CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 10 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 } .s5597C6B0 { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break; mso-column-break-before:always } .sDC17F755 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:19.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; 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 } .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 } .sEA8B4C7 { width:282.73pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s1A238BAA { width:252.71pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s74C813F8 { margin-left:106.8pt; text-indent:-36pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sD9C05719 { width:10.35pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s70D8659F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:70.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s324BF674 { width:252.81pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s2D4036AF { width:12.58pt; display:inline-block } .s44EE2A41 { width:24.79pt; display:inline-block } .s8267A9F4 { width:22.78pt; display:inline-block } .s2E17472 { width:276.73pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s8F58F3 { width:279.4pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s2DED9654 { width:26.12pt; display:inline-block } .sE65EF535 { width:122.33pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s9D2B5215 { width:64.32pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s4683E469 { width:5.56pt; display:inline-block } .s1E6DADE1 { width:121.43pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s6A5D7EE7 { width:29.33pt; display:inline-block } .sA8146E40 { text-align:justify; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s968A8F81 { width:4pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4D28B2E2 { width:24pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sDF9DE756 { width:21.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB8ACF230 { width:22pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2AC0E69C { width:16pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB469F267 { width:15.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFD1C8E96 { width:16.01pt; display:inline-block } .s6A184BC2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal } .sE0EA7154 { width:21.33pt; display:inline-block } .sEB86F1CA { width:25.34pt; display:inline-block } .s333612EB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:70.9pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-34.9pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s6A44B26C { width:21.58pt; 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 } .sADA066E4 { margin-left:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sDA01CD06 { width:13pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9D4A2E42 { width:1pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; 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 } .sCC843BA8 { width:25.33pt; display:inline-block } .sDE68517A { width:10pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .sAA1C3DB { width:7pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s93381CD0 { width:20.35pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCBC20640 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sB2A34B00 { width:14.66pt; display:inline-block } .sDB3E4B0B { width:11.33pt; 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 } .s614A38E2 { width:25.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s275C5FB8 { width:26.67pt; display:inline-block } .s1CC4DDC1 { margin-left:15.01pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:20.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .s89603509 { width:29.34pt; display:inline-block } .sEC54264F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:108pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-108pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s2CB99A5F { width:30pt; display:inline-block } .s4CBECF56 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s6D05289F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s5F086C28 { width:14pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1EFFFD8C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-35.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s14070A01 { width:31.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF9251370 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s7F127471 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:70.9pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-70.9pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sD3D1773B { width:35.45pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s894F3789 { width:108pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE205E2D3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:37.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-37.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s1EE04BBC { width:37.1pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sFAE41504 { width:22pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s1133B24F { margin-left:87.01pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:20.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .sC72ADEEF { margin-left:86.33pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:21.67pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s556ED54D { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .s17A98FAE { width:27.33pt; display:inline-block } .sDA6E0512 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:72pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s7B92CF83 { width:23.33pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s1C105E14 { font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s3A303164 { width:1.32pt; display:inline-block } .s5BA4079A { width:22.66pt; display:inline-block } .s498DF152 { width:9.33pt; display:inline-block } .s1C41B5F6 { width:31.29pt; display:inline-block } .s64B1589E { width:19.33pt; display:inline-block } .s21EFA5EA { width:7.28pt; display:inline-block } .s9E7DF94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .sDB150BDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:6.75pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s9AE08431 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:6.75pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s84B9E559 { margin:0pt 56.35pt 0pt 35.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s7058A54 { width:0.55pt; display:inline-block } .sFF49FFC0 { margin:0pt 56.35pt 0pt 35.45pt; text-indent:-35.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s115C8AB { margin:0pt 49.25pt 0pt 35.45pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super }           EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                       Application No. 23954/94     Mehmet Emin Akdeniz and others     against     Turkey                     REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 10 September 1999) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page   I.   INTRODUCTION   (paras. 1-62) ............................................ 1     A.   The application     (paras. 2-5) ........................................ 1     B.   The proceedings     (paras. 6-57) ....................................... 1     C.   The present Report     (paras. 58-62) ...................................... 6   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   (paras. 63-380) .......................................... 7     A.   The particular circumstances of the case     (paras. 64-91) ...................................... 7     B.   The evidence before the Commission     (paras. 92-368) .................................... 14       1) Documentary evidence     (paras. 92-247) .................................... 14       2) Oral evidence     (paras. 248-368) ................................... 42     C.   Relevant domestic law and practice     (paras. 369-380) ................................... 70   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   (paras. 381-532) ........................................ 72     A.   Complaints declared admissible     (para. 381) ........................................ 72     B.   Points at issue     (paras. 382-383) ................................... 72     C.   Evaluation of the evidence     (paras. 384-472) ................................... 72     D.   As regards Article 2 of the Convention     (paras. 473-481) ................................... 98       CONCLUSION     (para. 482) ....................................... 100 Page     E.   As regards Article 3 of the Convention     (paras. 483-494) .................................. 101          Concerning the eleven missing individuals (paras. 483-487) .................................. 101       CONCLUSION     (para. 488) ....................................... 101       ii.   Concerning the applicants themselves     (paras. 489-493) .................................. 102       CONCLUSION     (para. 494) ....................................... 103     F.   As regards Article 5 of the Convention     (paras. 495-502) .................................. 103       CONCLUSION     (para. 503) ....................................... 105     G.   As regards Article 13 of the Convention     (paras. 504-510) .................................. 105       CONCLUSION     (paras. 511) ...................................... 107     H.   As regards Article 14 of the Convention     (paras. 512-515) .................................. 107       CONCLUSION     (para. 516) ...................................... 107     I.   Former Article 25 of the Convention     (paras. 517-523) .................................. 107       CONCLUSION     (para. 524) ...................................... 109     J.   Recapitulation     (paras. 525-531) .................................. 109   CONCURRING OPINION OF SIR NICOLAS BRATZA ................ 111   PARTLY CONCURRING PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR L. LOUCAIDES JOINED BY MR E. BUSUTTIL ........ 114     Page   APPENDIX:   DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE     ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION ................ 115 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 applicants are as follows:   1. Mehmet Emin Akdeniz, born in 1938, lives in Kulp and complains of the disappearance of his brother Mehmet Salih Akdeniz, and his nephew Celil Aydoğdu;   2. Sabri Tutuş, born in 1976, lives in Diyarbakır and complains of the disappearance of his father, Behçet Tutuş;   3. Sabri Avar, born in 1950, lives in Muş, and complains of the disappearance of his son Mehmet Şerif Avar and his brother Hasan Avar;   4. Keleş Şimşek, born in 1950, lives in Mersin and complains of the disappearance of his brother Bahri Şimşek;   5. Seyithan Atala, born in 1970, lives in Diyarbakır and complains of the disappearance of his brother Mehmet Şah Atala;   6. Aydın Demir, born in 1968, lives in Diyarbakır and complains of the disappearance of his brother Turan Demir;   7. Süleyman Yamuk, born in 1955, lives in Muş and complains of the disappearance of his elder brother Abdo Yamuk;   8. Ramazan Yerlikaya, born in 1967, lives in Muş and complains of the disappearance of his brother Nusreddin Yerlikaya;   9. Kemal Taş, born in 1939, lives in Kulp and complains of the disappearance of his son Ümit Taş.                  The applicants complain on their own behalf and on behalf of their relatives. They are 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 applicants complain that their relatives disappeared after they were detained by soldiers during an operation in October 1993. They complain that their relatives were ill-treated during their detention and also of a lack of any effective remedy in respect of these matters. They allege discrimination in the enjoyment of the above rights on the basis of their relatives’ Kurdish origin. They invoke Articles 2, 3, 5, 13 and 14 of the Convention.   B.   The proceedings                  The application was introduced on 5 April 1994 and registered on 25 April 1994.                  On 27 June 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 4 December 1994 after an extension in the time-limit. They submitted further information on 25 January 1995. The applicant submitted observations in reply on 13 February 1995.                  On 3 April 1995, the Commission declared the application admissible.              The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 26   April 1995 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 9 September 1995, 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.              By letter dated 31 October 1995, the Government provided information concerning the application.              By letter dated 1 November 1995, the applicants made certain proposals concerning the taking of evidence.              By letter dated 29 November 1995, the Government provided information about witnesses and the application.              By letters dated 6 February, 11 March and 19 April 1996, the Government provided clarifications concerning certain witnesses.              By letter dated 16 July 1997, the applicants made requests for certain information to be provided by the Government concerning the application.              By letter dated 24 July 1997, the Delegates requested the Government to provide certain documents and information, including the custody records for places of detention in Kulp, Bingöl and Müş for the period September-December 1993.              By letter dated 30 July 1997, the Delegates requested the applicant to provide certain information.              By letter dated 15 September 1997, the applicants provided information about their witnesses and attendance at the taking of evidence, including the fact that one of the applicants, Sabri Tutuş was currently doing his military service and required special permission to attend.              By letter dated 18 September 1997, the Delegates requested the Government to facilitate the attendance of the applicant Sabri Tutuş at the hearing.              By letter dated 2 October 1997, the Delegates requested the Government to clarify whether there was a General Yavuz Ertürk, connected with the Bolu regiment in or about October 1993.              Evidence was heard by the Commission's Delegates in Ankara from 30 September to 4   October 1997. Before the Delegates, the Government were represented by Mr A. Gündüz, Mr   S. Alpaslan and Mr D. Tezcan, Acting Agents, assisted by Ms M. Gülşen, Mrs Y. Renda, Mr   A. Kaya, Mr H. Karahan and Mrs N. Ayman. The applicant was represented by Ms   F.   Hampson, Ms A. Reidy and Mr O. Baydemir, as counsel, assisted by Mr S. Leader, Mr   K.   Sidar, Mr Metin Kilavuz and Mr Mahmut Kaya (interpreter). During the hearing, the Government provided documents from investigation files from the Diyarbakır and Kulp public prosecutors.              On 14 October 1997, the Delegates requested the Government to provide certain information and documents, namely, the custody records previously requested.              By letter dated 2 December 1997, the Government provided information concerning General Yavuz Ertürk.              On 18 December 1997, the Delegates informed the parties that they had decided to call further witnesses, including General Yavuz Ertürk and Mr Kadir Koçdemır (previously Governor of Kulp) to a hearing to take place in Ankara in May 1998. The Government were requested to consult these witnesses with a view to establishing when these witnesses would be available to give evidence.              By letter dated 15 January 1998, the Government informed the Delegates that General Yavuz Ertürk was available in May but could not give evidence unless certain security requirements were met, including the condition that the applicants’ representatives would not be in the same room as him.              By letter dated 23 January 1998, the Delegates requested the Government to clarify the reasons why the conditions were necessary.              By letter dated 5 February 1998, the Government informed the Delegates that Mr   Kadir Koçdemır could not attend the hearing in May. By letter of 9 February 1998, the Government gave details of their reasons for requiring conditions for the hearing of General Yavuz Ertürk.              By letter dated 12 February 1998, the Delegates requested the Government to clarify when Mr Kadir Koçdemır would be available.              By letter dated 18 March 1998, the Delegates informed the Government that they agreed for General Yavuz Ertürk to be heard on premises designated by them but that they considered it appropriate for the chief counsel of both the Government and the applicants to be present in the room when he gave his evidence, such being essential for a proper assessment of the witness’s demeanour. The Government were requested to make all the necessary technical arrangements for the hearing to take place at the location which they designated.              On 18 March 1998, the Delegates requested that the applicants provide further information.              On 27 April 1998, the applicants provided further information and their response to the Government’s proposed security arrangements for the hearing of General Ertürk.              By letter dated 27 April 1998, the Government repeated its position with regard to the conditions for the hearing of evidence from General Ertürk.              By letter dated 29 April 1998, the Delegates informed the Government that they maintained their view that certain of the conditions were not necessary but that, in light of the Government’s position, they agreed to hear the General in a room separate from both the parties. They requested the Government to arrange for the necessary technical arrangements to allow the parties to hear his evidence via a sound link.              Evidence was heard by the Commission's Delegates in Ankara on 4 and 9 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.   İnanç and Mr H. Bakiken. On 9 May 1998, evidence was heard from General Yavuz Ertürk on premises stipulated by the Government and in a room separate from the parties’ representatives. The relay of interpretation of his evidence to the room in which the parties were attending was switched off on the objection of the Government since the General’s voice was also being transmitted due to the technical arrangements in operation.              On 12 May 1998, the Delegates requested that the Government provide the operation report for the operation conducted by General Ertürk and for the extracts from the custody records in the region for the relevant period.              By letter dated 29 May 1998, the President of the Commission drew to the attention of the Government the fact that the subjecting of the Delegates to personal searches prior to the hearing of the evidence of General Yavuz Ertürk had not been compatible with the Second Protocol to the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe.              On 22 May 1998, the Government provided further information about the availability of Mr Kadir Koçdemır. On 27 May 1998, the Government requested a one month extension in the time-limit for the submission of the information requested by the Delegates.              By letter dated 2 June 1998, the Delegates informed the parties that having regard to the lapse of time they did not propose to take further evidence in the case and that the Commission had decided on 23 May 1998 that the parties should be invited to submit their final observations on the merits.              On 10 June 1998, the Secretariat sent copies of the verbatim record of the hearing in May to the parties, and informing them that they could submit written questions concerning the evidence of General Yavuz Ertürk.              At the request of the applicants dated 14 July 1998, the time-limit for the submission of final observations was extended until 31 August 1998.              By letter dated 16 July 1998, the Government offered to make available the incident report subject to the condition that it was not shown to the applicant’s representatives.              By letter dated 20 July 1998, the Government submitted written questions which it requested be put to General Ertürk for his response. By letter dated 30 July 1998, the Delegates agreed to this request.              By letter dated 30 July 1998, the Government replied to the President’s letter concerning the incident arising during the taking of evidence.              Following a request of the Government dated 7 August 1998, the time-limit for the submission of final observations was extended until 15 October 1998.              By letter dated 14 August 1998, the applicants’ representatives requested, inter alia , information concerning the evidence given by General Ertürk.              By letter dated 16 September 1998, the Commission informed the Government that it could not agree to accept the incident report subject to the condition proposed.              By letter dated 25 September 1998, the Delegates requested the Government to respond to certain requests made by the applicants for information.              By letter dated 12 October 1998, the applicants requested an extension in the time-limit until 27 October for the submission of observations on the merits.              On 21 October 1998, the Government submitted their final observations. On 22   October, they submitted the response of General Yavuz Ertürk to their questions.              On 27 November 1998, the applicants submitted their final observations.              By letter dated 2 December 1998, the applicants submitted further information and comments.              On 15 December 1998, the Government provided a copy of the operation report previously requested.              On 8 January 1999, the Government made comments on the submissions of the applicants.              By letter dated 11 February 1999, the applicants submitted further information and comments.              On 6 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. 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   L. LOUCAIDES       J.-C. GEUS       M.P. PELLONPÄÄ       B. MARXER       M.A. NOWICKI       I. CABRAL BARRETO       B. CONFORTI     Sir   Nicolas BRATZA     MM   I. BÉKÉS       D. ŠVÁBY       A. PERENIČ       E. BIELIŪNAS       E.A. ALKEMA       M. VILA AMIGÓ     Mrs   M. HION     MM   R. NICOLINI       A. ARABADJIEV              The text of this Report was adopted on 10 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 1993 at or near the village of Alaca, 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 Alaca village is not a village in the Western European sense, but an administrative area, under the authority of a muhtar, consisting of a large number of small villages and hamlets and covering an extensive area. It includes two discrete areas. The northern half includes both sides of a river along which were located the hamlets of Gurnik, Mezire and Licik. There was a road along the side of the river linking Kulp to the south-west and Muş to the north-east.   While Alaca was attached to the Kulp district and Diyarbakır province, parts of it were very close to the Muş provincial boundary and the hamlets of Kaylisu and possibly Inkaya were just across the Muş boundary. According to the villagers, the boundary of Alaca was north of the river and included at least some of the Şen plateau [2] .   Alaca also included Andok mountain and villages to the south and south-west of the mountain, which acted as a natural barrier to the two areas of Alaca.              An operation took place from about 8 to 24 October 1993 in the Alaca village area. General Yavuz Ertürk, who commanded the 2 nd commando brigade from Bolu had 2, 500 soldiers under his command, half of which were from his own unit. His forces included 300 men from the Muş gendarme commando division. His forces were spread out before the operation and converged on the operational area from Kulp, Muş and Lice. A unit from Kulp set up a billet at the foot of the Şen pastures on 10-11 October 1993. Helicopters were in use by the forces for bringing in field rations, ammunition and for transporting the dead and wounded. Helicopters were also used for moving detainees around.              At the beginning and during the operation, there was bombardment and firing from helicopters and planes over the Şen pastures. The objectives of the operation were to uncover and destroy PKK stores and weapons caches and to catch PKK terrorists and persons assisting and harbouring them. There was also the intention of persuading people to leave their villages by destroying their homes and crops, which was consistent with the objective of depriving the PKK of food and shelter, whether offered voluntarily or under coercion. Pireş, Gurnik, Kayalısu, Licik and Bongiya were all destroyed, soldiers setting fire to homes and crops.              Stores were found around Gurnik and Kepir. A list of 34 persons detained during the operation was produced by the General, none of which featured in the Muş or Bingöl custody records, despite his evidence that these persons were handed over to Muş gendarmes. Very many people however were detained during the operation for varying lengths of time but there are no apparent records of those held by the security forces in the field of operation.   The applicants submit that there was an arbitrary round-up of males in the vicinity of the operation. Some men were used as guides to show particular places to the security forces but some villagers were deliberately sought out and detained, presumably on suspicion of aiding the PKK.            Mehmet Salih Akdeniz was the muhtar of Inkaya. When the operation began, he was on the Şen plateau with his family. There was a bombardment and Mehmet Salih Akdeniz was taken by the soldiers, possibly to act as a guide. He was seen at Panak or Gurnik and then later was held with others at Kepir. He was not tied up and was visited by Pembe Akdeniz. There was suspicion against him that as a muhtar he was assisting the PKK by providing food.              Celil Aydoğdu was detained one day after Mehmet Salih Akdeniz, also being held with him at Gurnik, with Turan Demir and Mehmet Şerif Avar. He was already at Kepir when the group of detainees arrived from Pireş/Mezire. He may have been shot in the foot. The witness who said this may however have been referring to Abdo Yamuk who was also known as Celil. Celil Aydoğdu was seen tied up on the ground, in a bad way, with his mouth bleeding.              Mehmet Şerif Avar was detained by the soldiers at Gurnik. He was already at Kepir when the group of detainees arrived from Pireş/Mezire. He was seen with his hands tied. His feet were also tied and his toes had swollen. Mehmet İlbey saw him being taken a 100 metres into the forest, and though he did not see what happened, he heard screams and shouts. When Mehmet Şerif Avar returned, Mehmet İlbey saw no signs of injury but described him as looking terrible. It had seemed that Mehmet Şerif Avar was going to be released at the same time that Mehmet İlbey was, but a soldier talked to some-one on the radio and Mehmet Şerif Avar was immediately taken back into custody with Turan Demir.              Hasan Avar was detained in Bongiya hamlet the day after the operation had begun. The soldiers arrived in the hamlet the next day and burned the four houses. Hasan Avar was taken to the cemetery in Mezire, where he stayed for one day and night, with Mehmet Şah Atala, Sirin Avar and Ali Yerlikaya.   Hasan was one of eight persons, including Abdurrahim Yerlikaya, put in a helicopter and taken to Kepir.              Behcet Tutuş had sold animals in Mersin and had gone to Muş to collect the cheque. He returned with his brother Selahattin in a minibus, which was stopped at Kozme. Ten passengers continued on foot to Gurnik. Behcet Tutuş and his brother were detained at Gurnik with Turan Demir and Mehmet Şerif Avar. They were taken together to Kepir. Behcet Tutuş’s hands were tied behind his back and to his neck. Once going to the lavatory, Behçet Tutuş tried to pass TL 20 million to his brother but they were seen and a soldier took the money. Behçet Tutuş was beaten. Mehmet İlbey heard that he had briefly been taken away with Nusreddin Yerlikaya to show the soldiers the location of shelters. He also saw Behçet Tutuş amongst those taken 100 metres into the forest, and though he did not see what happened, he heard screams and shouts. Afterwards, Behçet Tutuş looked terrible.   Bahri Şimşek was detained at Mezire, with a large number of other villagers. They spent the night a little further up from the hamlet and were beaten and insulted.   Villagers from Pireş, including Süleyman Atala and Şirin Avar, were also held there. The soldiers then made a selection, releasing most villagers and telling them to leave their homes at once, while Bahri Şimşek and others were placed on a helicopter and taken to Kepir. Bahri Şimşek was seen at Kepir with his hands and feet tied. His brother Keleş Şimşek was able to talk to him for 3-4 hours - Bahri Şimşek told him that the soldiers had been looking for some-one with the name Bahri Şimşek and that they were tied to trees at night.   Mehmet Şah Atala was in Diyarbakır on 9 October 1993. He was returning to his village but on reaching Geliye Mesur, a hamlet half an hour from his home, the villagers told him not to go further on account of the operation. That night, soldiers went to Mezire, to the home of his parents looking for him. They detained Süleyman Atala, his elder brother and he spent the night at the cemetery in Mezire. The next day, Süleyman Atala was taken by the soldiers to locate Mehmet Şah Atala’s home.   Soon after they found the address, Mehmet Şah Atala arrived home. Süleyman Atala was released and Mehmet Şah Atala was detained.   His mother was given the impression that the soldiers took him to act as a guide but that he also had to make a statement. That night, he was tied up in Mezire cemetery with about 15-20 others. A soldier told him that he was in trouble as there was a photograph showing him with PKK terrorists.   Early next morning, a helicopter arrived. Some-one got out, wearing a chador, which was blown aside by the wind of the propellers. Mehmet Şah told his mother later that he recognised the man but was too frightened to tell her the name. After a selection was made amongst the detainees, most were released and Mehmet Şah, with nine others, was flown to Kepir on 11 October 1993. At Kepir, he was seen with his hands and feet tied. On the first visit from his mother there, he was shivering and complaining of the cold. On another visit, his face was flushed and he was shaking terribly. He cried a lot on the third visit, said that there was “a squealer” in Kepir and that they would definitely be killed.   Turan Demir arrived in Gurnik with Mehmet Şerif Avar, Behçet and Selahattin Tutuş some days after the operation to help to evacuate his family. He was detained by soldiers in Gurnik and taken to Kepir. Turan Demir was seen there with his hands tied and he was one of the men who was seen being taken into the forest, after which screams and shouts were heard. Turan Demır told his mother who visited him that he was accused of supplying provisions to the PKK. It had seemed that he was going to be released at the same time as Mehmet İlbey and Mehmet Şerif Avar, but a soldier talked to some-one on the radio and Turan Demir and Mehmet Şerif Avar were immediately taken back into custody.   Abdo Yamuk, also known as Abducelil and Celil, was in the village of Pireş at the start of the operation. After soldiers came to his house with Süleyman Atala, Abdo Yamuk was taken by the soldiers to Şuşan. From there, he was brought to Pireş and held overnight before being flown to Kepir. An incident occurred at Kepir, when a shot was fired. Abdo Yamuk was seen being held by two soldiers and it was seen that he was wounded in the leg.   He was taken away in a helicopter to the Şen plateau and brought back two days later.   Nusreddin Yerlikaya was detained in Kayalısu, after soldiers arrived at his house with Mehmet Tutuş, an uncle. The house was searched. Nusreddin, Medeni and Abdurrahim Yerlikaya were taken to Pireş, where they spent one night with other detainees. They were amongst those selected to fly to Kepir the next day. On 12 October, Nusreddin, with Behçet Tutuş, was taken by soldiers to show them PKK shelters and then brought back. Nusreddin Yerlikaya was amongst those whom Mehmet İlbey saw being taken to be questioned 100 metres away in the forest, after which screams and shouts were heard. When they came back, 10-30 minutes later, they looked terrible but showed no other sign of injuries.   Ümit Taş lived with his father in a different area, in Col hamlet of Seyh Hamza village, Kulp district. He had gone to pay a creditor in Kulp and was detained there on 25   September 1993. He was held for five days. His brother Mehmet Tahir visited him there and was then told that Ümit Taş had been released. When Mehmet Tahir reached home, he found that Ümit had not arrived. Mehmet Tahir returned to Kulp to make enquiries from the police or gendarmes. He was beaten up. Returning to his village, his chin was swollen and he could not eat for 3-4 days. Kemal Taş, the father of Ümit Taş, then went to Kulp to make enquiries. He submitted a petition to the police headquarters but was told that his son was not there. He learned that his son had been handed over to the operation unit from Bolu. He submitted a petition to a Major Ali, possibly the district gendarme commander Ali Ergülmez. He later learned from an acquaintance and relative that nomads had seen his son outside the Panak station with his hands tied. He heard that his son was taken from there to Gurnik. He went to Gurnik. When he arrived, all the houses had been set on fire and he heard that eleven detainees from Kepir had been taken away in a helicopter.   Detainees who had been released had seen his son amongst them.   Kepir was a short distance, uphill, from Gurnik, about 15-30 minutes on foot. It was a gently sloping area, which at a higher altitude levels out into open space suitable for the landing of helicopters. The lower slopes were wooded and there were trees around the area used by the soldiers as a camp. The camp was guarded and entry was controlled by the soldiers. The camp commander was called Mustafa, possibly a first lieutenant, while there was a blond NCO from Bolu called Şenol and a short, dark, Kurdish speaking NCO from Urfa, also from the Bolu forces.   There were apparently three groups of detainees at Kepir.   There were 11 detainees, who with the exception of Mehmet Sali Akdeniz had their hands and feet tied. A second group consisted of those who had to surrender their ID cards and remain in Kepir during the day but at night went to sleep in nearby houses. There was possibly a third group who were tied up at night but during the day were untied to eat and relieve themselves. This included Abdurrahim Yerlikaya. Mothers and wives were allowed to visit the detainees and on some occasions male relatives.   Most of the witnesses, all of those held at Pireş/Mezire and most of those at Kepir, reported the presence of a man covered in a chador. It is not clear whether there were two men, one seen at Pireş cemetery and the other at Kepir, who were acting as informers. The man at Kepir was identified by some witnesses as Hakki Zumrut. Though Hakki Zumrut denied when questioned by the Commission Delegates that he had been an informer or that he had been with the soldiers voluntarily or otherwise, his brother Süleyman Zumrut had reportedly said that Hakki had been taken away by the soldiers on 7 October 1993.   By about 17 October 1993, all the detainees, except the group of eleven detainees, had been released. On or about that date, this group of eleven were seen being taken up the hill to where the helicopters landed and they were seen boarding one or two helicopters which took off in the direction of Bingöl. They were not seen again by any of their relatives.   The applicants approached every conceivable authority, sometimes alone or in small and varying groups.     1. Mehmet Emin Akdeniz wrote to a petition to the State Security Prosecutor on 1 and 8 November 1993. He went to the Bingöl public prosecutor on 18 January 1994, who spoke on the phone with a major. In Diyarbakır, he contacted Mehmet Gören a friend of the regiment commander. He also went to Ankara where, on 23 November 1993, he saw the Prime Minister and the Minister for Human Rights. He contacted the Minister of the Interior and on 27 November went back to see the Minister for Human Rights. He went to see the deputy regional governor with seven others. He went to Kayseri, submitting a petition to the prosecutor and enquiring at the prison. In 1994 or 1995, police officers in plain clothes came to his house and took him into custody for two days and nights. He was bro