CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 9 septembre 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sE32676A4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sD08EB38E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:425.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s595305E7 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal; text-decoration:underline } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sF9C0A319 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .sCDC838F7 { width:308.18pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .sAA40BA78 { width:272.73pt; 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sCEAF572E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:409.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s6A184BC2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal } .s99377E34 { width:32.12pt; display:inline-block } .s4D0DC570 { width:265.39pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s44EE2A41 { width:24.79pt; display:inline-block } .s8267A9F4 { width:22.78pt; display:inline-block } .s5A70EBDF { width:256.05pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s4D7ED70E { width:129pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .sADF0AFE0 { width:122.99pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s4683E469 { width:5.56pt; display:inline-block } .s83DA6E5C { width:128.1pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s6A5D7EE7 { width:29.33pt; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA8146E40 { text-align:justify; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sB8ACF230 { width:22pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4D28B2E2 { width:24pt; display:inline-block } .sDF9DE756 { width:21.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB469F267 { width:15.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sFD1C8E96 { width:16.01pt; display:inline-block } .sE0EA7154 { width:21.33pt; display:inline-block } .sEB86F1CA { width:25.34pt; display:inline-block } .s1AD0FBFA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:72pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-36pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s8972F6FF { width:22.68pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sCC843BA8 { width:25.33pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s61D4D4FB { text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sCBC20640 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sCDECCF8A { margin-left:1.8pt; text-indent:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s8E7CC06A { margin-left:15.01pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .sDE68517A { width:10pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEF3D8FF8 { width:9.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s149A98 { width:22.66pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9723C89F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:54pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s5F086C28 { width:14pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s27E8E7E9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sADA066E4 { margin-left:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sAA1C3DB { width:7pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFAE41504 { width:22pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s614A38E2 { width:25.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2067F81C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:108pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-36pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s31BC139 { width:26.67pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sB8E5A13A { text-align:justify; font-size:12pt; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; list-style-position:inside } .s589818D7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s8C1ECD2D { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:normal } .sA047E36C { width:24.66pt; display:inline-block } .s2CB99A5F { width:30pt; display:inline-block } .s17A98FAE { width:27.33pt; display:inline-block } .s3E5D25F2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:70.9pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sB85379A9 { width:27.09pt; display:inline-block } .s109CF36D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:70.9pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-36pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sE7D4AEA5 { width:27.09pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sDC23E7CD { width:27.77pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s7B92CF83 { width:23.33pt; display:inline-block } .s556ED54D { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sB024CFF8 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s24DDE3D1 { text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; list-style-position:inside } .s76EAD327 { width:12.64pt; display:inline-block } .sAB967865 { width:33.99pt; display:inline-block } .s5BA4079A { width:22.66pt; display:inline-block } .s6DFF6F2E { width:12.66pt; display:inline-block } .sD327920 { width:1.96pt; display:inline-block } .s64B1589E { width:19.33pt; display:inline-block } .s21EFA5EA { width:7.28pt; display:inline-block } .sC971F6A5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:6.75pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s9AE08431 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:6.75pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s9E7DF94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 }           EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                       Application No. 24396/94     Beşir Taş     against     Turkey                 REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 9 September 1999) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page   I.   INTRODUCTION   (paras. 1-39) ............................................ 1     A.   The application     (paras. 2-4) ........................................ 1     B.   The proceedings     (paras. 5-34) ....................................... 1     C.   The present Report     (paras. 35-39) ...................................... 4   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   (paras. 40-158) .......................................... 5     A.   The particular circumstances of the case     (paras. 41-50) ...................................... 5     B.   The evidence before the Commission     (paras. 51-146) ..................................... 7       1) Documentary evidence     (paras. 51-109) ..................................... 7       2) Oral evidence     (paras. 110-146) ................................... 19     C.   Relevant domestic law and practice     (paras. 147-158) ................................... 28   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   (paras. 159-252) ........................................ 31     A.   Complaints declared admissible     (para. 159) ........................................ 31     B.   Points at issue     (para. 160) ........................................ 31     C.   Evaluation of the evidence     (paras. 161-195) ................................... 31     D.   As regards Article 2 of the Convention     (paras. 196-207) ................................... 42       CONCLUSION     (para. 208) ........................................ 44      Page   E.   As regards Article 3 of the Convention       (para. 209-219) .................................... 45         i. Concerning Muhsin Taş     (paras. 209-213) ................................... 45       CONCLUSION     (para. 214) ........................................ 45       ii. Concerning the applicant     (paras. 215-219) ................................... 46       CONCLUSION     (para. 220) ........................................ 46     F.   As regards Article 5 of the Convention     (paras. 221-229) ................................... 47       CONCLUSION     (para. 230) ........................................ 49     G.   As regards Article 13 of the Convention     (paras. 231-237) ................................... 49       CONCLUSION     (para. 238) ........................................ 50     H.   As regards Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention     (paras. 239-243) ................................... 51       CONCLUSIONS     (paras. 244-245) ................................... 51     I.   Recapitulation     (paras. 246-252) ................................... 51   CONCURRING OPINION OF SIR NICOLAS BRATZA ................. 53   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF M. E. BUSUTTIL ................. 54   APPENDIX:   DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE     ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION ................. 55     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 born in 1943 and resident in Tatvan. He 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 his son Muhsin Taş disappeared after being apprehended by the security forces in Cizre on 14 October 1993. He invokes Articles 2, 3, 5, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention.   B.   The proceedings                  The application was introduced on 7 June 1994 and registered on 14 June 1994.                  On 11 October 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.                  The Government’s observations were received on 24 February 1995 after an extension in the time-limit. The applicant submitted observations in reply on 3 May 1995.                  On 11 September 1995, the Commission decided to invite the parties to make submissions on the admissibility and merits of the application at an oral hearing.                  On 16 November 1995, the Government provided further information and documents.              At the oral hearing, held on 17 January 1996 in Strasbourg, the parties were represented as follows. The Government were represented by Mr M. Özmen and Mr S. Alpaslan, Co-Agents and Mr A. Kurudal and Mr F. Polat as advisers. The applicant was represented by Ms   F. Hampson, counsel and Ms A. Reidy, legal assistant. Following the submissions of the parties at the hearing, the Commission decided to adjourn the case at the request of the Government in order that the Government provide, within two weeks, documents relating to the detention of the applicant’s son.              On 9 February 1996, the Government submitted copies of the documents to the Commission Delegates then in Ankara.              By letter dated 23 February 1996, the applicant submitted comments on the documents provided by the Government.              On 5 March 1996, the Commission resumed its deliberations in the case and declared the application admissible.              The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 14   March 1996 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 25 April 1996, the applicant submitted a statement.              On 2 May 1996, the Government made a proposal as to a witness to be heard.              On 30 May 1996, the Government submitted further observations.              On 14 October 1996, the Government submitted a document.              On 19 October 1996, the Commission decided to take oral evidence in respect of the applicants’ allegations. It appointed three Delegates for this purpose: Mrs Liddy, Mr   Pellonpää and Mr Lorenzen. The Government were requested to identify certain witnesses, including the three gendarmes who signed the operation report of 9 November 1993. The Government were also requested to provide copies of the custody records accounting for the detention of Muhsin Taş from 14 October to 9 November 1993.              By letter dated 28 October 1996, the Government provided information concerning the application. It identified the three gendarme officers who signed the report of 9 November 1993 as gendarme captain Şeyhmuz Kara, first lieutenant Burak Buğra and lieutenant Tarık Göktürk.              By letter dated 20 December 1996, the Commission’s Secretariat drew it to the attention of the Government that certain information and documents had not been provided.              By letters dated 14 and 24 January 1997, the Government provided further information.              By letter dated 31 January 1997, the Secretariat requested clarification from the Government concerning the documents submitted.              By letter dated 5 March 1997, the Government provided further clarifications.              By letter dated 4 April 1997, the Secretariat requested the Government to identify the officers involved in interrogating Muhsin Taş. This information was provided by letter of 17   June 1997.              By letter dated 18 March 1998, the Delegates requested the Government to provide certain documents and information, specifying that the Government identify the gendarme witnesses who personally witnessed the alleged escape of Muhsin Taş from gendarme custody.              By letter dated 28 April 1998, the Government provided a petition by the applicant.              Evidence was heard by the Commission's Delegates in Ankara on 7 and 8 May 1998. Before the Delegates, the Government were represented by Mr M. Özmen, Agent, assisted by Ms M. Gülşen, Mrs Y. Renda, Mr A. Kaya, Mr Ş. Ünal, Ms B. Cankorel, Mr K. Alataş, Mr   E.   Genel, Mr F. Polat, Mr A. Karataş, Mrs N. Eser and Mrs N. Ayman. The applicants were represented by Ms F. Hampson and Ms A. Reidy, as counsel, assisted by Ms A. Akat, Ms Z. nanç and Mr H. Bakiken.              On 12 May 1998, the Delegates requested that the Government provide a number of documents, including any transfer records and hospital records relating to Muhsin Taş and information from the relevant military authority identifying the three officers who signed the operation report of 9 November 1993 or explaining why this was not possible.              On 23 May 1998, the Commission decided that the parties should be invited to submit their final observations on the merits following the transmission of the verbatim record.              On 17 July and 11 August 1998, the Government provided further information and documents.              Following requests by the parties for extension of the time-limit for the submission of final observations, the applicant submitted his final observations on 24 November 1998 and the Government submitted their final observations on 25 January 1999.              On 9 September 1999, the Commission decided that there was no basis on which to apply former Article 29 [1] 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. Between 22 June and 13 August 1998, proposals 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              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   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. PERENIČ       P. LORENZEN       E. BIELIŪNAS       E.A. ALKEMA       M. VILA AMIGÓ     Mrs   M. HION     MM   R. NICOLINI       A. ARABADJIEV              The text of this Report was adopted on 9 September 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 October and November 1993 following the arrest of the applicant’s son Muhsin Taş at Cizre, 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.              The applicant’s son Muhsin Taş (date of birth 1967) was detained on the morning of 14 October 1993 in Cizre. He had been shot in the leg in a clash and was taken to Cizre State Hospital for first aid treatment. Dr Palpas diagnosed him as having a bullet entry hole in the area of the right knee joint and bullet exit wound at the back. Mushin Taş was then transferred to the Military Hospital in Şirnak, where he was treated as an out-patient later that day. On 15 October 1993, the Cizre public prosecutor ordered the detention of Mushin Taş for fifteen days. That order was renewed on 29 October 1993 at the request of the Cizre district gendarme commander. At the request of the 23 rd Şirnak Border Brigade, Muhsin Taş had been transferred from Cizre to Şirnak.              On 9 November 1993, Muhsin Taş was alleged by the authorities to have escaped, whilst showing the security forces the location of PKK shelters on Gabar mountain. The applicant believes that this escape story is a cover-up to conceal the fact that his son was killed by the security forces.              There is no record that Muhsin Taş was seen by a doctor at the Military Hospital after 14 October 1993 and no written record of where Muhsin Taş spent the period between 14   October and 9 November 1993. The applicant submits that there is no evidence that Muhsin Taş offered to show the security forces the location of PKK shelters as alleged. When Muhsin Taş had been treated by the doctor at Sirnak, he was diagnosed as having a fracture of the lateral femoral condyle and partial severing of the infra-patellar tendon. He was treated by having his leg put in a splint, from the lower hip to the toes. There is no evidence of his receiving any treatment after this despite the need for the wound to be dressed every three days. He would probably have had to keep his leg in a splint for just under four weeks and would normally have needed support in walking. The hypothesis that he ran away in rough terrain is not plausible on the basis of the medical evidence. The whole account of the escape was also incredible in operational terms. The failure to identify the three officers who signed the account of the escape is also inexplicable, there being evidence that officers were not permitted to use code names in an official context or at all. The obscurity surrounding this report indicates that it was to cover up something which could not be acknowledged, namely, that the security forces were responsible for the death of Muhsin Taş in custody. The statements from the confessors submitted by the Government to support the allegations of the escape are so full of serious inconsistencies as to be wholly unreliable.              On 15 October 1993, in Kastamonu, the applicant was asked by two policemen about his son and told that he had been arrested and injured in Cizre. The applicant arrived in Cizre on 17 or 18 October 1993. He saw the public prosecutor who confirmed that his son had been arrested and told him that he should come back in fifteen days. The applicant visited the gendarmerie and public prosecutor repeatedly. After fifteen days, he was informed by the public prosecutor on such a visit that the detention had been extended and that he should come back in another fifteen days. He submitted a petition to the public prosecutor. He travelled to Şirnak and spoke to a taxi driver who had seen his son naked and being dragged along with his face on the ground. After the second period of fifteen days, he returned to see the public prosecutor. He submitted another petition, which said that he feared for his son’s life. The prosecutor signed it. The applicant took it to the gendarme commander who told him to take it back to the public prosecutor. Some time, around 15 or 16 November 1998, he was told that his son had allegedly escaped. He did not believe it and took it as a sign that his son had been killed in detention.   In January 1994, he went back to see the public prosecutor who told him that a decision of lack of jurisdiction had been taken and that he should go to the Diyarbakır State Security Court.   There is no evidence that the Cizre public prosecutor took any action in respect of the applicant’s petitions. He saw nothing to investigate on the basis of the “escape” report.              An investigation was started in Şirnak following the communication of the present application. Senior Major Doğan, who was from the same forces as those being investigated, was appointed to carry out the investigation. He sought unsuccessfully to identify the three signatories to the 9 November report but was informed by the Gendarme Commando Special Forces Group Commander (which appears to be the same as the 23 rd Sirnak Border Brigade) that no-one of those names had ever worked there and as there had been a fire in 1993 which destroyed their records they could not say who took part in any operation on Gabar mountain in 1993. Statements were taken from persons apparently identified by the land forces commander but these three persons who had the names of Ozaricanlı, Tümöz and Çetin had no knowledge of the alleged operation and escape. Doğan did not interview these persons himself, who were apparently questioned by other authorities on the basis of written questions and there was no further probing in light of their replies. Doğan did not question those persons identified to the Commission as those who had interrogated Muhsin Taş. He submitted his report to the Administrative Council on 12 February 1998. His report, consisting of one page, stated that it had not been possible to identify those working in the 23 rd Sirnak Border Brigade Special Forces Group command. His conclusion was that as the alleged suspect was not known the case be discontinued. The Administrative Council reached its decision on 18 February 1998 that there was no case to refer to the criminal courts.   The applicant was not informed of this decision and was therefore unable to make any representations to the Council of State.   2.   Facts as presented by the Government              The Government's account of events as based on their observations is summarised as follows.              Muhsin Taş was apprehended on 14 October 1993 after an armed clash with the security forces in Cizre. He was captured in possession of a kalashnikov, a handgun and ammunition. He was wounded. A medical report from Cizre State Hospital indicated that his life was not at risk. Later that day, he was accepted at Şirnak Gendarme Headquarters Surgical Hospital as patient no. 2091, where he was treated for a fracture of the right knee.   On 15 October 1993, the gendarme commander made a written request to the Cizre public prosecutor for a fifteen day detention period. At the end of this period, another extension was requested on 29 October 1993.              On 19 November 1993, the Cizre gendarme commander sent a report to the Şirnak governor recounting that Muhsin Taş had been captured and that during his interrogation he had declared that he knew hideouts used by the PKK on Gabar mountain after which he was taken on 9 November 1993 with a search team to the site. While carrying out a search on hill “1334” they were attacked by PKK terrorists. During the clash and the commotion, Muhsin Taş who was not handcuffed made use of the heavy rain, rough terrain and failing light to escape. After Muhsin Taş’s escape, a former PKK militant, Nedim Kaya, who had become a confessor, reported that he had seen and had even talked to Muhsin Taş.              The aim of this application is to dishonour the security forces combating separatist terrorist violence. Events took place in 1993 when terrorist violence was at its peak and when public officials were often prevented from doing their public duties. No public building was safe from assaults carried out with rockets and mortars and fires frequently damage buildings and records.   What happened to a militant captured during a clash has been officially recorded by the personnel responsible for the operation and no other evidence has been produced to overrule the facts stated in that document.   B.   The evidence before the Commission     1)   Documentary evidence   The parties submitted various documents to the Commission. These included documents from the investigation and statements from the applicant and other persons concerning their version of the events in issue in this case.   The Commission had particular regard to the following documents:     a) Statements of the applicant     Statement dated 24 January 1994 taken by the Human Rights Association (HRA)   After being summoned by the police who asked the whereabouts of his son, the applicant was told that his son Muhsin had been apprehended wounded in a clash in Cizre. On 17 October 1993, he went to Cizre, submitting a petition to the public prosecutor. The prosecutor said that Muhsin was in custody and would be brought before the court after the custody period. After fifteen days, the applicant returned to Cizre. The prosecutor told him that the custody period had been extended for fifteen days and told him to come back after that time. The applicant gave in another petition. He also gave a petition to the Cizre district gendarme command. A month after his son had been taken into custody, he went to the prosecutor in Cizre once more. The prosecutor told him that the gendarmes had replied to his petition, saying that Muhsin had been taken to Gabar mountain on 9 November, a clash had broken out and he had fled. He returned again to Cizre on 18 January 1994 and saw the prosecutor who said that a decision of dismissal had been taken on Muhsin’s file, which had been sent to the Diyarbakır State Security Court on 13 December 1993 under no. 93/240. He thought that his son had been killed in custody.     Statement dated 20 January 1996 sent to the HRA   On 15 October 1993, the Tatvan police had called him to the police station. They said that Muhsin had been caught wounded on 14 October in the Cudi district of Cizre and was being detained by the Regiment Command. He waited for fifteen days and then for another fifteen days. There was no development. His son never returned from detention. As a father, he was in pain day and night. He appealed for justice.     Statement dated 21 November 1997 taken by lawyer Kenan Sidar   In February 1994, he had been sent to Kastamonu province, where he remained until his retirement in August 1997. During that time, his statement was taken twice concerning his son. Around the autumn of 1995, he was sent a summons by the gendarmerie and he went to the public prosecutor at Kastamonu, who took down his statement about how his son disappeared while detained by the security forces. In early 1996, the gendarmerie of Kozyatagi district of Kastamonu summoned him. He gave his statement to the gendarme commander. The commander said, “You have applied to the European Court of Human Rights alleging that your son was made to disappear by the security forces. Do you want to continue with your case?” He replied that he did. He told the commander about the incident and the commander wrote it down.     b) Documents relating to the detention of Muhsin Taş     Search report dated 14 October 1993, 10.00 hours, signed by gendarmes   On the basis of information given by an individual who had been in custody, an operation was conducted at 00.00 hours, 14 October 1993, by the Cizre security directorate, district gendarme commando division and GKK commandos to raid houses identified as used by the PKK or their supporters. On arrival at one of these houses, in the Cudi district, an armed individual ran out. He responded to the “Halt” warning by firing his weapon. After a clash, he was captured wounded in the right knee, in possession of a Kalashnikov and a Beretta 9mm handgun. An investigation indicated that he was Muhsin Taş, member of the mountain militia of the PKK, code named “Kanemir”     Medical certificate issued by Cizre State Hospital dated 14 October 1993, 05.50 hours   This interim certificate, signed by Dr Zekeriya Palpas, stated that on examination Muhsin Taş was found to be conscious, with a bullet wound to the front lower part of the right knee joint, with entry point in front, exit point behind visible. His life was not in danger at present. Transfer to Mardin State Hospital Orthopaedics Clinic, where a final report could be obtained, was recommended.     Document probably dated 14 October 1993 from Cizre District Gendarme Command to 23 rd Gendarme Border Regiment, Şirnak provincial gendarme command, Tactical Gendarme Brigade Command, District Governor and Cizre public prosecutor   This pro forma report with numbered items refers to the capture of Muhsin Taş as an injured terrorist with two militia. The date 14 October 1993, 06.30 hours is given. The initial examination of the injured terrorist indicated that he was operating in the Gabar mountain. He stated that he was appointed by the mountain group to organise Cizre, recruit members and carry out activities. It was assessed that he could be in charge of the Gabar mountain. It was signed by Captain Temizöz.     Transfer document 14 October 1993   Upon request of the Şirnak Brigade Commander, Muhsin Taş, who had been captured at about 05.00 hours, was delivered by the Cizre security directorate to gendarme commander Erol Tuna, the convoy commander.     Şirnak Military Hospital entry records   The name Muhsin Taş was recorded at entry 2091 on 14 October 1993. It was noted that he had an injury to the right knee - the lateral femural condyle was fractured and the infra patellar tendon was partially cut. The leg was put in splints.     Request from Cizre district gendarme command to the Cizre public prosecutor dated 15 October 1993   This letter, signed by Captain Cemal Temizöz, requested an extension to the custody period in respect of Muhsin Taş, in order for the interrogation to be completed.   In manuscript at the bottom of the document, the public prosecutor has granted a fifteen day extension.     Request from Cizre district gendarme command to the Cizre public prosecutor dated 29 October 1993   This letter, signed by first lieutenant Hakan Kultur, requested a further fifteen day extension in the custody period for Muhsin Taş. This was granted in manuscript note on the bottom of the document by the public prosecutor.     Incident report dated 9 November 1993   This document, in manuscript, is signed by three gendarme officers, Captain Şeyhmuz Kara, First Lieutenant Burak Bugra and First Lieutenant Tarik Göktürk and is described as having been drawn up in the location at 16.30 hours the same day. It states that following his arrest and extension of his detention period for two periods of fifteen days, Muhsin Taş was taken to Şirnak Provincial Gendarme Command Investigation Centre. During his interrogation, he declared his willingness to show the location of the PKK headquarters on Gabar, at hill altitude 1334 west of Inceler village. On 9 November 1993, teams from the Special Operations General Command of the 23 rd Gendarme Border Regiment accompanied Muhsin Taş to this area. While the search for shelters and food depots was conducted on hill 1334, an unspecified number of terrorists started firing from the north of the hill at about 16.15 hours. The teams returned fire. Muhsin Taş, code name Hanamir, took advantage of the precipitation, fading daylight, rocky and bushy terrain and escaped. Following the fifteen minute conflict, his escape was discovered. The following search failed to locate him. The radio messages from the terrorists which were monitored revealed that Muhsin Taş had joined the mountain group of the PKK.     Letter dated 19 November 1993 from Cizre district gendarme command to Cizre public prosecutor   This letter signed by Major Temizöz recounted the apprehension and detention of Muhsin Taş. It further stated that following his willingness to locate PKK headquarters on Gabar mountain as well as other shelters, he was taken on 9 November 1993 by operation teams to Gabar mountain at about 16.00 hours. On arrival there, a clash broke out between the PKK and the security forces and Muhsin Taş escaped, taking advantage of the fading light, precipitation and rocky and bushy terrain, probably rejoining the PKK.     Decision of withdrawal of jurisdiction dated 13 December 1993   The decision, signed by Attila Ceylan, concerned Muhsin Taş as defendant, with the offence indicated as being enrolment in a prohibited organisation and involvement in an armed conflict with the security forces. Following his apprehension on 14 October 1993, he had been handed over to Şirnak Gendarme Command in order to locate hideouts. During an armed conflict on 9 November 1993 Muhsin Taş escaped and rejoined the prohibited organisation. As the offence lay within the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts, it was decided to withdraw from the case and transfer the file to the Diyarbakır State Security Court prosecution.     c) Investigation documents     Petition dated 18 November 1993 by the applicant to the Cizre public prosecutor   The applicant’s son Muhsin Taş had been taken into custody on 14 October 1993 in Cizre. The applicant had been told that his son was being held at the gendarme station and that this would last two periods of fifteen days. It was more than a week since this period had ended and his son had still not been brought before a public prosecutor. He was frightened for his son’s life. He asked that he be given information immediately about the whereabouts of his son.     Letter dated 4 February 1994 from the Diyarbakır SSC public prosecutor   This was addressed to the Cizre public prosecutor, the Cizre district gendarme command, the Şirnak security directorate and Şirnak provincial gendarme brigade command. It explained that the suspect Muhsin Taş had been apprehended but escaped following a clash. It required steps be taken to investigate and locate the suspects and for updates to be sent every three months.     Letter dated 5 October 1995 from the Diyarbakır SSC chief public prosecutor to the Ministry of Justice (General Directorate of Legal and International Relations)   This stated, inter alia , that following his capture Muhsin Taş stated that he could locate the PKK’s shelters and hideouts on Gabar mountain. A search team took him to Gabar mountain on 9 November 1993. During a search on hill 1334 the security forces were fired upon. Muhsin Taş escaped by taking advantage of the terrain and fading light. From monitored wireless messages, it was understood that he had rejoined the PKK. The efforts to recapture him were continuing. The region was vast and the PKK took advantage of the terrain, not returning for long periods to areas where they conducted attacks. Due to this, efforts to locate and capture members took time. The investigation was being carried out by their office under file 1993/6057. Beşir Taş’s claim that his son was killed in detention was abstract and there was no concrete evidence to support it in the investigation documents. He also did not make any claim to their office on this subject. There was no legal basis for deciding to withdraw from jurisdiction in order for an enquiry to be made into the misconduct of state officials.     Statement of Süleyman Fidan dated 4 November 1995 taken by a gendarme officer   He was asked to state what he knew about “Hanemir” Muhsin Taş. He stated that he himself had joined the PKK in 1989. He was posted to the mountain group, where he became operations division commander. He gave himself up in April 1995. In the winter of 1993, he was in the active units at Gabar headquarters. He knew that Muhsin Taş code name Hanemir had worked as press correspondent and in 1992 had fought under PKK leader Sarı Hüseyin when the Turkish army had conducted operations in Northern Iraq. Muhsin Taş was wounded in two places in the leg during those clashes. In early winter of 1993, they were posted so that they could conduct activities in Cizre central district and so that Muhsin Taş could have further treatment. As Muhsin Taş was not expert in these activities, he was soon caught. Muhsin Taş devised a plan to deceive the security forces, by having an extensive operation carried out in Gabar and then escaping under cover of darkness. He rejoined the headquarters. He and others went shortly afterwards to Northern Iraq where he carried out activities for the PKK at the Haftanin camp.     Statement of Nedim Kaya dated 4 November 1995 taken by a gendarme officer   He was asked to state what he knew about “Hanemir” Muhsin Taş. He stated that he himself had joined the PKK in October 1993. When he was a fighter in the mountain group at Gabar under division commander Halil, he saw Muhsin Taş in the winter, in December 1993 he reckoned. Muhsin Taş said that his family lived in the Cudi area of Cizre and that he had worked as a “grab” [2] driver before joining the PKK. Muhsin Taş was 1.75m in height, fat, dark-skinned with receding hair and a chestnut moustache.   As they were on close terms, Muhsin told him that in 1992 he had fought for the PKK in the Northern Iraq operations, that he had come to the Gabar region for treatment for two bullet wounds in the leg, that on completion of his treatment he had been posted to active service in Cizre, that he had been caught but had misled them into thinking that he was going to show them the way and had escaped to return to the Gabar headquarters, that he had recounted the affair to Celal, the head of the Gabar region who took him into the ranks. Later, Celal and Muhsin Taş went together to the Haftanin camp in Northern Iraq.     Letter dated 9 November 1995 from the Ministry of Justice (General Directorate of International Law and Foreign Affairs) to Şirnak public prosecutor   This stated that the applicant had complained to the European Commission of Human Rights that his son had been killed by the security forces while in detention. His claims which disclosed a complaint and the attribution of an offence, were to be proceeded with according to legal procedures and the steps taken and decision reached reported.     Letter dated 27 November 1995 from the Cizre public prosecutor to the Cizre district gendarme command   This referred to the claims that Muhsin Taş had been killed while in detention and to the names of three officers on the report of 9 November 1993. It requested that the command to which the three officers were attached be identified, as well as the location where the report was drawn up and the officers be presented at the prosecutor’s office if they belonged to the district command.     Letter dated 29 November 1995 from Cizre district gendarme command to the Cizre public prosecutor   According to the enclosed documents, during the investigation at their command, Muhsin Taş declared that he knew the Gabar headquarters of the PKK and other shelters. On this, on 14 October 1993, teams from the Investigation Bureau of the 23 rd Gendarme Border Regiment Command were sent to Şirnak province. In his interrogation, the suspect declared that he knew the Gabar headquarters and other shelters. He later escaped after a clash. Those who signed the transfer document were not officers from their command but from the special warfare group command and other enquiries should be sent to the 23 rd Gendarme Border Regiment Command.     Decision of withdrawal of jurisdiction dated 7 December 1995 by the Cizre public prosecutor (prel. 1995/653)   This stated, inter alia , that the personnel involved in the incident in which Muhsin Taş escaped belonged to the Şirnak 23 rd Gendarme Border Regiment Special Operations Group Command and found that the claimed events took place outside their legal jurisdiction. The documents were transferred to the Şirnak public prosecutor.     Letter dated 10 December 1995 from Şirnak public prosecutor to Şirnak 23 rd gendarme border regiment command   This referred to reports that Muhsin Taş had been murdered while detained on 9   November 1993, concluded that he had been taken on an operation by appointed personnel of Special Operations Group Command and requested that the names of the personnel under their command be established and that they be brought to the prosecutor’