CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 6 septembre 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sE32676A4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9F44CE9D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-after:avoid } .s595305E7 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal; text-decoration:underline } .s2225D9F4 { width:20.33pt; display:inline-block } .sA5D5DE6C { width:27pt; display:inline-block } .sA9B61B9F { width:340.96pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .s57DF49A4 { width:15.66pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s73EB4347 { width:320.64pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .s719EB764 { width:313.96pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .sC4D84E99 { width:15pt; display:inline-block } .s624B0CE8 { width:307.29pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .s6833ED26 { width:17pt; display:inline-block } .sCFC52554 { width:327.62pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .s6D85FAC9 { width:300.62pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .s6EF20644 { width:287.27pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .s6EDDD7F { width:13.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC8CE5108 { width:314.27pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .sB7DE8D86 { width:317.29pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s27E05001 { width:16.34pt; display:inline-block } .s219C16BB { width:14.33pt; display:inline-block } .s56B72C93 { width:17.67pt; display:inline-block } .s93654821 { width:16.99pt; display:inline-block } .s8860E0D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:90pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-90pt; text-align:justify } .s6038DE52 { width:24.66pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4A79C24 { width:90pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF879F116 { width:92.65pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .s6A5D7EE7 { width:29.33pt; display:inline-block } .sB11B45BD { width:19.32pt; display:inline-block } .s4D28B2E2 { width:24pt; display:inline-block } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sAEA7B041 { text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .s3713DB69 { width:13.77pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4B5E05E0 { width:12.65pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sFD1C8E96 { width:16.01pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sE0EA7154 { width:21.33pt; display:inline-block } .sACBC61AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .s742C88AD { width:25.34pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6AE30E91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:70.9pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-34.9pt; text-align:justify } .s6A44B26C { width:21.58pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .sCC843BA8 { width:25.33pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC83B07C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sCD4D2F1A { width:24.67pt; display:inline-block } .s98A7B623 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA047E36C { width:24.66pt; display:inline-block } .s307223E7 { width:5.98pt; display:inline-block } .s922EB1BA { margin-left:28.36pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.64pt; font-family:Arial } .sACE60A46 { width:16.7pt; display:inline-block } .s200B47DF { width:16.7pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s45074C86 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-20.4pt; text-align:justify } .sE55A8C24 { width:16.4pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5BA4079A { width:22.66pt; display:inline-block } .s2CB99A5F { width:30pt; display:inline-block } .s17A98FAE { width:27.33pt; display:inline-block } .s614A38E2 { width:25.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s13D83ECC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-36pt; text-align:justify } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9537AB43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC6D8155F { width:15.33pt; display:inline-block } .s76EAD327 { width:12.64pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sEB86F1CA { width:25.34pt; display:inline-block } .s7B92CF83 { width:23.33pt; display:inline-block } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAA5E0FE4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC4575BE4 { width:7.64pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1CA3A5A0 { width:34.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC9FA01B0 { width:29.98pt; display:inline-block } .sA62DF3A3 { width:8.63pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }                     EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                   Application No. 25801/94     Z. D.     against     Turkey                   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 6 September 1999) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page   I.   INTRODUCTION   (paras. 1-34) ........................................................ 1     A.   The application     (paras. 2-4) ..................................................... 1     B.   The proceedings     (paras. 5-29) .................................................... 1     C.   The present Report     (paras. 30-34) .................................................. 3     II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   (paras. 35-145) ...................................................... 5     A.   The particular circumstances of the case     (paras. 36-48) .................................................. 5     B.   The evidence before the Commission     (paras. 49-128) ................................................. 7     C.   Relevant domestic law     (paras. 129-145) ............................................... 21     III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   (paras. 146-232) .................................................... 25     A.   Complaints declared admissible     (para. 146) .................................................... 25     B.   Points at issue     (paras. 147-148) ............................................... 25     C.   The evaluation of the evidence     (paras. 149-172) ............................................... 26     D.   As regards Article 8 of the Convention     (paras. 173-176) ............................................... 31       CONCLUSION     (para. 177) .................................................... 31     E.   As regards Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention     (paras. 178-181) ............................................... 31   Page       CONCLUSION     (para. 182) .................................................... 32     F.   As regards Article 2 of the Convention     (paras. 183-186) ............................................... 32       CONCLUSION     (para. 187) .................................................... 33     G.   As regards Article 3 of the Convention     (paras. 188-191) ............................................... 33       CONCLUSION     (para. 192) .................................................... 34     H.   As regards Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention     (paras. 193-197) ............................................... 34       CONCLUSION     (para. 198) .................................................... 34     I.   As regards Article 6 para. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention     (paras. 199-207) ............................................... 34       CONCLUSION     (para. 208) .................................................... 36     J.   As regards Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention     (paras. 209-212) ............................................... 37       CONCLUSIONS     (paras. 213-214) ............................................... 37     K.   As regards former Article 25 of the Convention     (paras. 215-222) ............................................... 37       CONCLUSION     (para. 223) .................................................... 39     L.   Recapitulation     (paras. 224-232)   ............................................... 39   APPENDIX:   DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO   THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION   ............... 41   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 applicant is a Turkish citizen, born in 1931 [1] and resident in Diyarbakır. She is represented before the Commission by Professor K. Boyle and Professor F. Hampson, both lecturers in law at the University of Essex.   3.       The application is directed against Turkey.   The respondent Government were represented by their Agents, Mr D. Tezcan and Mr A. Kurudal.   4.       The case principally concerns the destruction of the applicant’s property and threats to her life which is alleged to have occurred during a raid on her village by gendarmes. The applicant invokes Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 18, and former Article 25 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   B.   The proceedings   5.       The application was introduced on 2 May 1994 and registered on 29 November 1994.   6.       On 27 February 1995, the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48 § 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.   7.       The Government's observations were submitted on 11 August 1995 after the expiry of the extension of the time-limit fixed on 23 July 1995.   The applicant replied on 3 November 1995 after an extension of the time-limit.   8.       On 23 May 1996, the Commission declared the application admissible. The Commission noted that this case concerned the same incident which was in issue in the case of Çakıcı v. Turkey (No. 23657/94) in which the oral evidence was to be taken in Ankara in July 1996. The Commission decided that it should proceed to take evidence in this application at the same time.   9.       The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility and the decision to take oral evidence was sent to the parties on 24 May 1996 and they were invited to submit further observations or such further information as they wished before 21 June 1996.   The parties were requested to indicate the oral evidence they might wish to put before delegates and explain the relevance of the testimony by 14 June 1996.            By letter dated 13 June 1996, the Government stated that there was not enough time to prepare for the taking of evidence in this application and that they could not agree to the taking of evidence on the proposed date.   11.       By letter dated 14 June 1996, the applicant’s representatives made proposals as regards witnesses.   12.       By letter dated 17 June 1996, the Secretariat explained that the Commission reached its decision to take evidence at short notice in order to minimize expense and the burden of time and inconvenience to the witnesses and the parties which would be caused by a separate and repetitive hearing. The Secretariat confirmed that the delegates would be sensitive to the difficulties in preparation.   13.       By letter dated 18 June 1996, the applicant’s representatives informed the Secretariat that the applicant would require Kurdish interpretation.   14.       On 25 June 1996, the Government submitted observations concerning the taking of evidence in this application. It stated that insufficient time had been assigned for the hearing of evidence in this case and that if it was necessary to take evidence at the same time as the Çakıcı case, even though the cases had not been joined, it would be reasonable to hold a hearing on a date which was also convenient to the Government.   15.       By letter dated 27 June 1996, the Secretariat informed the Government that the Commission was still of the opinion that sufficient notice of the facts had been given. However, as the Government was unable to deal with the evidence, the Delegates had decided not to hear oral evidence in this case in July 1996. The Secretariat informed the applicant’s representatives of this on the same day.   16.       By letter dated 24 July 1996, the Government reported that the inquiry into the case had been transferred from the Hazro Public Prosecutor to the Hazro District Administrative Council because the investigation fell within the jurisdiction of the Official Conduct Act.   17.       By letter dated 17 October 1996, the Secretariat informed the parties that the taking of oral evidence in this case in Turkey before three Delegates MM Jörundsson, Conforti and Bratza would take place between 3 and 7 February 1997.   18.       On 25 October 1996, the Government submitted supplementary observations.   19.       On 8 January 1997, the Secretariat notified the Government of the witnesses to be summonsed to the hearing of oral evidence.   20.       By letter dated 31 January 1997, the applicant’s representatives notified the Secretariat that Şahabettin Taşlık and Emin Bilen, two further witnesses to the events in November 1993, would like to give evidence to the Delegates.   21.       Evidence was heard by the Commission’s Delegates in Ankara on 7 February 1997. Before the Delegates the Government were represented by Mr D. Tezcan, Acting Agent, Mr   A. Kurudal. Mr A. Kaya, Ms M. Gülsen, Mr O. Sever, Mr F. Polat, Ms A. Emüler, Ms   Y.   Cenda, and Mr M. Bağriaçik. The applicant was represented by Ms F. Hampson and Mr O. Baydemir, as Counsel, assisted by Ms A. Reidy, and by Mr M. Kaya and Ms D. Deniz (interpreters). A request was made for the Government to provide copies of any statements of the applicant taken by a public prosecutor in July-August 1995. The Government had made an objection to the applicant’s witnesses, Şahabettin Taşlık and Emin Bilen, being heard. The Delegates at the hearing decided to hear the evidence of Emin Bilen as he was an eye witness.   22.       By letter dated 19 February 1997, the Secretariat reminded the Government that the Delegates had asked during the proceedings for copies of any statements taken by the public prosecutor from the applicant in or about July-August 1995.   23.       On 1 March 1997, the Commission invited the parties to submit their final observations on the merits within six weeks of the sending of the verbatim record.   24.       By letter dated 17 April 1997, the Secretariat asked the parties to present their final observations on the merits by 5 June 1997.   25.       On 18 April 1997, the Commission granted the applicant legal aid for the representation of her case.   26.       By letter dated 26 May 1997, the Commission granted the Government an extension of time limit for their observations, pursuant to their request, to 1 August 1997. On 11 June 1997, the applicant submitted her final observations.   27.       On 3 October 1997, the Government submitted final observations.   28.       On 6 September 1999, the Commission decided that there was no basis on which to apply former [2] Article 29 of the Convention.   29.       After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with former Article 28 § 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement. Between July 1997 and November 1998, proposals to settle the case were under consideration. 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   30.       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     MM   F. MARTINEZ       C.L. ROZAKIS     Mrs   J. LIDDY     MM   L. LOUCAIDES       J.-C. GEUS       M.P. PELLONPÄÄ       B. MARXER       M.A. NOWICKI       B. CONFORTI     Sir   Nicolas BRATZA     MM   I. BÉKÉS       D. ŠVÁBY       G. RESS       A. PERENIČ       E. BIELIŪNAS       E.A. ALKEMA       M. VILA AMIGÓ     Mrs   M. HION     MM   R. NICOLINI       A. ARABADJIEV   31.       The text of this Report was adopted on 6 September1999 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with former Article 31 § 2 of the Convention.   32.       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.   33.       The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is annexed hereto.   34.       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   35.       The facts of the case concerning events on or about 8 November 1993 are disputed by the parties. For this reason, pursuant to former Article 28 § 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   36.       The various accounts of events as submitted in written and oral statements by the applicant and other members of his family 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.   37.       The applicant lived in Çitlibahçe village most of her life. It is a village of about 200 households attached to Hazro in South-East Turkey. The applicant’s house was in the lower neighbourhood near the road. The applicant and her family earned their living from growing tobacco and animal husbandry. The applicant was married and had five children. In 1993 she was 69 years old. The village was visited frequently by soldiers who carried out patrols and ID checks.   38.       In July 1993, soldiers from Hazro gendarmerie went to Çitlibahçe village and forced the villagers, at gun point, to pull up the tobacco they had growing in fields around the village. The applicant witnessed this and her son was one of those forced to pull up the tobacco. Villagers were also rounded up on that day and taken to Hazro. The villagers believed this was a punishment measure taken due to an incident involving the PKK which had happened near the village a few days previously. The villagers took initiatives to file complaints about this incident but hesitated at the last minute because they were frightened of the repercussions if they made a complaint about the security forces.   39.       On 23 October 1993, an imam and his brother from Dadaş village near Hazro had been kidnapped by the PKK. It was alleged that they had been brought through or near Çitlibahçe village. Further it was alleged that Ahmet Çakıcı from Çitlibahçe was involved in the incident and he was considered to be a member of the PKK by the security forces. An investigation into the incident was conducted by the local security forces from Hazro.   40.       On 8 November 1993, soldiers from Hazro gendarmerie accompanied by village guards from at least three of the four villages with village guards attached to Hazro (Kirmataş, Meşebağlar, Kavaklıboğaz, Sarıerik) arrived at the village at about 7 a.m. They arrived as part of a military operation in military vehicles. The soldiers left their vehicles on the outskirts of the village. The commander of the soldiers ordered that the men, of whom there were about 200, gather together in an open space about 300 metres outside the village. The men were made to lie down on the ground. Most of the women, children and elderly, including the applicant, were also gathered together and taken to the open space outside the village. Some others from the upper part of the village furthest away from the road remained in the village in front of their houses. Soldiers and village guards started to search the village and began to burn some of the houses. The applicant’s house was one of those burned down by the soldiers. When the soldiers came to her house they made her get out and swore at her. They began to break windows and damage her house. With her house, they burned her tobacco, wheat, barley, lentils, other winter provisions, furniture and household goods including a fridge and a television. The applicant could see her house from the area in which the villagers were gathered. The applicant saw the soldiers set fire to her house and witnessed the flames and smoke streaming from the house.   41.       During the burning of the houses the soldiers caught Ahmet Çakıcı, a co-villager, and took him away. He was hiding in a house which the soldiers set fire to and ran out to escape the flames and was caught. After this the soldiers left the village and the commander instructed the villagers that they could return to the village and put out the fires. The commander told the villagers that if they had given up Ahmet Çakıcı in the beginning then they would not have burned their houses. The operation lasted about 2-3 hours and the soldiers left before noon. They had burned over 50 houses. The largest number of houses burned were in the lower village where the applicant’s house was. The next day the houses were still smoking.   42.       After her house was burnt down the applicant sheltered in the house of a neighbour where she shared a bed with seven other people. Her son arrived the next day. The applicant and her family who were now destitute had to move to Diyarbakır where they lived in a rented house, with little prospect of employment. After the incident some people, including journalists, tried to return to the village to take photographs but were unable to do so. The villagers will not be allowed to return to their village and property unless they become village guards. The villagers petitioned several offices (the Ministry of the Interior, the President, the Prime Minister, the Governor’s office, the district Gendarmerie) to be allowed to return to their village but they have not been permitted to do so.   43.       Following the burning of the village, the villagers were frightened about making complaints. On 12 November 1993, the applicant however went to the Human Rights Association with her son and another villager to make a statement in order to pursue an application to the Commission. The family of Ahmet Çakıcı, who had disappeared after the military operation in the village, had made petitions to the authorities to discover the fate of their relative and submitted an application to the Commission (Application No. 23657/94). The applicant has not received any compensation for the damage done to her property.   44.       In July or August 1995, the applicant was called by the police to make a statement to the public prosecutor. The police allegedly searched her old and current house. The applicant’s son Anvi accompanied her when she gave her statement. The applicant was asked questions about her application to the European Commission. It is alleged that the prosecutor was putting pressure on the applicant because she had made such an application.   2.   Facts as presented by the Government   45.       The Government’s account of events as based on their observations is summarised as follows.   46.       A security operation was performed in the village of Çiftlibahçe on 8 November 1993. However the houses of the village were not damaged at all. Ahmet Çakıcı was pursued by the security forces on account of his activities as a member of the PKK but he was not captured or taken into custody. An identity card belonging to him was found on the body of a terrorist after an intense armed clash between terrorists and security forces which took place on 17-19 February 1995.   3.   Proceedings before the domestic authorities   47.       The applicant did not make an official complaint.   48.       By a decision dated 1 June 1995, the Hazro Public Prosecutor (Çıçek) issued a decision of withdrawal of duty and transferred the investigation of the claims to the Hazro District Administrative Council. It would appear that a file had been opened (No. 1995/26) after communication of the applicant’s complaints to the Commission. The decision named the applicant as the complainant and the complaint was stated to be registered at Çitlibahçe village. It noted that the complainant had made a representation to the European Human Rights Commission via representatives. The offence was described as damage to property and threat to freedom. The defendants were security forces stationed in Hazro Gendarme Station and temporary village guards. It stated that the complainant claimed that on 8   November 1993 soldiers from Hazro Gendarme Station and some village guards burned houses and the tobacco fields belonging to the village and detained Ahmet Çakıcı, taking him with them. The decision stated that the preliminary document was examined. The relevant investigation of the claims was within the jurisdiction of the Official Conduct Act. Therefore the Attorney General would withdraw from duty and the relevant documentation is to be dispatched to Hazro District Administrative Council.     B.   The evidence before the Commission     1)   Documentary evidence   49.       The parties submitted various documents to the Commission. The Commission also had before it documents submitted in the case of Izzet Çakıcı v. Turkey (Eur. Court HR, Çakıcı v. Turkey judgment of 8 July 1999, Reports 1999-, ). In the current case there was also submitted the report of Human Rights Watch/Helsinki, “Forced Displacement of Ethnic Kurds from Southeastern Turkey”, October 1994, Vol. 6 no. 12, and “Forced Evictions and Destructions of Villages in Dersim (Tunceli) and the western part of Bingöl, Turkish Kurdistan” and a report by Ismet Imset entitled “Village Evacuations and Destruction in the South East”, as well as statements from the applicant and witnesses concerning their version of the events in issue in that case.   50.       The Commission had regard to the following documents:     a)   Statements by the applicant   Statement of 12 November 1993 taken by the Human Rights Association (“HRA”), Diyarbakır   51.       A raid was organised on her village, Çitlibahçe, on the morning of 8 November 1993 at 07.30 hours by soldiers connected to Hazro Gendarme Station and ‘protectors’ connected to the same station. There were about 300-350 in total. She listed some of the names of the protectors from the villages of Kirmataş, Sarıerik, Meşebağlar and Kavaklıboğaz. The soldiers collected the villagers, of whom there were about 120 households and 500 people and took them to a place about 1 km from the village. They made the 60-70 men walk in pairs. Some of the women and children were kept in front of their houses. While she was still in the open space, smoke started to come from inside the village. The Hazro Gendarme Unit Commander laughed at the villagers because, after his soldiers had destroyed the tobacco fields, they had gone to lawyers and made complaints. (She said that they had in fact torn up petitions for determination of damages because of fear of threats that were made). The Commander told them that no one could do anything to him and that if they did not empty the village within 7 days he would kill them and claim they were terrorists. As the Commander was speaking, the soldiers were pouring petrol over about 40-50 houses and setting them on fire, some of them with the possessions inside, and taking the possessions out of others. The soldiers burnt her house with everything in it, including tobacco, wheat, barley, lentils, winter provisions, household goods, fridge and television. She listed the names of people’s houses that were burned and, like hers, reduced to ruins. These included the houses of Ahmet Çakıcı and his father.   52.       The men were held lying on their faces for between 1½ and 2 hours. During this time, the soldiers took their fellow villager Ahmet Çakıcı with them. The soldiers then told the villagers they could go back to their houses and put out the fires. The soldiers then left. There was no one who now continued to live in the village. She was renting a four-roomed house in Diyarbakır with her son, his wife and their 9 children. They only have the possessions that her son took with him when he left their village one month before the incident. As they were farmers, they could not now find work. No inquiry had been opened into the incident and she had not made any applications to any institutions because she and the villagers were threatened. They had wanted to go to the village to take photographs and to see their village one more time before leaving it but were not allowed. They were told not to return or they would be killed. She did not want her name revealed because she did not know what the State Security Forces would do next.     b)   Official documents and reports   Documents concerning the operation on 8 November 1993 filed in the Çakıcı case     Operation order of Hazro gendarme command dated 7 November 1993   53.       The order, signed by Lieutenant Altınoluk, is in an abbreviated number format. It indicates the object of the operation as the capture and annihilation of PKK terrorists, identification and capture of collaborators and destruction of shelters, that the forces to be used included four commando teams from the Hazro commando regiment and two GKK teams (village guards) and that the operation was to begin at 05.30 hours on 8 November 1993.     Operation report of Hazro gendarme command dated 8 November 1993   54.       The report, signed by Lieutenant Altınoluk, is in an abbreviated number format. It indicates the object of the operation as the capture and annihilation of PKK terrorists, that the operation lasted from 05.30 hours to 15.30 hours and was carried out without incident as planned.     c)   Statements by other persons filed in the Çakıcı case     Izzet Çakıcı   Statement of 23 December 1993 taken by the HRA, Diyarbakır and submitted in the Çakıcı case.   55.       His brother, Ahmet Çakıcı, was taken into custody by the 400 soldiers and guards who arrived in itlibahçe at around 10.00 hours on 8 November 1993. The soldiers came from Hazro district gendarme command and the guards from Kirmataş, Sarıerik, Meşebağlar and Kavaklıboğaz villages. The soldiers and guards set fire to the houses. They took Ahmet away in a vehicle.     Remziye Çakıcı (wife of Ahmet Çakıcı)     Statement of 12 November 1993 taken by the HRA, Diyarbakır   56.       The residents of Çitlibahçe were forcibly evacuated from their village by the soldiers and guards belonging to the Hazro district gendarme command. They raided the village at around 07.30 hours on 8 November 1993 and set all the houses on fire. Her own house was burned. Her husband Ahmet was roughly treated and detained. Her husband was still detained.     Statement of 25 November 1994 taken by a public prosecutor at Diyarbakır   57.       She was the wife of Ahmet Çakıcı, whose whereabouts were unknown, and she had seven children. On 8 November 1993, when they lived in Çitlibahçe, the gendarmes and guards arrived, evacuating the village completely and taking people outside, opposite the village. They searched the houses. There were some empty houses, which were burned. On their way back, they took her husband and another person, whose name she could not remember. They took her husband to Hazro gendarmerie and after that he was taken to Diyarbakır.     Mehmet Bitgin     Statement of 14 May 1996 taken by advocate Osman Baydemir   58.       Mehmet Bitgin used to live in Çitlibahçe. On 8 November 1993, soldiers raided the village. All the houses were burned down. He saw Ahmet Çakıcı being taken into custody.     Fevzi Okatan     Statement of 14 May 1996 taken by advocate Osman Baydemir   59.       Fevzi Okatan used to live in Çitlibahce. On 8 November 1993, soldiers raided the village, setting fire to the houses.   Ahmet Çakıcı was taken into custody and there was no news of him since. They had to move to Diyarbakır when the village burned down.     2)   Oral evidence     A.   Oral evidence in this case.   60.       The evidence of the three witnesses heard by the Commission Delegates may be summarised as follows:     (1)   The applicant   61.       The applicant was 73 years old and was currently living in Diyarbakır where she had lived for the last 4 years. Before this she had lived in the village of Çitlibahçe. She had lived there since childhood but came from the village of Lice. There were about 200 households in Çitlibahçe.   62.       Gendarmes had visited her village all the time before November 1993. She later specified that they used to come every four or five days stating they were looking for terrorists. They would check people’s IDs, take them to Hazro, beat them up and then release them. She stated that members of the PKK had not taken food and animals from the village.   63.       The villagers made their living by growing tobacco. They had lots of fields and kept sheep too. She had a certificate from the State giving permission to grow tobacco. She remembered the incident in July 1993 when villagers were forced to pull up tobacco crops at gunpoint. She had seen this with her own eyes and the gendarmes had taken some of the men away to Hazro. The men had been beaten up and then released. The soldiers and guards had said “We’re pulling it up. Either you move away from here or you starve to death.” She said she remembered the gendarmes pulling up crops too. The villagers were able to salvage some of the crops and store them inside.   64.       She did not know a unit commander from Hazro called Ertan Altınoluk. She had heard about the killing of teachers and an imam in Dadaş village in October 1993.   65.       She was present in the village of Çitlibahçe on 8 November when some soldiers came to the village. The gendarmes arrived at about 06.00-0.700 hours with about 40 vehicles. There were a lot of soldiers. People were afraid to go outside. She had gone inside but the soldiers made them go outside. There were village guards as well as gendarmes. She did not recognise any of them. They said which villages they came from (Şikefta and Kanderhale) but she did not know them. People had said the guards also came from İndar and Zogri.   66.       The soldiers left their vehicles on the outskirts of the village, entered the village and made the villagers go outside. They searched the houses and then set fire to them. They gathered the men together in one place and the women in another. The villagers did not dare to try and stop the soldiers. When the commander of the gendarmes spoke to the villagers no one said anything. Some of the men were taken to Hazro and beaten up and then released. The men were made to lie on their faces for 1½-2 hours in a place outside the village. Later she stated that the men had been blindfolded.   67.       Ahmet Çakıcı was her neighbour. She was not there when the soldiers set fire to the house which Ahmet Çakıcı ran out of when he was caught. She heard that this house was near the fountain in the village but she had not seen it herself. They fired at him and he gave himself up. She did see Ahmet Çakıcı in the hands of the soldiers.   68.       By the time Ahmet was in the hands of the soldiers, they had set fire to her house. She saw the soldiers set fire to her house. It had seven rooms and was made of timber. The family stored provisions, crops (wheat) and tobacco inside and these were destroyed along with their furniture and possessions. She was not able to say how the soldiers had set light to her house, only that about 20 people went inside and that they set fire to the tobacco inside the house which was dry. The soldiers came to her house whilst she was inside. She went out and they broke the windowpanes and living room furniture. She ran away. She could see the flames leaping up from across the village. She saw the soldiers and guards who caused the flames. Then they set fire to some tobacco outside the house.   69.       About 50 houses were burnt down. Later she said she thought it was around 30 or 40. She said she could see flames and smoke coming out of some of the houses. It was not possible to see all the houses from the place she was standing. She knew the names of some of the people whose houses were burned including Mustafa, Musa, Gani, Hacı Fevzi (the muhtar), Mehmet Cevat and Selam. The last two were not actually in her neighbourhood.   70.       The soldiers and gendarmes had been in the village for about 5 or 6 hours before they caught Ahmet. The soldiers told the villagers to go and put the fires out. They said, “If you had handed him over to us we would not have set fire to the place. We burned it because you did not hand him over.” As soon as they had caught Ahmet they left the village.   71.       The soldiers took the village muhtar, Hacı Fevzi, away. The villagers feared he had been killed but he was released. [3] She did not see him when the soldiers first arrived. Only part of his house was burned. She did not know when his house had been burned previously nor whether his house had been burned then by the PKK.   72.       The night after her house was burned she had stayed in a neighbour’s house with other villagers. While she appeared to state that her son Anvi also stayed there, she later clarified that he came the next day from Diyarbakır.   In the morning, she went with him to Diyarbakır. The villagers were not able to go back to the village. She had gone back to the village in the spring but there was nothing left. She also went in the summer of 1997 some four years later. The village was in ruins.   73.       She did not know a boy called Mehmet Emin Bulan as she did not go out of the house due to her age. She did not know anyone whose surname was Bilen.   74.       She had made a statement to Rozan Alıcıoğlu at the Human Rights Association in Diyarbakır on 12 November 1993 about 3 days after her house was burned. She remembered putting her thumbprint on her statement in front of the woman who had taken it. Later she said she could not remember the name of the woman she saw there. She went there with her son, Anvi, Yahya, the village muhtar and some other people who were too afraid to come up upstairs with her. After her village was burned they were too afraid to go to the public prosecutor to lodge a complaint. They were still afraid. She did not recall whether her lawyer had recommended the courts in Turkey or whether she had visited the prosecutor’s office.     (2)   Avni Dulaş   75.       The witness was born in 1955 and had lived in Diyarbakır since 8 November 1993. Before that he had lived in Çitlibahçe in Hazro district all his life. There were about 200-250 households in the village. He lived in his house in the village with his mother who had lived there all her life. For the last three or four years they had been living in terrible circumstances in the city. This contrasted to his life before in the village. He farmed his own land and was comfortably off in the 1980s. The village had plenty of water and was more fertile than the surrounding villages. As well as tobacco farming, crop farming, forestry and animal husbandry, there were vineyards and orchards. He had a certificate authorising him to cultivate tobacco there and had done so continuously for years. He had 2 or 3 cows and 10 to 15 goats. He had sold some of the animals. The others were left or stolen. He had heard rumours that one or two people from his village had been convicted for growing hemp.   76.       In 1987 there was a village guard system in place in the village. There were acts of terrorism in the surrounding area. The gendarmes came regularly to his village before 1987 (he later said 1989), after which big operations were launched and the pressure started mounting. Trouble started after 1990 following incidents carried out by the PKK. There was a threat of terrorism and some intimidation. In 1990 the PKK burned the house of the muhtar, Fevzi Okatan. The PKK would come into the village to hold meetings. They had never taken any of his provisions. In 1992-93 the gendarmes used to come with 50 or 60 vehicles and 200 or 300 soldiers. He later said that after 1991 they came with 20 or 30 vehicles. They would search houses if they had been tipped off.   77.       He recalled an incident in July 1993 when the security forces raided his village. They rounded the villagers up, the men in one place and the women in another. They took the men to the tobacco fields and he was forced by sticks, with the other men, to pull up almost 90% of the tobacco seedlings which belonged to over 54 people. The security forces did not state the reason they were requiring the tobacco fields to be pulled up but he understood it to be connected to the security forces’ finding taxis on the road to the village containing a member of the militia (PKK). He did not know the offender. However Ali Çakıcı (Ahmet’s brother) and Seydihan Güler were detained for three months in respect of that incident. When the security forces rounded the villagers up together, one of them said ‘If you go on like that, we’ll also go on like that’. He took this to mean that the villagers had committed an offence and were to be punished for it. A guard shouted as he was walking along the road ‘I’ll shoot Ahmet Çakıcı with my own hand’. They had asked about Ahmet Çakıcı on that day. Afterwards the security forces left the village. He stated that the villagers tried to apply to have the damage assessed by writing petitions. They were going to apply to the local authorities in Hazro but became too afraid. Then 40 or 50 villagers were summonsed at random to the court in Hazro. All those people denied the incident.   78.       He was not in his village on 8 November 1993. He had left a couple of days before to market his produce in Diyarbakır. Shortly before the incident, two or three public officials were present in the village. He did not know whether or not they had come to conduct a census or for some other reason. He knew Ahmet Çakıcı as his house was near his own. Before he left, he had heard about the killing of teachers and an imam from Dadaş which was about an hour away from his village. He could not remember exactly when this had taken place but he guessed that the burning of the village was connected with that incident.   79.       He could not remember who told him about the incident on 8 November in his village but he returned the next day as soon as he heard about it. The village had been reduced to ruins and the villagers were in a terrible state. They were panicking and trying to get away. There were traces of fire everywhere and the houses continued to smoulder. Some were reduced to ashes. He estimated about 50 or 60 houses had been burned. Most of the burning was done in the lower neighbourhood of the village where his house was. He knew several of the names of the people’s houses that were burned: Hacı Bulan, Hüseyin Urak, Mahmut Yaşar, Sabri Becerekli, Gani Becerekli, Mustafa Becerekli, Musa Becerekli, Selem Orak and Mehmet Cevat Orak. Those houses were all in his neighbourhood. Also the houses of Ahmet Çakıcı, Tevfik Çakıcı and Bahri Çakıcı were burned.   80.       His house was completely burnt out. Much of the contents, for example kitchen utensils, were unusable. As he was comfortably off, he had a television and a fridge. Also in the house was his produce. He used to be able to see the road from his house and the fountain from the upstairs of the house. The coffee shop was about 50 metres from the fountain. From where the village people were assembled you could see the front of his own house and just see the fountain. His house was about 300 metres from the fountain and 800-900 metres from where the villagers were gathered. His mother could see those who set fire to his house from his land.   81.       People told him what had happened on 8 November. The whole village was saying the same thing. The soldiers and guards had arrived together at the village at about 06.00-06.30 hours. The guards came from four villages about 2 hours away. The Kurdish names of those villages were Kanderhale (Sar