CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 27 octobre 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6A5D7EE7 { width:29.33pt; 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 } .sE0EA7154 { width:21.33pt; display:inline-block } .sEB86F1CA { width:25.34pt; display:inline-block } .s49C574CC { width:7.98pt; display:inline-block } .sC0E0C70 { width:35.96pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3D66DD5D { width:15.98pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFD1C8E96 { width:16.01pt; display:inline-block } .sBF11BE31 { width:22.68pt; display:inline-block } .s64B1589E { width:19.33pt; display:inline-block } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .sCC843BA8 { width:25.33pt; display:inline-block } .s8AFB426F { width:32.67pt; display:inline-block } .s1342027E { width:15.32pt; display:inline-block } .s9420EBC3 { width:32.6pt; display:inline-block } .s3FAF973C { width:22pt; display:inline-block } .s275C5FB8 { width:26.67pt; display:inline-block } .s521C3BF3 { width:28pt; display:inline-block } .s105C94DE { width:35.33pt; display:inline-block } .sF1A3A78E { width:26.64pt; display:inline-block } .sF2F84BD3 { width:11.99pt; display:inline-block } .s1E7F07A2 { width:13.95pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                               Application No. 22676/93     Mehmet Gül     against     Turkey                           REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 27 October 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. 40-272)             5     A.   The particular circumstances of the case     (paras. 41-54)             5     B.   The evidence before the Commission     (paras. 55-257)           8       1) Documentary evidence     (paras. 55-156)           8       2) Oral evidence     (paras. 157-258)           31     C.   Relevant domestic law and practice     (paras. 259-272)           54     III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   (paras. 273-348)             57     A.   Complaints declared admissible     (para. 273)             57     B.   Points at issue     (para. 274)             57     C.   Evaluation of the evidence     (paras. 275-319)           57       D.   As regards Article 2 of the Convention     (paras. 320-331)           70       CONCLUSION     (para. 332)             72     E.   As regards Articles 6 and/or 13 of the Convention     (paras. 333-345)           73       CONCLUSION     (para. 346)             76     F.   Recapitulation     (paras. 347-348)           76     APPENDIX:   DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE     ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION     77     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   1. The applicant is a Turkish citizen resident in Bozova, Şanlıurfa and born in 1944. He is represented before the Commission by Professor K. Boyle and Professor F. Hampson, both lecturers at the University of Essex. He brings this application on his own behalf and on behalf of his deceased son Mehmet Gül, his wife and children.   3.   The application is directed against Turkey. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent Mr S. Alpaslan.   4.   The applicant complains that his son Mehmet Gül was shot dead by police officers who fired through the door of his home and that he has no effective access to court or remedy in respect of this. He invokes Articles 2, 6 and 13 of the Convention.   B.   The proceedings   5.   The application was introduced on 25 August 1993 and registered on 23 September 1993.   6.   On 10 January 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 28 April 1994 after an extension in the time-limit. The applicant submitted observations on 5 July 1994.   8.   On 8 December 1994, the Commission refused the Government’s request to adjourn the examination of the case pending the investigation by the public prosecutor and requested them to submit any further observations which they might wish to make by 23 January 1995.   9.   On 3 April 1995, the Commission declared the application admissible.   10.   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.   11.   On 9 September 1995, the Commission examined the state of proceedings and decided to request the Government to provide copies of the investigation documents.   12.   On 16 April 1996, the Government submitted supplementary observations, with annexed documents.   13.   On 18 May 1996, the Commission examined the state of proceedings and decided to request the Government to provide information relating to the criminal proceedings concerning the shooting of the applicant’s son and copies of relevant documents.   14.   On 30 September 1996, the Government provided some information.   15.   On 19 October 1996, the Commission examined the state of proceedings. It decided that there was no basis for applying Article 29 of the Convention invoked by the Government, requested the Government to keep it informed of progress in the criminal proceedings and invited the parties to inform it of any evidence which they might wish to adduce in further proceedings before the Commission.   16.   On 17 April 1997, the Government provided information about the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. On 24 April 1997, the Secretariat requested that the Government provide a copy of the court decision terminating the proceedings.   17.   On 25 April 1997, the applicant made proposals concerning the hearing of witnesses.   18.   On 13 May 1997, the Government provided the requested court decision and on 27 May 1997 the contents of the court file.   19.   On 13 September 1997, the Commission decided to take oral evidence in respect of the applicant's allegations. It appointed three Delegates for this purpose: Mrs G.H. Thune, Mrs J. Liddy and Mr P. Lorenzen. The Government were requested to identify certain witnesses.   20.   By letter dated 24 November 1997, the applicant made proposals concerning the taking of evidence. On the same date, the Government submitted comments on the taking of evidence.   21.   By letter dated 23 September 1998, the Delegates requested that the Government provide information and legible documents.   22.   By letters dated 8 and 30 October 1998, the Government provided documents relating to the disciplinary proceedings.   23.   By letter dated 10 November 1998, the Delegates requested that the Government provide a certain document and identify two public prosecutors.   24.   By letter dated 7 December 1998, the Delegates requested that the applicant provide information concerning certain witnesses and concerning photographs. On the same date, they requested that the Government provide information concerning photographs.   25.   By letter dated 20 December 1998, the applicant provided information about witnesses.   26.   By letter dated 21 January 1999, the Government provided photographs of the scene of the shooting.   27.   By letter dated 29 January 1999, the Delegates requested further documents and information from the Government.   28.   On 11 February 1999, the Government provided some documents.   29.   Evidence was heard by the Commission's Delegates in Ankara from 15 to 19 February 1999. Before the Delegates, the Government were represented by Mr S. Alpaslan, Agent, assisted by Mr C. Azeri, Mr E. Ergül, Mr. B. Çaliskan, Ms G. Akyüz, Ms. N. Eser, Mr O. Sever, Mr. B. Doğan, Ms M. Gülşen, Mr G. Acar, Mr Y Özbek and Ms P. Duymuş. The applicant was represented by Mr K. Boyle as counsel assisted by Ms A. Faure Walker, Mr O. Cengiz, Mr M. Kilavuz, Mr C. Aydın and Mr M. Kaya (translator).   30.   On 1 March 1999, the Delegates requested the Government to provide certain information and documents and the applicant to provide certain information.   31.   By letter dated 27 May 1999, the Government provided some of the documents and information. The Secretariat drew the outstanding items to their attention by letter of 23 June 1999.   32.   On 1 and 18 June 1999, the applicant provided certain information.   33.   On 2 August 1999, the applicant submitted his final observations after an extension in the time-limit. The Government’s observations were submitted on 30 August 1999 after three extensions in the time-limit granted at their request.   34.   After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with former Article 28 para. 1 (b) [1] 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   35.   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     M   F. MARTINEZ     Mrs   J. LIDDY     MM   L. LOUCAIDES       J.-C. GEUS       B. MARXER       M.A. NOWICKI       I. CABRAL BARRETO       B. CONFORTI     Sir   Nicolas BRATZA     MM   I. BÉKÉS       D. ŠVÁBY       A. PERENIČ       P. LORENZEN       K. HERNDL       E. BIELIŪNAS       E.A. ALKEMA       M. VILA AMIGÓ     Mrs   M. HION     MM   R. NICOLINI       A. ARABADJIEV   36.   The text of this Report was adopted on 27 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.   37.   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.   38.   The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is annexed hereto.   39.   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   40.   The facts of the case, particularly concerning events during the shooting of the applicant’s son Mehmet Gül on 8 March 1993 in Bozova, Sanlıurfa, [2] 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   41.   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.   42.   The applicant lived on the top floor of a three storey apartment building. On the floor below lived his sons Mehmet and Mustafa in separate apartments with their wives and children. Mehmet had three children aged 8, 7 and 2 at the relevant time. His wife Filiz was pregnant and gave birth to a boy in October 1993 after the incident.   43.   The applicant and his family lived in Bozova, a small town near Şanlıurfa in south-east Turkey. On 7 March 1993, Mehmet Gül, the applicant’s son, who ran a petrol station, had met Bozova district governor Mustafa Yaman at the station and invited him home to eat. Mustafa Yaman had declined. Later that evening, Mustafa Yaman attended a briefing with SOT (special operation teams) at the security headquarters in Bozova concerning an   operation to take place that night. After attending the mosque and a charitable foundation meeting, Mehmet Gül and the applicant drove home at about 21.00 hours. Mehmet Gül went to his apartment, where he watched television with his wife Filiz and children until bedtime. Parents and children slept in the same room.   44.   At about 01.00 hours in the morning of 8 March 1993, Filiz Gül heard a light knock on the door. She was about to get up to answer, when Mehmet Gül said, “Wait, I’ll go”. They were not alarmed by the knock as Ahmet, Mehmet’s brother, used to bring the special pide bread before dawn for the meal before fasting. Almost immediately, Filiz heard shooting and the lights went out - the night lamp in the bedroom and the fluorescent hall light which she used to leave on. When Mehmet Gül had reached the door, he had turned the key in the lock to open the door and must have been reaching to pull back the separate bolt that secured the door, when the lights went out and a barrage of fire from automatic weapons penetrated the door, wounding him and shattering his right hand on the bolt. The victim tried to switch on the hall light, as is shown by the bloodstains on and around the switch. The bloodstains also showed how he had staggered up the hallway lurching from wall to wall. The autopsy later showed that one bullet had entered from the back in the lumboscal area and exited from the front. This bullet, which was the cause of death, must have hit him when he retreated from the door. He bumped into Filiz in the bedroom doorway in the dark. They both fell, the husband onto the sofa. 45.   Filiz heard the applicant’s voice from outside. The lights came on. She realised that her husband had been shot. She ran screaming into the hallway, with one child clutching her clothes. She saw that the bolt had not been drawn and therefore that the door had not been opened by her husband. The applicant was calling to his son Mehmet to open the door. Filiz called that he had been shot. She slipped in the blood on the floor and tried to force back the bolt, damaged by the firing. With the applicant pushing and her pulling on the bolt, they opened the door.   46.   Meanwhile, Mustafa Gül, the victim’s brother, had been wakened by the shooting. He opened his door, in the adjoining apartment, to see what was happening. He saw armed men in poşu headgear and thinking they might be terrorists he closed the door. However, he had noticed one of the men had a radio and realising that they were security forces, he opened his door again after a minute or less and asked them what was happening. He was seized and ordered to lie flat on the ground while a member of SOT pressed a gun to his head.   1.   The applicant had also been wakened by the firing. He saw that the time was 01.00 hours. When he looked out, he saw a large number of police, gendarmes and their vehicles. He noticed that the street lamps were off. He stepped out onto his balcony and saw on the staircase below men in civilian clothes and poşu headgear. He realised that they were SOT and that a raid was taking place. A shot whizzed past him. He thought that it must be a mistake and shouted down who he was, his connections with the True Path party, that he was a friend of the Prime Minister etc. He came down the stairs. He saw Mustafa spread-eagled on the walkway between the apartments and when he told the SOT that it was his son, Mustafa was released. He noticed that the lights were off in Mehmet’s apartment and switched on the mains switch outside his door. He was told that there were terrorists inside the apartment.   He denied this and called to his son to open the door. The applicant entered the apartment after he and Filiz had opened it. He found Mehmet lying bleeding on the sofa in the bedroom. His foot moved indicating he was still alive. He, Ahmet and Mustafa carried Mehmet downstairs to the applicant’s car. They were not helped by any security personnel. Mehmet slipped from their grasp and fell to the ground on the way down the steps. They drove to the clinic which was closed but the ambulance driver transferred Mehmet to the ambulance. He died before they reached the hospital in Şanlıurfa. Filiz Gül, the applicant’s wife and nephew Mustafa were driven in a car which followed a little later due to the obstruction of the security officers.   48.   While the family were trying to save Mehmet, the security personnel looked through the apartment without searching. The applicant claims SOT or others planted or “dropped” two handguns and left an empty cartridge in the home or that such a story was agreed by the police and the guns and cartridge delivered later to the public prosecutor. The SOT or other forces picked up the shells of their own bullets and left. Filiz Gül’s personal gold jewellery was also taken from the apartment while she was gone but returned several days later.   49.   The applicant submits that the account later given by SOT and other security officers was a comprehensive fabrication to cover up what had occurred. He also submits that the cover up was not to conceal the fact that the security forces had bungled an operation on the basis of erroneous information that PKK were in the apartment but that the evidence shows that it was to cover up a planned killing.   50.   The operation had been based on information given to Major Erhan Güder, gendarme commander at Bozova, by an informant in a telephone call. This information alleged that a small group of the PKK were in Bozova and gave their names and in which houses they were to be found. Güder reported this to the Urfa provincial gendarme commander and the district governor. The provincial governor Teyfik Akbulut decided to send SOT on the basis of the recommendation of Mehmet Cebe, Bozova security director. The fact that a team of 12 officers was sent indicates that the situation was regarded as serious.   1.   The SOT team assigned by Mehmet Cebe were briefed in Şanlıurfa at 21.30 hours and arrived at Bozova at about 22.30 hours. They were briefed as to the operation plan by the district governor Mustafa Yaman, Major Güder, the Deputy governor and Fatih Güner, the deputy chief of police. The SOT team were told that one target of the operation was the apprehension of terrorists in Mehmet Gül’s house and that there was the strongest intelligence that four PKK were there. The briefing also conveyed the information that Mehmet Gül and Mustafa Gül were linked with the terrorists also. By this time, a number of houses had already been searched, including the adjoining house of the applicant’s nephew, Mustafa Gül, and no terrorists had been found. The SOT team arrived at the applicant’s house last, intending to carry out not an ordinary search operation but a point operation which would put terrorists out of action. This involved killing Mehmet Gül and any other terrorists found in his house.   52.   The subsequent investigation into the shooting was based on an unquestioned acceptance of the security forces’ story that they shouted warnings, that Mehmet Gül opened the door, fired at the security forces before closing the door again and was killed when the SOT team returned fire to open the door. The investigation by Inspector Salih Dost and the court do not weigh this account at all against the contrary account given by the applicant and other members of his family.   The failings in the investigation included the failure to take photographs of the alleged weapons in situ, the failure to test the guns for fingerprints and take the deceased’s fingerprints, the inability to account for the empty cartridges at the scene.   2.   Facts as presented by the Government   53.   The Government's account of events as based on their observations is summarised as follows. Intelligence reports prepared by the police indicated a relation between the applicant’s sons Mustafa Gül and Mehmet Gül with the PKK. A search operation, with joint participation of a special team from Urfa, Bozova police and gendarme forces was organised.   When the security team arrived at Mehmet Gül’s house, the door was knocked with a request to open up. A shot was fired from inside. In response, the officers fired three or four shots at the lock. A woman’s voice was heard asking for help. The door was jammed and she could not open it. Since it appeared urgent, the special team officers decided to break open the lock by firing on it, telling her to move away. When the security forces entered the house, Mehmet Gül who had unfortunately been hit by the shots fired at an early stage was carried out immediately with police assistance and transported in a police vehicle to the Bozova health centre. Two handguns were found in his flat. In the corridor a 9 mm empty shell was found which had been fired from the gun found at the place where he fell.   54.   The Bozova public prosecutor opened a preliminary investigation file 1993/46. The file was transferred to Şanlıurfa administrative council after his decision of lack of jurisdiction. On 21 October 1993, the administrative council issued a decision not to prosecute. This decision was rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court on 18 April 1994 and the file sent to Şanlıurfa public prosecutor to prepare an indictment against the officers who had shot at the lock to break the door. The case was conducted under no. 1995/430. After referring the file to experts and completing its deliberations, the court acquitted the police officers on the basis that there was insufficient evidence for any conviction. The incident which killed Mehmet Gül was unfortunate but the special team officers acted in accordance with their line of duty and the court found that they had not acted with negligence.     B.   The evidence before the Commission     1)   Documentary evidence   55.   The parties submitted various documents to the Commission. These included documents from the investigation, disciplinary and court proceedings and statements from the applicant and witnesses concerning their version of the events in issue in this case.   56.   The Commission had particular regard to the following documents:     a) Documents submitted by the applicant in his application to the Commission     Statement undated of the applicant taken by the Human Rights Association (HRA) (submitted on 25 August 1993)   1.   At about 01.00 hours on 8 March 1993, there was a knock on the door of his son’s house by the special teams and Bozova police. His son was killed by 61 bullets from behind the door while he was trying to open it. On the night of the incident, he and his son Mehmet had come home at about 21.30 hours. According to neighbours, some homes had already been searched - Mehmet Karakuş’ house at 22.30 hours, his cousin Mustafa Gül’s at about 22.50 hours.   58.   The search of his son’s home was very different in the way it was carried out. At about 01.00 hours, the execution squad (special teams, Bozova gendarmes, commandos from the Atatürk dam) blockaded the nearby streets and surrounded the house. Ten to twelve officers went up to the first floor, switching off the electricity to his son Mehmet’s flat. They banged on the door, warning, “Open the door.” His son, sleepy and in the darkness, was trying to open the door, asking, “Who are you? What do you want?” when three weapons were fired through the door. Marks of blood on the wall show that he tried to switch on the light. Three of his fingers were even broken off as he tried to open the door and where he had his hand on the door bits of it remained stuck to it.   1.   The applicant, woken by the shots, went downstairs. When the men there turned their weapons on him, he told them who he was, that he knew the Şanlıurfa governor and was on the side of the State. The three officers by the door told him that his son was not opening the door. The door had been turned into a sieve. He shouted to his son to open the door. His son’s wife screamed that his son was wounded and that the door would not open due to the firing. His other son Mustafa had been forced to lie on the ground with a gun held against his head. When the applicant said that this was his son, Mustafa was released.   He and his son picked up Mehmet and carried him out. There were 150-200 security force personnel but none helped them. His son died before they reached hospital. While the family were on the way to the hospital, the Bozova police entered his son’s apartment and to justify their murder planted two illegal guns and took his son’s wife’s gold. The police later said Mehmet fired one of the guns at them. No-one would answer the door in their underwear with a pistol. There was not a trace of blood on the pistol anyway. Neighbours said a shot was fired in the house while they were absent.   The press, TV and radio reported that a terrorist by the name of Mehmet Gül had been killed in a clash and two illegal pistols found. The Şanlıurfa governor, chief of police and gendarme commander later came to his house and told him that fate was responsible for the incident.     Statement dated 11 November 1993 of the applicant taken by the HRA   60.   His son Mehmet had been killed knowingly and intentionally by the security forces. The bullet holes in the door showed that they had all been fired from the outside. Also if any bullet had been fired from his son’s flat, there would either have been a mark in the wall opposite or a police officer hit. The security forces later tried to make it appear like a terrorist incident, firing a gun at the scene and drawing up a report to say that Mehmet had attacked them. While the public prosecutor had opened an enquiry and an investigation was being conducted by an inspector, no news has come out and there are attempts to cover it up.     Petition dated 14 March 1993 by the applicant to the Prime Minister Süleyman Demirel   61.   This petition recounted the events of 8 March 1993 as above (paras. 58-60). Two or three houses in the same street had been searched between 22.00 and 23.00 hours that night. He further described that on his daughter-in-law telling him through the door that Mehmet was shot, he broke down the door to get inside. While the police claimed that his son had fired a gun and closed the door, the enquiry by the Bozova prosecutor showed that no shot had been fired from inside, that his son’s right hand was shattered when it was on the door handle but that there was no prints or traces of blood on the guns allegedly found. He expressed his shock that such an action could have been taken against himself who had always supported the State and the Prime Minister. The incident, involving himself and his son who had a clean record, had created unrest in the district and rocked citizens’ faith in the State.     b) Documents relating to the operation in Bozova on 7-8 March 1993     Document dated 6 January 1993 signed by Mehmet Cebe, Director of Security   62.   This lists vehicle registration nos. to be used by personnel of the Special Operations Branch Directorate temporarily appointed to carry out duties in rural areas and districts in 1993, without the requirement of further authorisation. It has a section, filled in by different type printing, referring to the location of duty as Bozova and the date of duty as 7 March 1993. The Şanlıurfa provincial governor T. Ziyaeddin Akbulut’s signature confirms the document. The annex to the document lists twelve persons as the team appointed to duty in Bozova at 21.00 hours on 7 March 1993: Fahrettin İlğun, Nurettin Yildiz, Recep Doğan, Cahıt İnal, Şener Karamurat, Enis Ünlü, Hasan Söylemez, Sadık Ergüler, Murat Avan, Murat Sönmezyurt, Bülent Torun, Lüfti Demirtürkoğlu.     House search report dated 7 March 1993, signed by police and gendarmes   63.   Upon information being received by the district gendarme command on 7 March 1993, it was understood that PKK members (the names and code names of four individuals were listed), had arrived in a Şahin black car, reg. no. ending 89, at the address of Mustafa Akbaş in Bozova district., where they were going to stay and carry out activities. There was also a report that eight named persons, including Mustafa and Mehmet Gül, who resided in Bozova central district, were going to carry out organisational activities with the four PKK members. A joint task force was formed with the participation of the district gendarme and district security director to avoid delay in apprehending the PKK members. House searches were carried out with the approval of the eight named persons. Checks were made at the houses and it was observed that the referred to PKK members were not present.   These searches and checks ended at 23.20 hours.     Incident report dated 8 March 1993, 00.30 hours, signed by 17 police officers   64.   This stated that as a result of evaluating intelligence information for the apprehension of members of the PKK, which stated that Mehmet and Mustafa Gül (address given) were understood to be in a relationship with the organisation, an operation was conducted to apprehend these members of the organisation. Joint teams from Special Operations Branch Directorate and the local Security Directorate arrived at about 23.50 hours on 7 March 1993 at the three storey building. Security precautions were taken in the immediate area. Officers climbed the staircase on the left, knocked on the door and shouted, loudly, several times, “Police. Open the door”. There was no answer. The door suddenly opened, a gunshot was heard and the door immediately shut. In order to open the door and to maintain their own safety, the officers fired a few times at the lock.   When it failed to open, they announced loudly, “Police. Open the door. Leave your weapon and come out.” As they heard shouting from inside and to avoid injury to women and other residents, they waited. <The applicant> who came from the third floor was let into the apartment by breaking the door. While the officers waited, the applicant and another son tried to bring out a wounded person. Officers helped them to take the person for emergency treatment to the District Clinic, taking the nearest vehicle. Officers entered the apartment and carried out a search. This established that the person who had shot and shut the door was Mehmet Gül. A Browning pistol (no. 245PZ25964) with 13 rounds of 9 mm bullets in the cartridge clip, cocked with a bullet in the barrel was found in the room on the right of the entrance in which the wounded individual had taken shelter and a French 10 round pistol (807573) with 5 rounds of 7.65 rounds was found on the left shelf of the wardrobe and inside the folds of the mattresses in the bedroom on the right of the entrance. A 9mm empty cartridge was found on the edge of the corridor carpet.     Incident establishment report dated 8 March 1993   65.   This document was signed by Kamil Çetinkaya, public prosecutor, and referred to photographs having been taken by Ayhan Coşkun, a commercial photographer to obtain a visual record of the findings. It indicated that pictures were taken of various parts of the house, primarily the entrance door.     Incident location report dated 8 March 1993   66.   This document was signed by Fikret Yilmaz, public prosecutor, and the applicant. It described the location of the apartment. Approximately 50-55 bullet marks were established on the steel door, which opened to the right hand side of the doorway. Marks on the walls indicated where the bullets had passed through the door and struck inside. The lock had been changed, the circular ring around the lock having fallen off and bearing bullet marks. Blood stains were observed at the entrance where the door opened and in large quantities from the entrance to the bedroom door at a height of 1m 20 cm on the wall. The concentration of bullet marks in the wall diminished along the 4 m hallway. Some had struck the floor and the carpet was also torn by bullets. A bullet mark was seen on the bedroom door frame which also bore bloodstains. The door handle bore large quantities of bloodstains which had dripped onto the floor. Inside the room the sofa bed on the right bore blood stains and a blood stained scarf was found on the cabinet at the top of the sofa bed.   The sockets and light switches in the room were blood stained, as were the duvets.   67.   Although the relatives claimed that a gun had been fired in this room, <a mark> was understood to be a cigarette burn. The relatives had said that all the bullets were fired from the outside.   The kitchen had a broken window and two bullet marks were located at the bottom of the wall opposite the kitchen window. The frosted glass on top of the other bedroom door, exactly the opposite side of the corridor, bore a bullet mark. There was a bullet mark at the same level on the wall opposite the door. The frame on the right hand side of the hall bore   bullet marks.   The door lock was delivered to be placed in the prosecution depository.     Autopsy report dated 8 March 1993 signed by Dr Nihan Gokkan   68.   This stated that at 00.15 hours, the public prosecutor had been informed that Mehmet Gül had died on his way to hospital from a firearms injury received during a police-gendarme operation in Bozova.   The body was identified by the parental cousin Mustafa Gül as Mehmet Gül, aged 26, resident in Bozova and manager of the Petrol Ofis station.   69.   There were no injuries or marks to the head. Various parts of the body bore grazes caused by firearms : a ring shaped entry hole 1-2cm on the right hand side of the lumbosacral region above the cocsa bone, ring shaped exit hole on the right hand side of the fossar iliac region 7 x 7 cm; the right hand kidney was fractured, part of the intestines perforated and the artery junction in the same region had haemorrhaged from the entry hole; the 3rd and 4th right hand fingers were destroyed, muscle and bone; bone structures were fractured in various places; various cuts and grazes on the right hand side glutial region and right ankle; cuts on the lower left femur; grazes on outer left middle femur; right hand side scrotum had superficial cuts; cut-shaped erosions on left ankle.   70.   The established cause of death was fracturation of the right kidney, perforation of the artery junction and intestines and the consequent hypovelemic shock. There was no need for an autopsy as the cause of death was definitively established.     Receipt for seized property dated 12 March 1993   71.   The following property was delivered to the public prosecutor’s office by the security forces as taken from the residence of Mehmet Gül on 7 March 1993: a 9 mm Browning (245 PZ 25964) with one cartridge clip; a 7.65 mm pistol (807573) made in France with one cartridge clip; 13 rounds of MKE 9 mm live bullets, 2 rounds MKE and 3 rounds 7.65 live bullets; 30 rounds of 7.62 mm empty cartridges; 1 round MKE 9 mm empty cartridge; 1 round empty cartridge FNL87-3 delivered by the applicant to the public prosecutor during the photographing session at the location.       c) Documents relating to the investigation by the public prosecutors     Decision of withdrawal of jurisdiction dated 8 March 1993 by Şanlıurfa public prosecutor   72.   As the incident had happened in the Bozova district, their office withdrew jurisdiction and referred the file to the Bozova public prosecutor.     Statement dated 8 March 1993 of the applicant taken by a public prosecutor   1.   On the day of the incident, the applicant left the mosque, met his son who left the coffee shop and they arrived home together about 21.00 hours. Both went to their own flats. At about 01.00 hours, he heard the sound of an automatic weapon. At the series of shots, he went out immediately. He bent over trying to see what was happening. Police officers told him, “Don’t move.” He immediately went downstairs. Police officers were in front of the door. They wore commando uniforms and moustaches and were from the Special Teams. He asked what was happening. They said that there were anarchists inside. He told them to let him open the door. He called his son and at that, his son’s wife said, “Uncle, they shot Mehmet.” Upon this, he broke down the door and went inside. His son was in the bedroom, lying down, covered with blood. He shouted, took his son downstairs, put him in an ambulance and took him to Şanlıurfa State Hospital. He saw five to six military vehicles and security forces outside his house. His son died on the way to the hospital. He filed a complaint against those responsible.     Statement dated 8 March 1993 of Mustafa Gül taken by a public prosecutor   74.   At about 23.00 hours, the witness, the paternal cousin of the deceased, was sitting in his house with a friend when some-one knocked on the door. He saw that they were plain clothes police officers, known to him. They asked to search and he agreed. The house was surrounded. He lived 100 metres from the applicant’s house. The police found nothing and left. He was still watching television when he heard a machine gun firing.   He opened the window and heard the applicant screaming, “I am Mehmet Gül.” He went to the incident location in his pyjamas. Two special team officers stopped him in the street and he was forced to wait although he explained it was his relatives’ house. The officers said that there would be PKK bodies. He saw the applicant carrying the deceased into a vehicle. The officers told him that the operation was complete and that he could go. He heard his sister-in-law crying. He went to the hospital where the deceased died.   The deceased was a business man with no political or ideological involvement and stayed always in Bozova. The deceased had a licensed weapon. He would not have had a licence if he was not a person to be trusted.     Report dated 11 March 1993 from the Bozova Security Directorate signed by Inspector Fatih Güner, forwarded to the Bozova public prosecutor   75.   Upon evaluating intelligence reports at 20.30 hours on 7 March 1993, the gendarme division command concluded that PKK terrorists active in the province might be sheltering in residential buildings in the Golbaşı neighbourhood and Sanayı street. There was further information that Mehmet Gül and Mustafa Gül who lived on the junction of that street were in contact with the terrorists. In order to apprehend the PKK members, officers from Special Operations accompanied by Şanlıurfa police, went to the Gül’s address at about 23.50 hours. A team of officers on the first floor knocked on Mehmet Gül’s door and shouted loudly, “Police. Open the door” several times. No response was received. Then the door suddenly opened, a shot was fired and the door suddenly closed. The officers shot a few rounds at the lock mechanism of the door in order to bring the incident under control and maintain their own safety. When the door failed to open, they repeated in loud voices, “Police. Open the door. Put down your weapons and come out.” Cries were heard from inside. Anticipating that the woman and other residents might be harmed, the officers waited. The father came downstairs on hearing the shooting and voices. The door was broken and along with the brother Mustafa, the father was allowed inside. At this stage, the officers continued waiting at the door. Mustafa and the father were seen trying to carry a wounded individual. Officers helped them transfer the wounded person to the local clinic.   76.   A search was carried out. On the landing and in the house, 30 7.62 mm empty cartridges were found scattered on the floor. A large number of bullet entry holes were observed on the main entrance door. There were bloodstains on the hall wall and carpet. At 1.5 m inside the entrance, on the left side of the carpet, was found an empty 9 mm cartridge. In the bedroom at the end of the corridor, which was split into two rooms, they found a French pistol (807573) inside the mattress pile in the left section of the wardrobe, with a cartridge clip containing 5 live rounds. In the sitting room off the left hand side of the corridor, there were blood stains on the floor. A gold chain and necklace were found between the pillow and the first of the two floor mattresses. There was a Browning 9 mm cocked pistol (245PZ5964), with a bullet in the barrel and a clip of 12 live rounds, under the right hand side of the pillow. Şanlıurfa licence department was asked whether the guns were licensed to which the response was that these guns were without licence. The records indicated that the applicant had a licence for two other guns - a Browning (245NZ51313) and a Kırıkkale 7.65 mm pistol (76138134). The chain and necklace were taken for safekeeping.     Delivery receipt dated 12 March 1993   77.   This indicated that various items were delivered to the public prosecutor: a French pistol with cartridge clip, a Browning with cartridge clip, 1 empty round of 9 mm, 30 rounds of 7.62 mm, a gold chain and a gold necklace.     Report dated 12 March 1993 of gendarme sergeant Adnan Kulaksiz, Head of Criminal Lab section   78.   This referred to the request of 12 March 1993 of the Bozova public prosecutor for an examination of two pistols, a Browning and a French pistol, to establish whether they were capable of firing and had been fired. Both guns were found to be capable of firing. On examination of the Browning’s bullet compartment and barrel, traces of gunpowder were found and therefore it had been fired. Traces of gunpowder were found inside the bullet compartment and barrel of the French pistol but as there was rust inside the barrel, the opinion was given that it had not been fired recently.     Statement dated 12 March 1993 of Mustafa Gül, brother of the deceased, taken by the public prosecutor   1.   On the night of the incident, he was at home in bed. At about 01.00 hours, he heard gunfire. He opened the door and looked round. Suddenly, somebody made him lie on the ground and held a gun to his head, saying, “If you move, I will kill you.” He saw four people in front of the door of his brother’s house. They were well-built and wearing poşus on their heads. He at first thought they were terrorists. They did not say anything about being police or wanting to carry out a search. His father leaned over from the balcony above. The police threatened to shoot him. He said that he was a friend of the Prime Minister, on the side of the Government. He came down, pointed at the witness, saying that he was his son. The witness was allowed to get up.   At his brother’s door, his father said that he would open it. However, it was not possible to open it from the outside. The lock was riddled with holes by the bullets. It was kicked open by police officers with the help of his sister-in-law from the inside. The special team officers did not go inside the apartment. He did not see if they went in later.   He and his father went inside. The lights were on. According to his sister-in-law, the power had been switched on earlier. His brother was on his bed in the bedroom, blood all over him. He and his father took him to the health centre, and from there to the Şanlıurfa hospital.     Statement dated 12 March 1993 of Filiz Gül, the wife of the deceased, taken by the public prosecutor   80.   On the day of the incident, her husband came home at 20.30 to 21.00 hours. They watched television until about 24.00 hours when they went to bed. At about 01.00 hours, there was a knock on the door. She and her husband thought it was the sahur being delivered (for the meal taken before dawn in Ramadan). Her husband went to open the door.   Before he could, they started firing from the outside. When the door was knocked, the lights were on. Afterwards the lights went off. She rushed out of bed. Her husband returned to the bedroom.   She could not see anything in the darkness. Her husband was lying on the floor. She ran to the kitchen and through the window saw armed men pointing their guns at the house. She had not heard anyone saying “Police. Open the door”. Nor did they speak after the firing. The lights were switched on. She saw her husband on the bed, wounded and covered in blood. Her father-in-law was shouting outside, “I’m Mehmet Gül.” She slipped in blood and fell down when she went to the door. She wanted to open the door but the lock had been broken. It opened after she turned the bolt and it was kicked from the outside. They went inside.   She shouted to her father-in-law that they had killed his son. He went inside and cried as he thought his son was dead. Then he saw the feet move and wanted to rush him to hospital. She begged the police officers to take him to the hospital. They did not provide help. Her husband definitely did not fire a gun. He did not even have a gun. She complained against those responsible for killing her husband.   She did not know whether the gold belonging to her was removed from the house.     Statement dated 12 March 1993 of Mustafa Hakkı Ocakoğlu taken by the public prosecutor   81.   The witness was a neighbour, opposite to the Gül’s house. He heard gunfire at about 01.00 hours. He went outside. Police and gendarmes were outside. He was told to go inside and switch out the lights. As far as he could tell, the shooting came from the same kind of weapon, full automatic - bursts of fire, with no sin