CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 21 octobre 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6A5D7EE7 { width:29.33pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s70DF58E9 { width:3.3pt; display:inline-block } .sA047E36C { width:24.66pt; display:inline-block } .s893D1BA2 { width:9.98pt; display:inline-block } .s4D28B2E2 { width:24pt; display:inline-block } .s2D8A4020 { width:32.63pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sE32B62BB { width:25.96pt; display:inline-block } .s38A5FCD7 { width:19.28pt; display:inline-block } .s5BA4079A { width:22.66pt; display:inline-block } .s636F3465 { width:13.3pt; display:inline-block } .s6F7073C7 { width:15.95pt; display:inline-block } .s3FAF973C { width:22pt; display:inline-block } .s7B92CF83 { width:23.33pt; display:inline-block } .sD002041 { width:9.97pt; display:inline-block } .s275C5FB8 { width:26.67pt; display:inline-block } .s888C3163 { width:17.98pt; display:inline-block } .s49C574CC { width:7.98pt; display:inline-block } .sC0E0C70 { width:35.96pt; display:inline-block } .s3D66DD5D { width:15.98pt; display:inline-block } .sC82ACC0A { width:20.67pt; display:inline-block } .sFD1C8E96 { width:16.01pt; display:inline-block } .sE0EA7154 { width:21.33pt; display:inline-block } .sBF11BE31 { width:22.68pt; display:inline-block } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s8AFB426F { width:32.67pt; display:inline-block } .sCC843BA8 { width:25.33pt; display:inline-block } .sB2A34B00 { width:14.66pt; display:inline-block } .s17A98FAE { width:27.33pt; display:inline-block } .s2CB99A5F { width:30pt; display:inline-block } .sEB86F1CA { width:25.34pt; display:inline-block } .s76EAD327 { width:12.64pt; display:inline-block } .s71794E85 { width:20pt; display:inline-block } .s4F501F83 { width:2pt; display:inline-block } .sBA7929E7 { width:23.31pt; display:inline-block } .sD327920 { width:1.96pt; display:inline-block }     EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                       Application No. 24490/94     Cemile Sarli     against     Turkey                     REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 21 October 1999)   TABLE OF CONTENTS Page   I.   INTRODUCTION   (paras. 1-38)                 1     A.   The application     (paras. 2-4)               1     B.   The proceedings     (paras. 5-33)               1     C.   The present Report     (paras. 34-38)               4     II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   (paras. 39-174)               5     A.   The particular circumstances of the case     (paras. 40-48)               5     B.   The evidence before the Commission     (paras. 49-162)             6       1) Documentary evidence     (paras. 49-96)               6       2) Oral evidence     (paras. 97-162)             16     C.   Relevant domestic law and practice     (paras. 163-174)             30     III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   (paras. 175-264)               32     A.   Complaints declared admissible     (para. 175)               32     B.   Points at issue     (paras. 176-177)             32     C.   Evaluation of the evidence     (paras. 178-209)             33     D.   As regards Article 2 of the Convention     (paras. 210-215)             41   TABLE OF CONTENTS   Page       CONCLUSION     (para. 216)               42     E.   As regards Article 3 of the Convention     (paras. 217-226)             42       i. Concerning Ramazan and Cemile Sarli     (paras. 217-220)             42       CONCLUSION     (para. 221)               43       ii. Concerning the applicant     (paras. 222-225)             43       CONCLUSION     (para. 226)               43     F.   As regards Article 5 of the Convention     (paras. 227-230)             43       CONCLUSION     (para. 231)               44     G.   As regards Article 13 of the Convention     (paras. 232-241)             45       CONCLUSION     (para. 242)               47     H.   As regards Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention     (paras. 243-247)             47       CONCLUSIONS     (paras. 248-249)             47     I.   As regards former Article 25 of the Convention     (paras. 250-255)             47       CONCLUSION     (para. 256)               48     J.   Recapitulation     (paras. 257-264)             49     Page DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS J. LIDDY AND MR J.-C. GEUS             50     APPENDIX:     DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE     ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION       51       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 1938 and resident in Istanbul. She is represented before the Commission by Professor K. Boyle and Professor F. Hampson, both lecturers at the University of Essex.   3.   The application is directed against Turkey. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr M. Özmen.   4.   The applicant complains that her son Ramazan Sarli and her daughter Cemile Sarli disappeared after being taken from their homes by security forces at Ulusoy in December 1993. She invokes Articles 2, 3, 5, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention. She also invokes former   Article 25 of the Convention in respect of measures taken against her lawyer in Diyarbakir.     B.   The proceedings   5.   The application was introduced on 23 June 1994 and registered on 28 June 1994 in the name of Ahmet Sarli, the father of Ramazan and Cemile Sarli.   6.   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.   7.   The Government’s observations were received on 27 February 1995 after an extension in the time-limit. The applicant’s representatives submitted observations in reply on 15 May 1995, also after an extension in the time-limit.   8.   On 28 November 1995, the Commission resumed its deliberations in the case and declared the application admissible.   9.   The text of the Commission’s decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 29 November 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.   10.   On 25 January 1996, the applicant’s representatives submitted a document.   11.   On 13 April 1996, the Commission decided to take oral evidence in respect of the applicant’s allegations. It appointed three Delegates for this purpose: Mrs J. Liddy, Mr M. Pellonpää and Mr P. Lorenzen. The Government were requested to identify certain witnesses.   12.   By letter dated 29 April 1996, the Government submitted supplementary observations, requesting the Commission to re-open the admissibility of the application.   13.   On 18 May 1996, the Commission decided not to suspend the examination of the merits of the application as requested by the Government.   14.   By letter dated 13 June 1996, the applicant’s representatives provided information about witnesses.   15.   By letter dated 28 June 1996, the Government provided information about witnesses.   16.   By letter dated 2 July 1996, the Secretariat requested the Government to identify the public prosecutor relevant to the case and to inform the Delegates of the relevance of the testimony of two witnesses, Ali Veris and Kamil Kaya, proposed by them.   17.   By letter dated 11 July 1996, the Government explained that the evidence of Ali Veris and Kamil Kaya, as eye-witnesses, was highly important.   18.   By letter dated 31 July 1996, the Government identified the public prosecutor.   19.   By letter dated 24 July 1997, the Delegates requested the Government to produce a document.   20.   By letter dated 15 September 1997, the applicant’s representatives informed the Commission that Ahmet Sarli had died and that they would provide further information shortly.   21.   On 26 September 1997, the Government provided the document requested by the Delegates.   22.   Evidence was heard by the Commission’s Delegates in Ankara on 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. Gülsen, 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). Evidence was taken from Cemile Sarli, the wife of the deceased Ahmet Sarli, and her son Menan Sarli.   23.   By letter dated 14 October 1997, the Delegates requested the Government to provide the investigation file of the Tatvan public prosecutor.   24.   By letter dated 17 October 1997, the Government provided investigation documents.   25.   On 25 October 1997, the Commission decided that Cemile Sarli, the wife of Ahmet Sarli, could act as applicant in this case and that the taking of evidence continue.   26.   On 6 January 1998, the Government provided further documents.   27. Evidence was heard by the Commission’s Delegates in Ankara on 4 to 6 May 1998. Before the Delegates, the Government were represented by Mr M. Özmen, Agent, assisted by Ms M. Gülsen, Mrs Y. Renda, Mr A. Kaya, Mr S. Ünal, Ms B. Cankorel, Mr K. Alatas, Mr E. Genel, Mr F. Polat, Mr A. Karatas, 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. Inanç and Mr H. Bakiken.   28.   On 12 May 1998, the Delegates requested that the Government provide a number of documents, including any records, court decisions and statements relating to Ali Veris and Kamil Kaya and any statements made concerning the alleged death of Ramazan and Cemile Sarli.   29.   By letter of 21 July 1998, the Government provided certain documents. By letter dated 31 July 1998, the Secretariat requested that the Government identify their unlabelled appendices and informed them that the documents appeared incomplete.   30.   On 3 August 1998, the Government provided a further document and on 2 September 1998, a copy of a missing appendix.   31.   Following requests by the parties for extension of the time-limit for the submission of final observations, the Government and the applicant submitted their final observations on 2 December 1998.   32.   On 21 October 1999, the Commission found no grounds on which to apply former Article 29 of the Convention.   33.   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   34.   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     Mrs   J. LIDDY     MM   J.-C. GEUS       B. MARXER       M.A. NOWICKI     Sir   Nicolas BRATZA     MM   I. BÉKÉS       D. SVÁBY       A. PERENIC       P. LORENZEN       K. HERNDL       E. BIELIUNAS       E.A. ALKEMA       M. VILA AMIGÓ     Mrs   M. HION     MM   R. NICOLINI       A. ARABADJIEV   35.   The text of this Report was adopted on 21 October 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.   36.   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.   37.   The Commission’s decision on the admissibility of the application is annexed hereto.   38.   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   39.   The facts of the case, particularly concerning events during December 1993 and the disappearance of Ramazan and Cemile Sarli, 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   40.   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.   41.   At about 22.30 hours on 23 December 1993, four villagers who were guarding the village school observed a vehicle approaching. Firing commenced. The vehicle drove away. When the firing stopped, villagers gathered round the school to find out what had happened. The villagers, including the four men acting as guards, returned to their homes. There was the sound of intermittent firing until a final period of shooting at about 03.30 hours. The applicant submits that there is strong evidence that the security forces were deployed around the village from 22.30 hours onwards, possibly engaged in a planned ambush on the PKK in the vicinity.   42.   At about 03.30 hours on 24 December 1993, six members of the security forces came to the applicant’s home in Ulusoy village, accompanied by a villager Ismet Orakçi. They were looking for her daughter Cemile, who was not there. Orakçi was left at the applicant’s home while her son Ramazan was told to take the six men to the home of Abdullah Milyas, where Cemile was staying for the night. The six men took Ramazan, Cemile and Abdullah to the village school, on the outskirts of the village near the road.   Abdullah was released. Ramazan and Cemile were taken away in a vehicle followed by an armoured car.   43.   On the morning of 24 December 1993, the security forces carried out a search of the village, during which Keyvan, Ramazan’s wife, accused them of having taken Ramazan. They denied it. That day, Cemile’s red jacket and one of her black shoes were found on the road. Also that day, the applicant and her husband Ahmet went at separate times to the gendarme station at Yelkenli, where each made a statement, complaining that the security forces had taken Ramazan and Cemile.   Ahmet subsequently made complaints to the Tatvan public prosecutor in late December and after that to the Bitlis public prosecutor and governor. Ahmet’s brother, Tevfik, also made a complaint on 31 January 1994 to the Tatvan public prosecutor.   44.   In January 1994, the applicant and her husband moved to Istanbul. Ahmet went from Istanbul to Diyarbakir to make a complaint to the Human Rights Association (HRA). Court proceedings were instituted against Mahmut Sakar for having taken the statement of Ahmet Sarli and having sent it to the authorities in Europe.       2.   Facts as presented by the Government   45.   The Government’s account of events as based on their observations are summarised as follows.   46.   On the night of 23 December 1993, the PKK arrived at Ulusoy in a taxi and opened fire on the village school, which was guarded by four villagers. The firing lasted 10-15 minutes before the terrorists withdrew.   Terrorists, including an individual code named “Takosin”, later came to the house of the applicant wearing pesmerge   and took away Ramazan Sarli. They went to the house of Abdullah Milyas and took Cemile Sarli. They left in a taxi cab.   There was further firing by the terrorists on the school. The security forces arrived at about 03.00-03.30 hours and more shooting took place. It was known to Captain Ertugrul, the district gendarme commander, that the Sarli family were suspected of assisting the PKK.   He arrived in the village in the morning of 24 December. It had been reported to him that there had been a contact with the PKK during the night. He saw that the school had been damaged and it was reported to him that Ramazan and Cemile Sarli had been kidnapped by PKK militants. Ahmet Sarli told him this himself.   47.   According to Ali Veris, a PKK militant who became a “confessor”, a militant called Mahir had conducted a meeting in Ulusoy and later kidnapped Cemile and Ramazan from the village.   They had been assisting the PKK and as their identity had become known to the security forces it was necessary for them to be kidnapped. Cemile had the code name “Roken”, Ramazan the code name “Dilgeç”. Later, they tried to run away from the PKK and to prevent this desertion, the PKK decided to have them executed.   Kamil Kaya, another PKK militant who became a confessor, had also heard from wireless communications that two people had been abducted from the village and later executed when they tried to leave.   48.   On 27 December 1993, the Tatvan public prosecutor responded to an enquiry as to whether Ramazan and Cemile Sarli were in custody. He knew that they had not been taken into custody. On receipt of Tevfik Sarli’s petition of 31 January 1994, the Bitlis public prosecutor transferred the complaints to the Tatvan public prosecutor who commenced immediately a preliminary investigation 1994/505. On 1 February 1994, the public prosecutor replied that Ramazan and Cemile had been kidnapped by the PKK.   This was based on the testimony of seven villagers, including the applicant. The file was transferred for jurisdictional reasons to the Diyarbakir State Security Court (SSC) public prosecutor’s office. Following receipt of the allegation made by the HRA that Ramazan and Cemile had been abducted by the security forces, a statement was sought from Ahmet Sarli. His statement was taken by the Bakirköy public prosecutor and it denied the HRA allegations. The preliminary investigation file is still pending, and all relevant authorities report progress every three months.   B.   The evidence before the Commission     1)   Documentary evidence   49.   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.   50.   The Commission had particular regard to the following documents:     a) Statement of Ahmet Sarli, introducing the application     Statement dated 2 March 1994 taken by the HRA   51.   In November 1993, the muhtar (mayor) of Ulusoy, Ali Ilban, was summoned to the Tatvan district gendarme commander, who stated that the PKK were burning the village schools and that the villagers were responsible for preventing this. The villagers had been subject to threats before which sought to induce them to become village guards. Following the muhtar’s return, villagers kept watch at the school at night with guns. On the night of 24-25 December 1994 at about 02.00, Yakup Çaca, Naif Ariç, Kazim Aydin and Rasit Tarçin watching at the school saw a dark green military vehicle approaching, with a team of six men. When the vehicle did not stop in response to a warning, the four men fired a few shots. The men in the vehicle returned fire.   The vehicle withdrew. The villagers came out to see what had happened. About half an hour after they returned to their homes, a convoy of soldiers and special teams arrived. Soldiers went to the house of Ismet Orakçi and asked him to take them to Ahmet Sarli’s house. At about 03.00 hours, they knocked at the door. When he opened the door, they said they were soldiers and immediately asked for Cemile. They took the arm of Necla, the wife of his son Menan, but let her go when they saw she had a child and was not Cemile. His son Ramazan, aged 30 and a father of four children, told them Cemile was staying at a neighbour’s house. The soldiers left Ismet Orakçi there and took Ramazan to Abdullah Milyas’s house. The soldiers took Ramazan, Cemile and Abdullah from his house. Ahmet and Ismet went outside when it got light. Soldiers were still in and around the village. He learned from Abullah Milyas that he had been taken to the school with Ramazan and Cemile and he had been released one hour later. Ahmet and his family left the village soon after as they were afraid and because of the continued persecution of the security forces.   52.   On the morning after the kidnapping, the district gendarme commander came to the village and gathered the villagers together.   He said that the villagers had fired at the military teams during the night and asked if there were any terrorists in the village. When the people and the first sergeant said that there were no terrorists, he grew angry with the sergeant, saying “Why have you done this to the poor people?”. Later, First Sergeant Yavuz, commander of the Yelkenli gendarme station in the next village, came to the house and asked Ramazan’s wife where Ramazan and Cemile were. She said that the soldiers had taken them away. Yavuz denied this.   53.   He had made applications to Tatvan and Bitlis public prosecutors but had only received one reply of 1 February 1994 which said that his children had been taken by the PKK Takosin group. He did not know how the prosecutor could have reached such a conclusion. Not the slightest effort was made to find his children who were taken by soldiers. He had no other recourse open to him and he wanted his children found.     b) Documents relating to the investigation into the incident     Statement dated 24 December 1993 of the applicant taken by NCO Yavuz Gürbüz   54.   At about 22.30 hours, on 23 December 1993, there was gunfire, which continued for about half an hour. At about 01.00 hours, there was insistent knocking at the door. They opened the door to find six armed PKK terrorists, wearing local pesmerge dress. Without saying a word, they took Ramazan and Cemile from the house and left the village. She was too frightened to leave the house. There was more gunfire from the village and in the surrounding hills. She did not know why her children had been taken or where. She wanted them found and returned safely.     Statement dated 24 December 1993 of Kazim Aydin taken by NCO Yavuz Gürbüz   55.   On the night of 23-24 December 1993, he was guarding the village school with Resit Tarçin, Naif Ariç and Yakup Çaça. At about 23.30 hours, a taxi came from the tarmac road to the school, four persons got out. Yakup shouted, “Stop. Tell us who you are”. Two of the men ran away. Yakup, Resit and himself fired after. The men responded with intensive automatic rifle fire, for about 10-15 minutes. Villagers were roused and fired shots into the air. The men fled. About 20 to 25 minutes later, the men came back and fired intensively at the school for 20 minutes. At about 03.30 hours, the security forces arrived at the village. Firing continued for about half an hour. He and the three guards had left the school by the time the security forces arrived.   Next morning, he heard that the people who had come had taken Ramazan and Cemile Sarli.     Statement dated 24 December 1993 of Resit Tarçin taken by NCO Yavuz Gürbüz   56.   On the night of 23-24 December 1993, he was guarding the village school with Kazim Aydin, Naif Ariç and Yakup Çaça. At about 23.30 hours, a taxi came from the tarmac road towards the village. At the school, five armed PKK members got out. It was dark and difficult to make them out.   Yakup shouted, “Stop. Tell us who you are”. Two of the men ran away. Yakup and himself fired after them. The men responded with automatic rifle fire, for about eight to ten minutes. Villagers were roused and fired shots into the air, gathering near the school. At about 23.30 hours, the six PKK men drove away at high speed towards the tarmac road.   About 20 to 25 minutes later, terrorists came back and fired at the school for 30 minutes. The villagers returned fire. The gunfire stopped at about 01.00 hours. At about 03.30 hours, the security forces arrived at the village and the villagers returned to their houses. Firing continued for about fifteen minutes. Next morning, he heard that six PKK members had taken Ramazan and Cemile Sarli with them when they fled.     Statement dated 24 December 1993 of Yakup Çaça taken by NCO Yavuz Gürbüz   57.   On the night of 23-24 December 1993, he was guarding the village school with Kazim Aydin, Naif Ariç and Resit Tarçin. At about 23.30 hours, a taxi entered the village and stopped at the school. Four people got out.   He shouted, “Stop. Tell us who you are”. Two of the men ran away. He fired after them. His friends fired their shotguns too and the men responded with automatic rifle fire, for about 10-15 minutes. Villagers were roused and fired shots into the air, gathering near the school. The men made off in the taxi towards the tarmac road.   About 20 to 25 minutes later, they came back and fired at the school sporadically for about 20 minutes. The firing stopped. At about 03.30 hours, the security forces arrived at the village. Shooting began again, stopping after half an hour. Next morning, he heard that armed PKK members had taken Ramazan and Cemile Sarli with them.       Statement dated 24 December 1993 of Naif Ariç taken by NCO Yavuz Gürbüz   58.   On the night of 23-24 December 1993, he was guarding the village school with Kazim Aydin, Yakup Çaça and Resit Tarçin. At about 23.30 hours, Yakup woke them up. A taxi stopped below the school. Five people got out. Yakup shouted, “Stop. Tell us who you are”. The people began to run away. Yakup fired after them. Resit and Aydin fired too.   The attackers responded with intensive automatic rifle fire, for about 10-15 minutes. Villagers were roused and fired shots into the air. The men made off in the taxi towards the tarmac road. At about 03.30 hours, the security forces arrived at the village. Shooting began again, stopping after half an hour. Next morning, he heard that terrorists had kidnapped Ramazan and Cemile Sarli.     Statement dated 24 December 1993 of Ali Ilban taken by NCO Yavuz Gürbüz   59.   At about 23.30 hours, he was in bed. He heard gunfire and went outside. He arrived at the school, where all the villagers were. They said that six armed PKK members had clashed with the guards at the school. He told the villagers not to go back to bed in case they came back. At about 01.00 hours, the same people came back, firing at the school for 20 minutes. At about 03.30 hours, the security forces arrived at the village. Shooting began again, stopping after half an hour. Next morning, he heard that armed PKK members had kidnapped Ramazan and Cemile Sarli. Ismet Orakçi had taken them to their house and had then been released. The school was damaged, the windows all broken and part of the roof perforated.     Statement dated 24 December 1993 of Ismet Orakçi taken by NCO Yavuz Gürbüz   60.   On 23 December 1993, he was watching the television, when he heard gunfire coming from the school. It continued for five to ten minutes. After five minutes, he went to the school where the villagers were gathering. After they discussed the need to keep on their guard, they dispersed. Half an hour later, there was intensive firing at the village from the tarmac road. There was a knock at the door. Six armed men came in and searched the house. They had beards and their heads were covered with scarves. They told him to take them to Ahmet Sarli’s house. He did so. They took Ramazan and Cemile Sarli with them and went off towards the tarmac road. He did not know who those people were. Immediately afterwards, about 03.30 hours, military vehicles were seen coming from the tarmac road. There was more gunfire for a while.     Incident report dated 24 December 1993 signed by gendarmes and the muhtar   61.   At about 22.30 hours on 23 December 1993, six armed PKK members came to the primary school in a car. Resit Tarçin, Naif Ariç, Yakup Çaça and Kazim Aydin were on watch there. Çaça opened fire and a clash broke out for 30 minutes. The villagers came out and the PKK terrorists drove away. At about 03.30 hours, an infantry unit patrolling the Tatvan-Van road intervened and came under fire from terrorists positioned on the west side of the village. Firing lasted 15 minutes. The terrorists went away towards Anadere. At about 05.00 hours, a mechanised infantry unit, a security unit and a 2B unit arrived at the scene. An enquiry disclosed damage to the school. There was no other damage. No trace or evidence to identify the perpetrators was found.   62.   A sketch map had also been drawn up by NCO Gürbüz, setting out the position of the school in the village.     Damage evaluation report of 24 December 1993 signed by Yavuz Gürbüz and the muhtar   63.   This described the damage to the school arising from gunfire from PKK terrorists occurring from 23.30 to 23.40 hours and 01.00 to 01.20 hours.     Standard form incident report dated 24 December 1993 addressed from Tatvan district gendarme command   64.   This was addressed, inter alia, to Bitlis provincial gendarme headquarters, Tatvan public prosecutor, Tatvan district governor, Tatvan police headquarters etc.   It listed in number form that an armed clash took place at about 22.30 hours on 23 December 1993 inside Ulusoy village. At point 4, it stated in detail that having learned that PKK members were going to meet at the village school in Ulusoy on 23 December 1993, security forces (teams) were in ambush positions around the village. At about 22.30 hours, a group of terrorists was seen in the school around the village and an armed conflict ensued. From the hill to the south of the village, shots were fired at security forces waiting in ambush. Because of the number of terrorists and intensity of firing, reinforcements were requested. Supported by mortar fire and tanks, the conflict continued intermittently until 03.30 hours. At 06.00 hours, the security forces entered the village.   From the investigation, it was understood that six terrorists had positioned themselves around the school and the remainder were in the hills to the south.   It was determined that the group of 20 terrorists were under the command of a man, code named Berham. Cemile Sarli and Ramazan Sarli, daughter and son of Ahmet a man from the village militia, had been in direct contact with the terrorist “Takosin”. After the conflict, they ran away with him/them into the Anadere region. It was thought they were to be inducted into the mountain group. The houses of the villagers suspected of helping the terrorists were searched. In the house of Fadil Tarçin two hidden C4s were found. He was taken into custody and interrogated. His details were given. At point 8, the incomplete text provided lists the personnel involved as including two internal security teams and one team from the centre.     Letter dated 27 December 1993 from the Tatvan district gendarme command to the Tatvan public prosecutor   65.   Referring to the incident report of 24 December 1993 and the Tatvan public prosecutor’s letter of 27 December 1993, it stated that at about 22.30 hours on 23 December a clash broke out between the security forces and the PKK who had come to the village to hold a meeting. Following a loss of contact, the group of 20 PKK under the command of “Berham” ran away to the Anadere region, taking with them Cemile (born 1974) and Ramazan (born 1963), who were directly connected with the PKK member code named “Takosin”. It was considered that the two people had possibly been taken as recruits for the mountain group. They were not taken by the security forces as mentioned in the above letter and they were not taken into custody.     Decision of non-jurisdiction dated 11 January 1994 by the Tatvan public prosecutor   66.   This listed Ramazan and Cemile Sarli as the victims, the complainant as the applicant, the offences as burning down a school for ideological reasons and kidnapping and the defendants as unknown. It stated that on 23 December 1993, at 22.30 hours, six armed PKK members arrived at Ulusoy intending to burn down the school. Upon the intervention of the villagers an armed conflict took place, during which the windows and roof of the school were damaged. Later, terrorists escaped, taking the victims with them. As this offence attributed to unknown perpetrators was within the jurisdiction of the SSC chief public prosecutor, he withdrew jurisdiction and despatched the file to Diyarbakir SSC.     Petition dated 31 January 1994 of Tevfik Sarli to Bitlis public prosecutor   67.   Ramazan and Cemile Sarli were taken by the security forces at 03.00 hours about 40 days ago. He was terribly wronged and in a desperate situation. He would like to be informed whether his children   had been brought before a judge. If not, he requested that they be brought before a judge immediately. He requested that the necessary steps be taken.     Letter dated 24 January 1994 from Diyarbakir SSC chief public prosecutor to Tatvan public prosecutor and others   68.   This requested the Tatvan public prosecutor, with the co-operation of the district gendarmes, to continue the search for the abductors of Ramazan and Cemile Sarli, reports to be made every three months, with copies of any pertinent statements or confessions. The police headquarters and provincial gendarme headquarters were also requested to notify them of any confession, statement or other pertinent information relating to the incident.     Reply dated 1 February 1994 from the Tatvan public prosecutor (28301)   69.   It was understood from the letter of the district gendarme commander of 27 December 1993 that Ramazan and Cemile Sarli were not taken from their house by security forces but by the Takosin group of the PKK. The file had been sent to the Diyarbakir SSC public prosecutor, with the decision of lack of jurisdiction of 11 January 1994.     Letter dated 11 January 1995 from the Diyarbakir SSC prosecutor to the Tatvan prosecutor   70.   This requested that Ali Ilban, Naif Ariç, Resit Tarçin, Yakup Çaça, Kazim Aydin, Cemile Sarli (the applicant), Ismet Orakçi and Abdullah Milyas be summoned urgently to give their statements. It also requested that Cemile Sarli, the daughter of the applicant, be summoned.     Statement dated 11 January 1995 of Ahmet Sarli taken by a public prosecutor   71.   A petition letter from the European Human Rights Projects and a power of attorney were shown to the witness, who said that they were not his and he did not know if the signature was his. On 24 December 1993, at about 03.00 hours, he was in his house with his wife <the applicant>, his son Ramazan, his wife Keyvan, their four children and Necla, the wife of his son who was absent doing his military service, with her child. Six individuals arrived at Ismet Orakçi’s house at the entrance to the village. They wore waistcoats, boots and were not soldiers. Ismet Orakçi brought them to his house at about 03.00 hours. They asked for his daughter Cemile who was staying at Abdullah Milyas’s house. They took Ramazan, telling those left in the house not to go out.   72.   The statement specified that the witness was asked again and that he insisted that the six men were not soldiers. Some wore scarves known as “desmal” around their necks while the others had nothing on their heads. The men took Cemile from Milyas’s house and went to the school. They left Abdullah there. At about 03.00 hours, they heard some long distance shots, apparently from soldiers. Captain Dursun arrived at about 09.00 hours and assembled the villagers. He asked if they had a terrorist group in the village. They said they did not. He asked the sergeant major the same question and received the same reply. He was angry with the sergeant major saying why did you put these poor people in this state. He only heard about that conversation as he was not there.   73.   He did not remember submitting this petition himself. He did submit a petition to the Tatvan prosecutor and the Bitlis provincial governor for his children to be found. His only aim was to find his children. After the incident, they feared for their safety and moved to Istanbul.     Letter dated 11 April 1995 from Tatvan district gendarme command to Tatvan prosecutor   74.   This reported that the persons summoned could not be found, stating that the various villagers had moved (giving the towns in each case) and that Cemile Sarli, the daughter, had been kidnapped by the PKK.     Letter dated 1 March 1995 from Tatvan district gendarme command to Diyarbakir SSC prosecutor   75.   This stated the investigation to apprehend the suspects in respect of the abduction of Ramazan and Cemile Sarli was continuing. A report from the Yelkenli gendarme station was enclosed, stating no information had been forthcoming.     Letters dated 12 April and 25 August 1995 from Tatvan district gendarme command to Diyarbakir SSC prosecutor   76.   This stated as above (para. 75).     Letter dated 26 April 1996 from the Diyarbakir SSC prosecutor to Tatvan public prosecutor   77.   This referred to their earlier letter of 24 January 1994, pointing out that they had not been informed on a regular three month basis as requested. It requested compliance in future.     Letter dated 8 September 1997 from Van SSC chief public prosecutor to Tatvan public prosecutor   78.   This referred to the decision of lack of jurisdiction of the Diyarbakir SSC prosecutor of 3 July 1997, stated that an investigation into the abduction of Ramazan and Cemile Sarli had begun, that steps should be taken to identify and apprehend the perpetrators and reports should be made every three months as to state of progress.       Report dated 15 September 1997 signed by Yelkenli gendarme station commander   79.   In accordance with the Diyarbakir SSC chief public prosecutor’s request of 26 April 1996 (1994/505) an investigation had been carried out into the attack on Ulusoy during which Ramazan and Cemile Sarli were taken by terrorists. An examination of the statements made by terrorists captured or surrendered to the security forces within or outside the area of their command revealed no information about the incident. The enquiry was still pending and further information forwarded when it became available.     Reports dated 20 February, 15 March, 15 April 1998 signed by Yelkenli gendarme station commander   80.   The same as above (para. 75).     Letter dated 22 April 1998 from Ministry of Justice (Directorate of International Law and Foreign Affairs) to Van SSC chief public prosecutor   81.   This requested information about the pending investigation 1997/1214, which had been referred to them following the decision of lack of jurisdiction 1997/2537 of the Diyarbakir chief public prosecutor on 3 July 1997.     Letter dated 4 June 1998 from Tatvan district gendarme command to the Tatvan public prosecutor   82.   Referring to previous correspondence, it stated that no information was available concerning the perpetrators of the abduction of Ramazan and Cemile Sarli but that the search was continuing.     List of documents in investigation file 1997/1212 Van SSC   83.   This lists 70 documents dated from 24 December 1993 to 4 June 1998.       c) Documents relating to Ali Veris     Incident report dated 9 April 1995   84.   This recounted the capture of 18 terrorists following an operation in the Sehhi forest in Bitlis on 27 March 1995. These included Ali Veris (“Sefkan”). Nearly 70-75 terrorists were killed in the clash and one soldier died and two were injured.     Request dated 6 April 1995 from Bitlis provincial gendarme headquarters to the Bitlis public prosecutor   85.   This requested an extended 30 day detention period in respect of the listed terrorists who included Deris , code name Sefkan.       Custody record, place of detention unattributed   86.   This lists Ali Deris   code name Suphan   as detained on 2 April 1995, released on 1 May 1995.     Indictment undated by the Diyarbakir SSC chief public prosecutor concerning five accused including Ali Veris   87.   The indictment listed date of custody for all accused as being 1 May 1995 and charged them with armed activities aimed against the territorial integrity of the state. Ali Veris, code named “Sefkan” was charged with 12 armed actions carried out in Cizre, Sirvan and Bitlis between 1992 and 1995, during several of which members of the security forces or village guards were killed. It described that during the final action in Sehhi forest between 26 February and 2 April 1995 Ali Veris and others surrendered as they could not escape.   That Ali Veris had carried out these actions was known from his declarations to security, the public prosecutor and the criminal court.     Decision of Diyarbakir SSC no. 2 dated 9 May 1997   88.   This referred to the accused being detained since 9 April 1995 and released on 10 May 1996. This found that Ali Veris had joined the PKK in September 1989, returning to Turkey from Iraq in March 1991. It was established that he had carried out armed and gravely serious activities for the PKK aiming to form a separate state from the territory of Turkey. He and the other accused had indicated after their apprehension and during their trial that they regretted having joined the PKK and carried out armed activities and that they wanted to take advantage of the Remorse Act No. 4085.   The General Directorate of Security (Ministry of the Interior) had been asked for its view. Although their report gave an adverse opinion, it was reported by the security forces that the accused had indicated shelters and other terrorist locations, taken part in operations and sincerely provided information, thereby helping in the efforts to dismantle the PKK. It was decided to apply Act No. 4085 to the defendants.   89.   The court sentenced the defendants to the death penalty pursuant to Article 125 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC). The sentence of Ali Veris was converted into heavy life imprisonment pursuant to Article 59/1 of the TPC and pursuant to Act No. 4085 this sentence was reduced to six years’ heavy imprisonment, with prohibition of public service for life and to be kept under legal restriction during his sentence. The time spent in custody was to be deducted. Ali Veris was not present in court.       d) Documents relating to Kamil Kaya     Statement dated 19 August 1995 by Kamil Kaya taken at the Anti-Terror Department   90.   This 27 page statement set out details of Kamil Kaya’s activities in the PKK under code name “Çektar” from 1992 to 1995 and answers to questions about particular incidents. It listed, inter alia, mainly code names of persons with whom he had come into contact and described how after his surrender he went on operations with police teams in Agri and Bitlis to identify places where food and arms were stored.     Additional statement, undated, by Kamil Kaya   91.   In this statement, he was asked to identify the village committee members and village militia and gave information about people who assisted the PKK in Hasköy district in Mus, the town of Altinova and a number of other villages.     Statement dated 22 August 1995 by Kamil Kaya taken by a public prosecutor   92.   This stated that he had escaped with others from the organisation on 22 April 1995 but that they had been frightened to give themselves up initially. They gave themselves up in Patnos. He had participated in the abduction of Kemal Elçi who was executed as a State collaborator, laid mines, burned a minibus, raided villages (during one incident a woman and child were injured), blocked a road and taken part in armed clashes in 1994 and 1995, though he did not know if any members of the security forces died as a result of these.     Indictment by Erzincan SSC public prosecutor dated 11 September 1995   93.   This charged Kamil Kaya with separatist acts against the territorial integrity of the State, listing offences between 28 April 1993 and 22 April 1995. It stated that he had been in custody from 3 to 22 August 1995 and arrested from 22 August 1995. He and two other defendants were described as having escaped from the PKK on 13 April 1995 and having travelled in the mountains for months, voluntarily giving themselves up on 3 August 1995. In a detailed account of his recruitment and activities for the PKK, it stated that he was involved in arson, kidnappings and executions of abducted persons, clashes and attacks on villages in which civilians and security force personnel were killed. It referred to statements made by him to the police on 19 August 1995 and the prosecutor on 22 August 1995.     Decision dated 18 September 1995 of the Erzincan SSC no. 2   94.   This stated that the offences committed by Kamil Kaya and his fellow accused were carried out within the jurisdiction of the Diyarbakir SSC. The accused were to remain under arrest and the case to be transferred.       e) Documents relating to the prosecution of the applicant’s lawyer in Turkey     Statement dated 7 November 1995 of Mahmut Sakar taken by the Diyarbakir SSC chief public prosecutor   95.   This stated that Mahmut Sakar was regi