CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 16 juillet 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389FF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:18pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s812A4BBF { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; font-size:14pt } .sDBAA9E6D { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s194CE510 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s31B48246 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD33C961E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDFC5B1C5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s18215599 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s888E4C48 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s3FAD7F67 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s97B7A20 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s9BD93CD1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s397ED72C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sEE35628D { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s67808D55 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:0.25pt } .s5F989F3B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s89012BBC { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sFE6327B5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF0B473AD { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sDB660C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .sD59B5169 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .sA36C4D91 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:51.9pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .s82EA1BC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:51.9pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .s4AD8A65C { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s498509A2 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s385C1FAF { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .sB18B7FAB { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA31CEDC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD6E1DABD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8DCCCE3B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s2452CEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sD85D3081 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s77E1D0 { width:229.83pt; display:inline-block } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; display:inline-block } .sFDE7661F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }     SECOND SECTION     CASE OF ÜLKÜ EKİNCİ v. TURKEY     (Application no. 27602/95)     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG     16 July 2002       FINAL   16/10/2002         This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article   44 §   2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   Gaukur Jörundsson ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   W. Thomassen ,   Mr   F. G ölcüklü, ad hoc judge, and Mr T.L. E arly, Deputy Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 2 July 2002, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on this date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 27602/95) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Ülkü Ekinci (“the applicant”), on 4   May 1995, on her and her late husband's behalf. The Commission decided on 3 December 1995 to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government, in accordance with Rule 48 § 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure. 2.     The applicant was represented before the Court by Professor W.   Bowring, a university teacher at the University of North London (United Kingdom). The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     The applicant alleged that her husband Yusuf Ekinci had been killed by one or more unknown perpetrators acting with the knowledge and under the auspices of the Turkish authorities, and that there had been no effective investigation into his killing. She relied on Articles 2, 3, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention. 4.     The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11). 5.     The application was initially allocated to the First Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1 of the Rules of Court. Mr Türmen, the judge elected in respect of Turkey, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28). The Government accordingly appointed Mr F. Gölcüklü to sit as an ad hoc judge (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1). 6.     By a decision of 8 June 1999 the Chamber declared the application admissible. 7.     After having consulted the parties, the Chamber decided that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 2 in fine ) and invited the parties to submit their observations on the merits. 8.     The applicant and the Government each filed final observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). 9.     Following the general restructuring of the Court's Sections as from 1   November 2001 (Rule 25 § 1 of the Rules of Court), the application was assigned to the newly composed Second Section (Rule 52 § 1). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case included Mr F. Gölcüklü as ad hoc judge. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 10.     The applicant's husband Yusuf Ekinci, was born in Lice (south-east Turkey) and was a member of a well-known Turkish family of Kurdish origin. He was a practising lawyer and a member of the Ankara Bar. During his studies, he worked for the Turkish Workers Party ( Türkiye İşçi Partisi ) and was a member of the Eastern Revolutionary Cultural Grouping ( Doğu Devrimci Kültür Ocakları ). On that latter account, he was arrested in May 1971. He spent six months in prison, but was finally acquitted. Following his acquittal, he took no further active part in politics. 11.     On 24 February 1994, at about 6.30 p.m., Yusuf Ekinci left his office in the central part of Ankara to drive in his private car to his home located in a different part of the town. Before he left his office, he spoke to several persons including the applicant who had telephoned him at about 5 p.m.. He gave his office assistant Güngör S.E. a lift. As the applicant's husband had just enough petrol to get home, he dropped Güngör   S.E. off somewhere on the way. 12.     When Yusuf Ekinci failed to return home, the applicant and Güngör   S.E. inquired at local hospitals and police stations in the course of the evening, but were unable to obtain any information about his whereabouts. As the applicant was concerned that her husband had met with the same fate as Behçet Cantürk [1] from Lice – who had disappeared a month previously and whose body had been found soon after – she telephoned around midnight Mehmet Kahraman, the State Minister responsible for Human Rights and a friend of the family, and asked him for help. The first thing Mr   Kahraman said was: "This cannot have been done to Yusuf ...", which frightened the applicant even more. 13.     On 25 February 1994, at about 2 a.m. and 7.30 a.m. respectively, the applicant received two anonymous telephone calls. No one spoke on the other end of the line. During the second call, the applicant could hear the sound of typewriters. At about 9.30 a.m. the telephone rang again. When the applicant answered, a woman said, "I am the depths of hell", and then put the receiver down. 14.     Later that day, at about 12.30 p.m., road workers found the body of Yusuf Ekinci along the E-90 TEM highway in Gölbaşı on the outskirts of Ankara, i.e. 1.5 kilometres from the Doktorlar Sitesi neighbourhood and 1   kilometre in the direction of Eskişehir. They informed the police. Yusuf Ekinci had been shot and killed. His car was found at a distance of 1 to 2 kilometres from the place where his body was found. The petrol tank was empty. 15.     On the same day, the Gölbaşı public prosecutor opened a criminal investigation into the death of Yusuf Ekinci. 16.     According to the applicant, the buttons of Yusuf Ekinci's coat were done up when his body was found. His identity documents, a small quantity of cash and his spectacles were missing. His ring and a valuable watch were returned to the applicant by the police. The domestic investigation a.     Police records 17.     On a sketch map drafted by a police officer, dated 25 February 1994, it is recorded that eight bullets were found directly next to the head of Yusuf Ekinci. 18.     In the police report on the finding of Yusuf Ekinci's body, dated 26   February 1994, it is recorded that no weapon and no empty cartridges were found near to or within a radius of 500 metres from the body, and that his car was found at a distance of about 2.5 kilometres from the spot where the body was found. b.     Forensic examinations 19.     An autopsy on Yusuf Ekinci was carried out on 26 February 1994. He was identified by his paternal cousin, Ahmet Murat İ. It was concluded that he had died of bullet wounds to the head and chest. The autopsy report does not include any indication of the estimated time of death. In the autopsy report, 11 bullet entry wounds, 7 bullet exit wounds and 1 bullet graze wound were recorded. In the course of the autopsy 2 deformed bullets and 2 bullets which were not deformed were removed from his body. These bullets were described as having blue painted tips and a diameter of probably 9mm. The bullets were given to the prosecutor in whose presence the autopsy was conducted. A blood sample was taken for examination for traces of alcohol, stimulants and depressants. 20.     In a ballistics report of the Central Criminal Police Laboratory ( Merkez Kriminal Polis Laboratuarı ) of Ankara, dated 28 February 1994, it is recorded that six Parrabellum type bullets of 9 mm calibre as well as three outer layers of the same type and bullet calibre were submitted for a ballistics examination in relation to the killing of Yusuf Ekinci. As to the findings of the examination, the report states that all bullets examined had been fired from the same weapon, and that these bullets did not bear any resemblance to any other bullets previously examined by the Laboratory. The report further states that it could not be confirmed nor excluded with absolute certainty, given the lack of adequate comparative material, that these bullets had been fired from a Uzi weapon of Israeli make. The bullets, however, were found to be of Israeli make. The report further states that the items examined were being archived under code nr. 4155. 21.     On 3 March 1994, the typewriter that Yusuf Ekinci used in his office was examined by the Central Criminal Police Laboratory. The examination of the typewriter ribbon disclosed only a petition concerning a compensation case. 22.     According to a supplementary autopsy report of 12 April 1994, no traces of alcohol, stimulants or depressants had been found in Yusuf Ekinci's body. c.     Statements taken by the investigation authorities in 1994 23.     Between 25 February and 1 March 1994, the police took statements from fourteen persons, including the applicant. 24.     In a statement taken on 25 February 1994 by the police from Hacı   M.Ö., one of the two road workers who had found the body of Yusuf Ekinci, Hacı   M.Ö declared that, at 11.15 a.m., he and his colleague Akif H. had spotted the body on the banks of the highway and had informed the traffic police. They had also found a red car about one kilometre from the location of the body. They had not seen anyone in the vicinity of the body or the car. 25.     In a statement taken on 25 February 1994 by the police, Akif H. confirmed the account given by his colleague Hacı M.Ö. 26.     In a first statement taken on 25 February 1994 by the police from Yusuf Ekinci's assistant Güngör S.E., the latter declared that he had known Yusuf Ekinci since 1983, and that Yusuf Ekinci had dealt with compensation cases. He further stated that Yusuf Ekinci used to carry a gun whenever he travelled to another city, but that he never carried a gun in Ankara. Güngör S.E. had once asked Yusuf Ekinci what he would do if the PKK ( Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan – Workers' Party of Kurdistan) demanded money from him. Yusuf Ekinci had replied that he would pay up, but that he would also inform the police. According to Güngör S.E., Yusuf Ekinci had not been involved in politics and had no connections with illegal organisations. 27.     In a second statement taken by the police on the same day, Güngör S.E. stated that Yusuf Ekinci had practised law in Ankara since 1982 and that his law practice mostly dealt with compensation cases. Yusuf Ekinci had an account at the Necetibey Branch of the Yapı Kredi Bank, a safe deposit box at the Yenişehir Branch of the İş Bank, and a further account at the Yapı Kredi Bank. He owned nine apartments and two cars, and had two offices. According to Güngör S.E., Yusuf Ekinci had no enemies. He had no knowledge of anyone ever having threatened Yusuf Ekinci. 28.     Güngör S.E. further stated that, in 1989 or 1990, Behçet Cantürk had started to call Yusuf Ekinci. Their first meeting took place in the office of Vekin A. Subsequent meetings were held in the office of Zeynel C., and over dinner with others in the S.   Restaurant in Çankaya. They also had meetings in Behçet Cantürk's office in İstanbul. 29.     In 1992, Yusuf Ekinci had been involved in the case of Behçet Cantürk's nephew, Reşit Cantürk, who had been accused of carrying guns without a licence. Yusuf Ekinci had attended the funeral of Behçet Cantürk. Since the latter's funeral, there had been no further contacts between Yusuf Ekinci and the Cantürk family, but Yusuf Ekinci had asked his brother Tahsin Ekinci, who was also a lawyer as well as a member of the Executive Committee of the political party DEP ( Demokrasi Partisi ), whether there was any news about the killing of Behçet Cantürk. 30.     Güngör S.E. further stated that, on 24 February 1994, he and Yusuf Ekinci had gone to the Palace of Justice. After their return to the office, Yusuf Ekinci had a meeting with his cousin Murat İ. In the afternoon, Yusuf Ekinci received telephone calls from the applicant, the husband of a niece, as well as from his son and his sister. Güngör S.E. had not found these calls suspicious. At about 5.45 p.m., he left the office together with Yusuf Ekinci, who gave him a lift. The applicant called him at about 9.30 p.m., wondering where Yusuf Ekinci was. Suspecting a traffic accident, Güngör S.E. checked with several police stations located on the way to Yusuf Ekinci's home, but with no success. 31.     At around 11 p.m. Güngör S.E. went to the applicant's house, where he found the applicant, Mansure Ö., and friends of the applicant's daughter. Nadire İ. arrived later. The persons present then started to speculate on Yusuf Ekinci's whereabouts. According to Nadire İ., he could have been kidnapped by the PKK, and there might be a connection with Behçet Cantürk. According to others, he could have been kidnapped by the MİT ( Milli İstihbarat Teşkilatı – National Intelligence Organisation) or by counter-guerrilla agents. 32.     Güngör S.E. later left the house to check with a police station and a hospital, but without any success. He returned to the applicant's house the next morning at around 9.30 a.m. At around 10 a.m., there was a telephone call from the police inviting the applicant to come to the police station. The applicant refused to go. Güngör S.E. and Özlem B. went to the police station where they were told that Yusuf Ekinci had been found dead. 33.     In a first statement taken on 25 February 1994 by the police from Yusuf Ekinci's secretary Özlem B., the latter declared that Güngör S.E. had called her on 25 February 1994 asking her whether Yusuf Ekinci had contacted the office. The public prosecutor Ali Rıza had called that morning asking her whether she had any information about Yusuf Ekinci. She replied that she did not. He then asked whether anything unusual had occurred. Güngör S.E. arrived at the office later and together they went to the police. She never witnessed anyone threatening Yusuf Ekinci. She further declared that Güngör S.E. and Yusuf Ekinci had been very close; she initially thought that Güngör S.E. was Yusuf Ekinci's son. 34.     In a second statement taken by the police from Özlem B. on 26   February 1994, Özlem B. declared that Yusuf Ekinci's law practice mostly dealt with compensation cases and that Nadire İ. was a client. She further declared that on 25 February 1994 Güngör S.E. had come to the office and had told her that Yusuf Ekinci had disappeared. He instructed her to take Yusuf Ekinci's notebooks and mobile telephone. They then went to the police headquarters, to the department dealing with disappearance cases. She did not know who Behçet Cantürk was, but she had seen this person's address in a notebook used by Yusuf Ekinci's previous secretary. 35.     In a statement taken by the police on 27 February 1994, the applicant declared that in 1979 she and her husband had moved from Diyarbakır to İstanbul and in 1982 to Ankara. Her husband had practised law in these three cities. She further stated that, since 1970, her husband had not been involved in politics and that his law practice dealt mainly with civil law cases. She further related what had happened when her husband had failed to return home on 24 February 1994, referring among other things to the anonymous telephone calls she had received. She did not remember anyone having threatened her husband. Her husband had never said anything about having been threatened. 36.     In a statement taken by the police on 27 February 1994 from Ahmet   Ö., the witness declared that he was running an estate agency together with Orhan D. He had met Yusuf Ekinci in March 1993 in the office of Zeynel   C., who was one of Yusuf Ekinci's clients. Yusuf Ekinci, who had recently become involved in buying and selling property, had been interested in buying a plot in Gölbaşı. Ahmet Ö. had no information about Yusuf Ekinci's death. 37.     In a statement taken on 27 February 1994 by the police, Orhan D. confirmed the account given by his business partner Ahmet Ö. 38.     In a statement taken by the police on 27 February 1994 from Hüdayi   D., a doorman at the applicant's residence, the witness declared that he had observed nothing suspicious about Yusuf Ekinci and had seen no strangers coming to or leaving Yusuf Ekinci's home. 39.     The statement taken by the police on 27 February 1994 from Mehmet I., another doorman at the applicant's residence, was similar to the one given by his colleague Hüdayi D. 40.     In a statement taken by the police on 27 February 1994 from Vetin   A., a business man and a hometown friend of Yusuf Ekinci, the witness declared that he used to see Yusuf Ekinci quite often and that the latter's brothers were involved in politics. He confirmed that Yusuf Ekinci and Behçet Cantürk knew each other and that the three of them had had several restaurant dinners together. He saw Yusuf Ekinci for the last time at Behçet Cantürk's funeral in Ankara. 41.     In a statement taken on 28 February 1994 from Mansure Ö., a friend of the applicant's family, the witness confirmed that she and others had been in the applicant's house on the evening of 24 February 1994. She denied that anyone present that evening had mentioned the possibility that Yusuf Ekinci had been kidnapped by the PKK, MİT or counter-guerrilla agents. 42.     In a statement taken on 28 February 1994 from Nadire İ., another friend of the applicant's family, she confirmed that she along with others had been in the applicant's house on the evening of 24 February 1994. She denied having said that Yusuf Ekinci had been kidnapped by the PKK, MİT or counter-guerrilla agents. 43.     In a statement taken by the police on 28 February 1994 from Ahmet   Murat İ., a paternal cousin of Yusuf Ekinci, he declared that he had visited Yusuf Ekinci in his office on 24 February 1994 at 2 p.m., and that Yusuf Ekinci used to deal with compensation cases against the State. 44.     In a statement taken by the police on 1 March 1994 from Zeynel C., a hometown friend and client of Yusuf Ekinci, the witness declared that Yusuf Ekinci and Behçet Cantürk had twice met in his office and that the three of them had dined together on one occasion. He did not know what had been discussed between Yusuf Ekinci and Behçet Cantürk during their meeting in his office. He did know that Yusuf Ekinci had been dealing with a tax case related to Behçet Cantürk and with another case involving a relative of Behçet Cantürk. Zeynel C. further stated that he had been a personal friend of Behçet Cantürk, but that they had had no business dealings with each other. He added that, in 1990, he had bought a hotel on behalf of a company from Mehmet Hankozat “who was Cantürk's man”. He had paid 25% of the purchase price to Behçet Cantürk and 25% to Mehmet Hankozat. He had been unable to pay the remaining 50% of the purchase price. 45.     In a statement taken by the police on 21 March 1994 from Ağa Ç., the latter gave a detailed description of how he had bought his apartment from Yusuf Ekinci on 15 October 1991. d.     Further activities undertaken in 1994 in the domestic investigation 46.     On 28 February 1994, the Gölbaşı public prosecutor, who was in charge of the investigation, informed the National Turkish Bank Association that Yusuf Ekinci had been killed and that his bank accounts should be examined. The public prosecutor requested the Bank Association to take the necessary measures without giving any further specifications. 47.     By letter of 3 March 1994, the police informed the Gölbaşı public prosecutor that Yusuf Ekinci had a safe deposit box at the İş Bank and requested the public prosecutor to seek judicial permission to open this box in order to verify its contents. On 4 March 1994, the public prosecutor recorded that this request had been turned down. 48.     On 9 March 1994 the National Turkish Bank Association informed the public prosecutor that, pursuant to Article 83 of the Act on Banking ( Bankalar Kanunu ), information about private bank accounts was secret and, therefore, the prosecutor's request of 28 February 1994 could not be granted. 49.     By letter of 16 May 1994, the Gölbaşı public prosecutor asked the District Police Headquarters to be kept informed of any developments in the investigation into the killing of Yusuf Ekinci until 25 February 2009, i.e. when a prosecution in relation to the killing would become statute-barred. 50.     By letters of 25 June, 25 August, 25 October 1994, 25 February 1995 and 25 October 1995, the Commissioner of the Gölbaşı local police station informed the District Police Headquarters that the enquiries in relation to the identification of the perpetrator(s) conducted so far had proved unsuccessful, that they were still being actively sought and, if found, the victim's family would be notified. These letters do not contain any details about the modalities of the police investigation. 51.     On 8 November 1994, in reply to a request for information about the investigation filed by the applicant on the same day, the Gölbaşı public prosecutor informed the applicant that the investigation was still continuing. e.     Developments at the domestic investigation as from 1996 52.     On 26 February 1996, referring to a letter of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ankara deputy chief public prosecutor asked the Gölbaşı public prosecutor for information about the investigation. 53.     On 28 February 1996 the Gölbaşı Provincial Police Headquarters transmitted copies of documents related to the investigation – obtained from the Ankara Police Headquarters – and the ballistics report of 28 February 1994 to the Gölbaşı public prosecutor, in response to the latter's oral instructions. 54.     On 7 March 1996, the Gölbaşı public prosecutor informed the Ankara chief public prosecutor that the investigation of the killing of Yusuf   Ekinci was still being pursued 55.     In a letter of 7 March 1996, the Gölbaşı public prosecutor informed the Ankara chief public prosecutor that, as in his statement of 26 February 1994 Güngör S.E. had mentioned that Murat İ. was related to Yusuf Ekinci, Ahmet Murat İ. was to be summoned in order to clarify whether or not Yusuf Ekinci had a relative named Murat İ. 56.   On the same day, the Gölbaşı public prosecutor requested the Ankara Police Headquarters to send him the six Parrabellum type 9 mm calibre bullets and the three outer layers of the same type and bullet calibre that had been examined by the Central Criminal Police Laboratory and subsequently archived under code nr. 4155 (see § 20 above). 57.     In a brief statement given on 8 April 1996, Ahmet Murat İ. declared that Yusuf Ekinci did not have a relative named Murat İ. 58.     On 6 November 1996, the applicant requested the Gölbaşı public prosecutor for a ballistics comparison of the weapons found in the Susurluk accident (see §§ 92-93 below) and the weapon used in the killing of her husband. 59.     On 11 November 1996, the Gölbaşı public prosecutor instructed the İzmir District Criminal Police Laboratory to compare the weapons found in Susurluk with the weapon used in the killing of Yusuf Ekinci. 60.     In a report of the İzmir District Criminal Police Laboratory, dated 20   November 1996 and sent to the Gölbaşı public prosecutor on 21   November 1996, it is recorded that a ballistics examination had established that the bullets used in the killing of Yusuf Ekinci had not been fired from the six 9 mm. calibre weapons found on 3 November 1996 in Susurluk. 61.     In an article published in the daily newspaper “ Radikal ” on 5   December 1996, the journalist İsmet Berkan wrote: “It all dates back to early 1992. At that time the Turkish Chief of Staff's office made radical changes in its strategy in the fight against the outlawed PKK. The military units, which used to take action only after PKK attacks had taken place by engaging in hot pursuit, started to be organised as a guerrilla force. Now they were taking pre ‑ emptive action. This change soon started to bear fruit. The PKK no longer had the initiative. Now the PKK was on the run with the soldiers at its heels. The PKK gradually withdrew from the centres of population where it had been staging attacks, taking refuge in the mountains. But Turkey's “active fight” against terrorism was continuing. This time, the logistic support for the PKK in the mountains began to diminish through village evacuations. The PKK had been greatly weakened, and seemed to be on the verge of being “finished off”. But the change in the strategy was not limited to a “low-intensity conflict” in the region. It was decided that a “more active” drive was required to dry up other sources of terrorism too. In this way, with a little effort, this job would be “finished off next spring”. This would take the form of a two-pronged effort. Terrorists would be caught – or killed if necessary – before they actually staged attacks. And the persons who provided the terrorists with material or moral support would be equated with the terrorists themselves. This change in strategy was put on the agenda of the National Security Board at the end of 1992. A National Security Board document, which the author of this column was allowed to see, contains the chart of the organisation that was to be created for this purpose, as well as the names of the persons who would take part in it. These names included Abdullah Çatlı. The others taking part in the organisation included policemen belonging to the "special teams", soldiers and some of Çatlı's friends. Initially, the proposed tactics did not meet with the approval of the National Security Board. Turgut Özal, at that time the President of Turkey, and Eşref Bitlis, at that time the Commander of the Turkish Armed Forces, both opposed the State taking action in co-operation with fugitives <from justice>. I guess this is pure coincidence, but first General Bitlis and then Özal died, the former in an accident and the latter due to a heart attack. Süleyman Demirel became President and Tansu Çiller the Prime Minister. Initially, Çiller was quite mild on the south-east issue. She was talking about the Basque model and, with good intentions, having discussions with the opposition leaders on the issue. But after a short time she underwent a change. She became more hawkish than all of the other hawks, declaring, “This <the PKK> will either be finished or it will be finished”. It was obvious that she was convinced that it would end soon. As there was no one around to raise objections any longer, the issue was again submitted to the National Security Board. And this new technique of struggle was approved in the autumn of 1993. The organisation, call it “Gladio” [2] or "special organisation," was founded by a decision taken by the National Security Board. According to figures released at that time, Turkey was spending more than $8   billion annually on the fight against the PKK. No doubt the PKK was also spending a lot in its fight against Turkey. Calculations made in the higher State echelons indicated that the PKK's war budget was no less than $3 billion. In the autumn of 1993, the year in which Çiller became Prime Minister, the PKK had two main sources of income: 1. money obtained through narcotics and extortion. 2. donations collected in Europe. First the income from the European channel was cut off. At first, Germany and then France closed down the associations connected with the PKK and prevented them from collecting funds. In both countries the PKK went underground. But there was also the income from drug trafficking. Here, the “special organisation” had to become active. We all remember that during those days Çiller was saying “We will dry up the PKK's sources of income”. Behçet Cantürk, Savaş Buldan, Yusuf Ekinci, Hacı Karay, Adnan Yıldırım, Medet Serhat and Ömer Lütfü Topal. All of them were figures involved in drug trafficking in one way or another. None is alive today. They were either involved in drug trafficking on behalf of the PKK or had to pay extortion money. In either case the PKK was getting income. All of these people are now dead. The daily newspaper Özgür Ülke was a PKK mouthpiece. The PKK leader Öcalan had a column in the paper, using the pen name, “Ali Fırat”. The head office and the branch offices of that daily have been bombed. It is being claimed that the İstanbul police caught the bombers but had to release them in line with “orders received from high up”. This article has been written entirely on the basis of a document which I was not permitted to photocopy. I was not permitted either to take notes. I just had a chance to read it quickly. I wish that this piece of “news”, the truth of which I measure by considering a lot of other things, proves to be false. Naturally, I have no doubt that it will be denied immediately. I just hope that those who will be denying it will be telling the truth.” 62.     On 6 December 1996, the applicant informed the Gölbaşı public prosecutor that, given the articles published on 5 and 6 December 1996 in the daily newspaper “ Radikal ”, the journalist İsmet Berkan held information and documents in relation to the killing of her husband. 63.     On the same day, the Gölbaşı public prosecutor Ali Rıza O. asked the Ankara public prosecutor to take a statement from İsmet Berkan. 64.     In a brief statement taken by a public prosecutor on 1 January 1997, İsmet Berkan declared that he had no information as to who killed Yusuf   Ekinci or how he was killed. He had only commented, in the atmosphere created by the Susurluk incident, that Yusuf Ekinci might have been killed by the “Susurluk gang”. 65.     On 31 January 1997, the Gölbaşı public prosecutor requested the Turkish Parliamentary Susurluk Investigation Commission ( Susurluk Araştırma Komisyona ) to provide him with a copy of the statement given in the course of the investigation conducted by this Commission by İbrahim Şahin, the deputy head of the Special Operations Department ( Özel Harekat Dairesi Başkan Vekili ). 66.     On the same day and acting upon the applicant's request of 27   January 1997, the Gölbaşı public prosecutor requested the Turkish Telecommunications Directorate to identify the origin of the anonymous telephone calls received by the applicant on 25 and 26 February 1994. 67.     By letter of 7 February 1997, the Telecommunications Directorate informed the public prosecutor that it was technically impossible to identity these telephone numbers. 68.     On 28 March 1997 and referring to İsmet Berkan's newspaper article of 5 December 1996, the Gölbaşı public prosecutor requested the National Security Council ( Milli Güvenlik Kurulu ) to provide him with the document referred to in the newspaper article, i.e. the National Security Board document that İsmet Berkan had been allowed to see and which contained the chart of the organisation that had been created as well as the names of its members. He explained that this document could be of relevance to the investigation into the killing of Yusuf Ekinci. 69.     In a letter of 8 April 1997 to the Gölbaşı public prosecutor, the National Security Council denied the existence of the document referred to in the article written by İsmet Berkan. 70.     By letters of 26 June and 25 October 1995, the Commissioner of the Gölbaşı local police station informed the Gölbaşı District Police Headquarters that the enquiries in relation to the identification of the perpetrator(s) conducted so far had proved unsuccessful, that they were still actively being sought and that, if found, the victim's family would be notified. These letters do not contain any details about the modalities of the police investigation. 71.     In January 1998, the Prime Minister received the report he had commissioned on the Susurluk affair (see §§ 92-93 and §§ 100-102 below), according to which Behçet Cantürk had been killed on the instructions of an unspecified Turkish security organisation (“ Türk Emniyet Teşkilatı” ) on the basis of a decision to eliminate about 100 businessmen suspected of involvement in financing the PKK, and whose names were set out in a non ‑ disclosed list referred to in a public statement made on 4 November 1993 in İstanbul by the former Prime Minister, Ms Tansu Çiller. 72.     On 26 February 1998, the Commissioner of the Gölbaşı local police station informed the Gölbaşı District Police Headquarters that the enquiries conducted so far in relation to the identification of the perpetrator(s) had proved unsuccessful, that they were still actively being sought and that, if found, the victim's family would be notified. These letters do not contain any details about the modalities of the police investigation. 73.     On 20 May 1998 the Gölbaşı public prosecutor requested the Ankara public prosecutor to identify, summon and take statements from the road workers and petrol station staff who had been on duty at the time of the incident. 74.     In a statement taken on 3 June 1998, Atilla C., the manager of a petrol station on the TEM highway, stated that he had been the manager of this petrol station for 13 years and that the employees on duty at the material time no longer worked there. It does not appear from the record of this statement whether or not he was asked for the names of the former employees. 75.     In a statement taken on 16 June 1998 from Ümit T., a traffic police officer who had been on duty on the TEM highway on the day of the incident date, Ümit T. stated that he could not remember anything about the incident. Too much time had passed since then. 76.     In a statement taken on the same day from the traffic police officer Şevket Y., he stated that he did not recall anything about the incident. He considered that it was probable that Yusuf Ekinci's body had been found when he was not on duty. Similar statements were taken on 16 June 1998 from the traffic police officers Abdullah G. and Osman Y. 77.     In a statement taken on 16 June 1998 from Sezgin S., a traffic police officer who had been on duty at the relevant time, Sezgin S. declared that he arrived at the scene of the crime after having heard the message on the police radio. The body had been lying in a ditch. He had not inspected the wounds on the body. The victim's car had been located at a distance of about 15 or 20 metres from the body. He left the scene after the arrival of the police officers from the Criminal Bureau. 78.     In a statement taken on 16 June 1998 from Arif İ., a traffic police officer on duty on the day of the incident, Arif İ declared that he arrived at the scene of the crime after having heard the message on the police radio. He had seen a dead body lying in a ditch. He had seen bullet wounds to the right and left cheek. The victim's car had been located at a distance of 20 or 25 metres from the body. He left the scene of the crime when police officers from the Criminal Bureau arrived. 79.     On 26 June 1998, the Commissioner of the Gölbaşı local police station informed the Gölbaşı District Police Headquarters that the investigation aimed at the identification of the perpetrator(s) of the killing of Yusuf Ekinci had, so far, proved unsuccessful, that they were still actively being sought and, if found, the victim's family would be notified. This letter does not contain any details about the modalities of the police investigation. 80.     On 10 August 1998 the Ankara public prosecutor requested the Gölbaşı public prosecutor for information about the steps taken in the investigation of the killing of Yusuf Ekinci. 81.     On 14 August 1998 the Gölbaşı public prosecutor informed the Ankara public prosecutor that the investigation was still continuing and, should the perpetrator(s) be found, the Ankara public prosecutor would be notified. 82.     In a further statement taken on 2 December 1998 from the traffic police officer Şevket Y., the latter declared that he had no information about the killing of Yusuf Ekinci. A similar statement was taken on 4 December 1998 from Abbas Ş., another traffic police officer who had been on duty at the relevant time. 83.     On 26 February 1999, the Commissioner of the Gölbaşı local police station informed the Gölbaşı District Police Headquarters that, so far, the enquiries in relation to the identification of the perpetrator(s) of the killing of Yusuf Ekinci had proved unsuccessful, that they were still actively being sought and, if found, the victim's family would be notified. This letter does not contain any details about the modalities of the police investigation. Actions undertaken by the applicant and others 84.     The applicant wrote two letters to the President of Turkey requesting him to order an effective investigation into the killing of her husband and to bring the perpetrators to justice. In addition, she appealed for help to the Prime Minister and to the Speaker of the Grand National Assembly. These requests remained unanswered. 85.     On 28 February 1996, the brother of Yusuf Ekinci, Tarik Ziya Ekinci, and the lawyer Tahsin Ekinci wrote to the President of Turkey voicing their continuing concerns and suspicions, and complaining that the investigation into the killing of Yusuf Ekinci was inadequate. 86.     In August 1997, during a Parliamentary session, the Member of Parliament Fikri Sağlar, put questions in relation to the killing of Yusuf   Ekinci to the then Prime Minister Mr Mesut Yılmaz. Mr Sağlar mentioned that it was common knowledge that Yusuf Ekinci had been killed by a Uzi type weapon and that a number of these weapons destined for use by the police had gone missing. He enquired whether these weapons had been acquired by Turkey on the basis of a public tender, how many weapons had gone missing, who was responsible for the weapons and whether the ballistics characteristics of the weapons had ever been recorded. He further asked whether a ballistics comparison had been carried out between the bullets used in the killing of Yusuf Ekinci and the Uzi weapons that had gone missing from the records of the Special Police Teams. 87.     In December 1997, in reply to the questions put by Fikri Sağlar, the Minister of the Interior, Murat Başesgioğlu, declared that ballistics reports had revealed that the bullets used in the killing of Yusuf Ekinci were similar to those of the Uzi weapons allegedly used by the Susurluk gang in other illegal incidents. 88.     In a letter of 17 February 1998 to the Minister of Justice, Tarık Ziya Ekinci complained that the investigation into the killing of his brother was inadequate. He suggested inter alia that a team of independent investigators be formed to carry out investigation, that the case-file be transferred from the Gölbaşı public prosecutor to the public prosecutor of the Ankara State Security Court, that a ballistics examination of all the Uzi type weapons in the possession of the Special Operations Department be ordered in order to verify whether they matched the weapon used to kill his brother, and that statements be taken from road workers and petrol station staff on duty at the time when his brother was killed. 89.     In a statement taken on 17 April 1998 by the police, Tarık Ziya Ekinci confirmed that he had written a letter to the Minister of Justice in relation to the killing of his brother. On 6 May 1998 the Ankara public prosecutor informed the Gölbaşı public prosecutor of the statement given on 17 April 1998 by Tarık Ziya Ekinci. 90.     In 1998 the applicant allegedly succeeded in contacting an eye ‑ witness, namely a person who had been working at a petrol station situated on the road between Yusuf Ekinci's office and his home. According to this witness, whose identity was not disclosed by the applicant, he had seen that a red Toyota – Yusuf Ekinci's car was a red Toyota – had been stopped by a police patrol car, that the police officers had taken the driver from this car and that they had searched his clothes. After about five minutes, a policeman got into the Toyota, which drove off together with the police patrol car. However, out of fear, this witness had refused to give a written statement. The account given by this witness was reported on the internet site of the daily newspaper “ Hürriyet ”. II.     RELEVANT BACKGROUND TO THE CASE 91.     Before the Court the applicant referred to the so-called Susurluk incident and the domestic reports that have been produced in relation to this incident. These reports have been made available to the Court in a number of other cases brought against Turkey (cf. Yaşa v. Turkey judgment of 2   September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions , 1998-VI, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no.   23763/94, ECHR 1999 ‑ IV, Özgür Gündem v. Turkey , no.   23144/93, ECHR 2000-III, Kılıç v. Turkey , no 22492/93, ECHR 2000 ‑ III, Akkoç v. Turkey , nos. 22947/93 & 22948/93, ECHR 2000-X, and Avşar v. Turkey , no. 25657/94, ECHR 2001-VII). The Susurluk accident and related documents 92.     Susurluk was the scene of a road accident on 3 November 1996 involving a truck and a car. The four passengers in the car were Mr Sedat Bucak, a member of Parliament for the conservative True Path Party and close to Tansu Çiller, Mr Hüseyin Kocadağ, the former deputy head of the İstanbul secu