their involvement in Eğit-Sen, and as part of the official State policy of intimidation against Kurdish teachers in south-east Turkey.     Concerning the detention and ill-treatment of the applicant         On 13 February 1994, at about 02.00 hours, the applicant was apprehended at her home by police officers, in front of her children. They had placed the applicant and her children in separate rooms, while they carried out a search. They taunted the children with threats of what would happen to their mother. The police found nothing. However, a police officer took a sheaf of papers from his pocket and placed it on top of newspapers. They tried to force her to sign a record stating that the documents had been found in her house, but she refused.   The police also asked her if she was standing as a candidate in the local elections.         The applicant was taken away with her anorak pulled over her head. After a brief, cursory visit to a doctor, she was taken to the security directorate, where during her ten day detention, she was subjected to a variety of extreme forms of torture, including sexual and mental abuse. She was blindfolded, beaten and stripped. On the first night, she was brought into a room with a very bright, hot light and asked if she was going to be a candidate.   She informed them that she was not.   They accused her of being involved with the PKK and told her that her name had been provided by another person.   Except for the last two nights, she suffered similar treatment. She was blindfolded, stripped, beaten and subjected to water treatment - first, freezing cold water was thrown on her, then buckets of hot water.   She was subjected to loud music and bright lights. On one occasion, she was made to parade, naked, down a corridor with police officers abusing her on either side.   For two days, she was handcuffed naked to a cell door, at first without a chair and then with a chair when she was too exhausted. She was forced to listen to the screams of others being tortured. They also applied electric shock to the applicant after she was wet, attaching the electrodes to her toes, and, on one occasion, to her nipple. There was also one attempt to subject the applicant to hanging, which stopped when a scar on her abdomen was noticed.   On the final night of torture, as the applicant was subjected to the water treatment, she was struck with force, when she put her hand up to her eyes which were burning and the police officer perhaps believed that she was trying to remove the blindfold. She fell on the ground, almost unconscious, with injuries to her head. The applicant was asked questions about being a candidate and also about her application to the Commission. They confronted her with the power of attorney authorising Kevin Boyle to represent her before the Commission.         Following seven days of torture and threats that her children had been amongst those she had heard being tortured, she signed the papers put in front of her without reading them.   On the next day, she was lined up with others and videoed in front of guns and bombs. On 22   February 1994, the applicant along with 16 others was taken to the casualty ward. The doctor merely looked at the line of detainees. She asked the doctor to write a separate report for her and to feel the bumps on her head and showed him her infected toe. She thought he had written a report but when she was brought before the public prosecutor afterwards she discovered that he had not. She told the prosecutor of her ordeal, that she had been tortured. He appeared sympathetic. She also told the court in Mardin that she had been tortured. In those criminal proceedings, she was found guilty of aiding and abetting the PKK and was sentenced. The applicant’s appeal is still pending.         When the applicant was released, she was in great pain, exhausted and suffering from a number of injuries - her toe was swollen and infected, her head cut in several places, she could hardly move her jaw. She went to a doctor fearing that she had caught an infection in her throat. The doctor noted the pain in her jaw and sent her for an X-ray. When she went back to the doctor, he said the damage was not very serious and that he would prescribe painkillers. However, when he learned that she had been detained, he tore up the report.   He sent her to the university clinic.   She attended after hours, when a second X-ray was taken and she was provided with some treatment. The applicant placed the X-rays with her court file. The applicant understood that the X-rays revealed a fissure to her jaw.   She also suffered from longer term effects, in particular, psychological damage for which she received therapy at the Human Rights Foundation Rehabilitation Centre.         On 26 September 1995, the applicant was again detained with her friend and colleague Enver Atlı. While he was driving her home, the police stopped the car and took both into detention. They were brought to a doctor and then detained overnight at the Anti-Terror Department. They were blindfolded. The applicant was again confronted with the fact that she had been “complaining to Europe” about the treatment which she had received in February 1994. She was not ill-treated as such but kept in a cell which was freezing cold.         On a third occasion, on the night of 13-14 October, the police came to her home and said they had to take her to the police station   as she had to make a statement on Monday morning. She was held overnight at the police station. At about 15.00 hours, she was brought to the office of the chief of police who accepted that she would return on Monday and released her. The applicant returned at 08.00 hours on Monday with her mother. They were placed in a room and had to wait, being unable to move around. At around 14.30-15.00 hours the applicant’s mother became agitated and fainted. The police took her to a doctor. The applicant met with the public prosecutor who stated that he had simply issued a warrant to ensure she would come to give a statement. The prosecutor took her statement and she was free to leave.   2.   Facts as presented by the Government         The Government's account of events as based on their observations are summarised as follows.     Concerning the disciplinary proceedings         On 31 October 1992, the applicant made a statement to the newspaper Diyarbakır Söz as President of the Eğit-Sen trade union, whose authority had not been recognised and whose activities in Diyarbakır were illegal.         On 14 May 1993, the Diyarbakır Provincial Education Disciplinary Committee   decided to suspend the promotion of the applicant to a higher grade of teacher for one year, pursuant to Article 125-D/g of Law No. 657, which prohibited civil servants from   giving information or giving statements to the press, news agencies, radio or television without authorisation.         On 23 June 1993, the applicant applied for the decision to be annulled to the Diyarbakır Administrative Tribunal.         On 4 October 1994, the Administrative Tribunal rejected the applicant’s application. She applied to the Council of State, which on 5 December 1995 quashed the first instance decision. It found that everyone had the right to freedom of expression but that a State official had to exercise it responsibly. They indicated that a lesser penalty was appropriate.         On 3 April 1996, the Administrative Tribunal maintained its initial decision. The applicant applied to the Council of State, where the matter is still pending.     Concerning the death of Zübeyir Akkoç         On 13 January 1993, while walking on the Sakarya Avenue with Ramazan Aydın Bilge, Zübeyir Akkoç was shot dead. A witness, Abdullah Elgören, stated that he heard the shots but did not see who fired. There was no other witness.         On 29 November 1994, pursuant to Laws No. 2330 and 3713, the Pecuniary Compensation Commission awarded the applicant 190.380.000 TL in respect of her husband’s death. Since 15 January 1993, she and her children had been receiving a widow’s and orphan’s pension pursuant to the same provisions.         An investigation was commenced by the prosecutor’s office attached to Diyarbakır State Security Court.         On 7 March 1997, a suspect Seyithan Araz was apprehended in an operation concerning the illegal Hizbullah organisation. He made a statement to the police but revoked it when questioned by the public prosecutor on 17 March 1997.         By indictment dated 27 March 1997,   Seyithan Araz was charged with several murders, including that of Zübeyir Akkoç. The prosecution is still being conducted before State Security Court No. 4 at Diyarbakır.   The applicant has not applied to become a party to those proceedings.     Concerning the detention of the applicant         On 13 February 1994, the applicant was taken into custody at Diyarbakır in the course of an operation conducted by the police against the PKK. She was detained on the basis of the statement made by another suspect. On 18 February 1994, she made a statement at the Security Directorate concerning her activities for the PKK.         On 21 February 1994, she was examined by a doctor before being taken before the public prosecutor attached to the State Security Court. The doctor’s report indicated that there were no signs of ill-treatment. In his oral evidence before the Delegates, the doctor stated that the applicant had made no complaint to him about alleged ill-treatment. In her statement to the public prosecutor, she denied the statement taken by the police, stating that she had signed it under coercion. She was released by the public prosecutor.         The applicant did not apply to the public prosecutor for an examination by the forensic authorities. She obtained X-rays from a private doctor. Three X-rays were found in the court file, without a medical report. An examination of the X-rays discloses that there were no indications of any fracture of her jaw.         On 3 September 1995, the public prosecutor issued a decision of non-prosecution against two police officers in respect of alleged misconduct. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.         On 26 September 1995, the applicant was taken into custody in respect of an investigation into an allegation that she had forged a document.   On 27 September 1995, having made a statement, she was released.   The statement discloses that there was no questioning about her application to the European Commission of Human Rights.     B.   The evidence before the Commission     1)   Documentary evidence         The parties submitted various documents to the Commission. The documents included documents from the investigation and court proceedings and statements from the applicant and witnesses concerning their version of the events in issue in this case. The applicant also submitted reports by Amnesty International (TURKEY Torture, extrajudicial executions and “disappearances’ May 1992, AI Index EUR 44/39/92); “A Gun Barrel in the Back of the Neck” - Trade Unions and the struggle in Kurdistan and Turkey” produced by a British trade union delegation; Turkey Human Rights Report 1992, published by the HRFT (Human Rights Foundation of Turkey).         The Commission had particular regard to the following documents:     a) Statements by the applicant       Statement dated 11 November 1992 submitted in the application   to the Commission         The applicant stated that increasing attacks and exiles on teachers had brought their union Eğit-Sen to seek for solutions. They had made an appointment to meet with the National Education Director. She received a warning from the Director the evening before the meeting that the State of Emergency Governor had been informed and that an unauthorised protest meeting of the teachers would be regarded as sabotage. She stated that there were no plans for such a protest. The next day, when she arrived at 08.30 hours, the National Education Directorate was surrounded by police, and cameras were filming those arriving.   The Director allowed only seven persons to enter. The applicant told her colleagues to disperse.   However, the police were filming and verbally abusing them, telling them, “Show your faces, you rogues. You are our targets now.” Everyone’s identity was checked. One female teacher was pulled by her hair into a police car. Thirteen education workers were taken away.         At 17.00 hours that day, they went to see the city governor, Ibrahim Sahin, to complain that their colleagues had been detained.   He told them that they had been told not to go to the Directorate and that they had bad motives. At 12.00 hours on 28 October, their colleagues were released. They had received threats since. She received a call the day after the events and was told, “You are also going to die. It is now your turn...” She was concerned for her own safety and that of her family and the 106 education workers whose identities were known to the police and appealed for protection.         In an addendum to the statement, the applicant added that on 2 December 1992 the police looked for her at the school where she taught and telephoned her at home, telling her that legal procedures had been started against her and she had to make a statement to the public prosecutor. She gave her statement on 3   December 1992. The reason for the proceedings was that she was the secretary of Eğit-Sen.     Statement dated 28 January 1993 submitted in the application to the Commission         The applicant’s husband, Zübeyir Akkoç, had been a teacher at a Diyarbakır primary school. He had been detained and threatened by the police in the past. The applicant had become President of the Diyarbakır branch of Eğit-Sen.   Since they had requested a meeting with the National Education Director, she had been living in fear because of the abuse received from the police. People had been telephoning her home and threatening her family.   She had complained to the public prosecutor about this.         On 13 January 1993, when her husband was on his way to school at about 07.00 hours, with his teacher friend Ramazan Aydın, they were attacked. Both were killed.   Incidents with unknown perpetrators kept occurring and no-one could f