CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 9 mai 2003

.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 } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s888E4C48 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s18215599 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9922FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDB660C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .sA36C4D91 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:51.9pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .s1AAC210B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:51.9pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .sED04838E { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:61.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB5C2B09B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:61.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s1055E8C5 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:72.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s82EA1BC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:51.9pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .s719459F8 { width:11.09pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC7D459DF { width:10.14pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s234810F7 { width:3.47pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sFE6327B5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s35B9D6C9 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:30pt } .s49BD9340 { margin-top:30pt; 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 } .s194CE510 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .sD96DCEDB { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s3FAD7F67 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sF0B473AD { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEE35628D { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s6E97E8AF { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5D08A2D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34.6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE10815D1 { width:4.34pt; display:inline-block } .s7F0CA1BB { width:1.68pt; display:inline-block } .s8DCCCE3B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s2452CEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s988562EE { width:30.55pt; display:inline-block } .s6B64E62F { width:203.14pt; display:inline-block } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; display:inline-block }     FORMER SECOND SECTION     CASE OF TEPE v. TURKEY     (Application no. 27244/95)     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG     9 May 2003       FINAL   09/08/2003           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 Tepe v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mr   M. Fischbach ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   E. Levits , judges ,   Mr   F. Gölcüklü , ad hoc judge , and Mr E. Fribergh , Deputy Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 10 February 2000 and on 10 April 2003, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no.   27244/95) 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, İsak Tepe (“the applicant”), on 4   May   1995. 2.     The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented before the Court by Mr Philip Leach, a lawyer attached to the Kurdish Human Rights Project in London. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court. 3.     The applicant alleged that his son had been tortured and killed following his abduction by undercover agents of the State and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into his death. He relied on Articles 2, 3, 5, 10, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention. 4.     The application was declared admissible by the Commission on 25   November 1996 and transmitted to the Court on 1   November 1999 in accordance with Article 5 § 3, second sentence, of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the Commission not having completed its examination of the case by that date. 5.     The application was allocated to the Second 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 to sit in his place (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1). 6.     The Court, having regard to the factual dispute between the parties over the circumstances surrounding the death of the applicant’s son, conducted an investigation pursuant to Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court appointed three delegates to take evidence from witnesses at hearings conducted in Ankara between 9 and 14 October 2000. 7.     The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). The applicant also made concluding submissions on 27   September 2002. The Court decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 2 in fine ). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 8.     The applicant, Mr İsak Tepe, is a Turkish citizen who was born in 1943 and is at present living in İstanbul (Turkey). At the time of the events giving rise to his application, the applicant was the provincial chairman of a political party, the DEP (Democracy Party), in the province of Bitlis (south ‑ east Turkey). The application concerns the applicant’s allegations that his son, Mr Ferhat Tepe, was abducted and killed by undercover agents of the State. A.     The facts 9.     The facts surrounding the death of the applicant’s son are disputed between the parties. 10.     The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section 1 below. The facts   presented by the Government are contained in Section 2. 11.     A summary of the documents submitted by the parties is to be found in Part B. The witness evidence taken by the Court’s delegates at hearings conducted in Ankara is summarised in Part C. 1.     Facts as presented by the applicant 12.     In the beginning of July 1993, General Korkmaz Tağma, the commander of the Tatvan 6th Armoured Brigade, invited the provincial leaders of all political parties to a meeting at the army barracks. The applicant attended this meeting as the representative of the DEP and spoke in support of the cultural and democratic rights of the Kurdish population in Turkey. During the meeting, General Tağma claimed that there were no Kurds in Turkey and that those who had taken to the mountains were Armenians. He then asked the participants to report to him the names of the people who helped the PKK. The applicant replied to General Tağma that there were Kurds in Turkey as well as Turks and other minorities and that these people should be treated on the basis of equality in a democratic manner. He added that the denial of other people’s existence and the oppression or repression of others would not lead anywhere. General Tağma was furious and wanted to obtain information on the children of the chairmen, for example where they worked and how old they were. He warned the chairmen, including the applicant, that their children would be destroyed if they were not raised as loyal citizens of the State. 13.     In the afternoon of 10 July 1993 the applicant’s son, Ferhat Tepe, born in 1974 and working as a reporter for the Özgür Gündem newspaper in Bitlis, was taken into police custody. No reasons were given for his arrest. He was released the same day in the afternoon. 14.     On 28 July 1993 at around 7 p.m., while Ferhat was in the schoolyard of the Şemsi Bitlis primary school, a tall, bearded man who was known in the area to be a policeman, took him by the arm, put him in a car and drove away with him. Their car was followed by a white car, a Renault with the registration number 65   AD 095. There were two persons inside the white Renault, which was seen later that day parked next to Mahallebaşı police station. 15.     Later on the same day, the applicant learned from İsmetullah   Güzelsoy and Adnan Karslıoğlu that two plain-clothes policemen had made enquiries about Ferhat in the building where they lived. He went home in panic and realised that Ferhat was missing. 16.     On 29 July 1993 at around 6 a.m. the applicant received a phone call from an anonymous person who claimed to be a member of an organisation called the “Ottoman Turkish Revenge Brigade” and said that they were keeping his son as a hostage. The caller said that Ferhat would be killed unless the applicant closed down the DEP’s Bitlis branch, released four French tourists who were in the hands of the PKK and paid one billion Turkish liras (TRL). The applicant said he could close down the Bitlis branch and try to find TRL 1 billion but had no power to secure the release of the French tourists, as he had no connection with the PKK. The caller warned the applicant that his son would be killed if the conditions were not met. 17.     On the same day at 8 a.m. the applicant went with his wife and daughter to the Bitlis Security Directorate, where he told the director and the provincial governor of his suspicion that Ferhat had been abducted by contra-guerrillas operating within the State security forces. The governor and the director denied the existence of contra-guerrillas in Turkey and affirmed that the State did not commit murder. 18.     On the same day the applicant applied to the Bitlis Public Prosecutor and asked that his home and office telephones be tapped in order to trace the caller’s number if another call was made. He also requested that all necessary action be taken to rescue his son. 19.     On 30 July 1993 the applicant sent telegrams to the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Interior and the Governor of the state of emergency region asking for their aid in rescuing his son. 20.     On 1 August 1993 the applicant and his wife went to Tatvan to talk to General Korkmaz Tağma at the brigade headquarters. They were told that the general was ill and had gone to Antalya. They were received by a colonel and attended a meeting at General Tağma’s office. During this meeting, Mrs Tepe stated that the bloodshed between Turks and Kurds had to stop and that she would sacrifice her son if this were to bring the animosity to an end. During the second or the third telephone call, the anonymous caller said that Mrs Tepe had spoken well at General Tağma’s office, which proves that the caller was either present at the meeting or had been informed by someone who had attended the meeting. 21.     Subsequently, the applicant informed the Security Director that according to Fatih Olcay and Adnan Karslıoğlu, eye-witnesses to Ferhat’s abduction, the people who had taken Ferhat away were policemen. The applicant also said that there was evidence that the white Renault, which had followed the car in which Ferhat Tepe was abducted, belonged to the security forces. 22.     On 4 August 1993 the applicant received another phone call at around 3 a.m . He immediately alerted the authorities while he was on the phone and asked them to identify the caller’s number. The conversation that followed was recorded. The person on the phone said that the applicant had failed to fulfil their conditions for the release of Ferhat since the DEP branch had not been closed down, and the applicant had failed to pay and had reported everything to the authorities. The caller told the applicant to bring TRL   1   billion to an address in the province of Elazığ. After listening to the recording, the Security Director told the applicant that the State could give him special bank notes, the serial numbers of which had been noted by the police, and told him to come back later for the bank notes. Later on the same day, when the applicant called again, the Director told him that he was having difficulty in obtaining the bank notes. 23.     On the same day the applicant, together with four policemen and four of his relatives, went to the address in Elazığ indicated by the caller but could not find anyone. 24.     Still on 4 August 1993, Ferhat’s dead body was found by a civil servant at the Lake Hazar, in Karakem. On the same day the public prosecutor and a medical expert examined the body. The report of their findings concluded that the cause of death was drowning and that there was no need for a systematic autopsy. It also stated that no signs of blows or the use of force on the body or of friction on the wrists and ankles had been detected. 25.     On 5 August 1993 the applicant, who had not yet been informed of Ferhat’s death, applied to the Public Prosecutor enquiring whether the anonymous caller’s number had been traced. His application remained unanswered. 26.     On 8 August 1993 the applicant received a third anonymous telephone call in which he was told that Ferhat’s body was at the morgue in Elazığ. Later that day the applicant discovered that the body had been buried on 5   August 1993 in the Elazığ cemetery for persons with no known relatives. 27.     On 9 August 1993 the applicant identified Ferhat’s body, which had been exhumed by the authorities. In preparation for the funeral ceremony, the applicant washed the body himself in a mosque . He saw that his son’s testicles had been crushed and that there were marks on the arms, ankles, testicles and chest. He observed some cigarette burn marks on the body but no fractures. There were also deep wounds on the wrists and ankles showing that Ferhat had been bound hand and foot. The applicant alleged that, according to the eyewitnesses Mümtaz Çerçel, Ömer Aceban, Bahri Elçi, Miğdat Yaşar, Murat Koparan, Taner Şarlak, Erkan Dağdelen, Urfi Pasin and Rıza Demirtaş, who had been apprehended and questioned at the relevant time in the Diyarbakır Recruitment Office, Ferhat had been held there and tortured by members of the security forces between 28 July and 4 August 1993. Mümtaz Çerçel allegedly gave a statement, but withdrew it after being threatened by the police. 28.     On 9 August 1993 the Sivrice Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction, referring the investigation file to the Bitlis Public Prosecutor’s office. 29.     At the funeral procession in Bitlis on 10 August 1993, there was a strong police presence. The police filmed those who attended, checked their identification and arrested fifteen persons. Later on the same day the police searched the applicant’s house. 30.     On 12 August 1993 the Bitlis Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and referred the case to the Elazığ Public Prosecutor. 31.     On 19 October 1993 the applicant sent a letter to the Committee of the Turkish Parliament on Murders Perpetrated by Unknown Persons, alleging that secret forces within the State security forces had killed his son. 32.     On 2 November 1993 the applicant filed a petition with the Ministry of Justice, alleging that the abduction and killing of his son had been the acts of State forces and requesting an investigation into the matter. 33.     On 16 March 1994 the applicant asked the Bitlis Public Prosecutor whether any inquiry into the killing of his son had been initiated. The Public Prosecutor told him there were some obstacles which he had been unable to overcome. On the same day the applicant went to the Bitlis Provincial Security Directorate and asked the assistant director why no investigation had been carried out. The Assistant Director said he did not have to explain anything to the applicant. 34.     On 28 September 1994 the applicant applied again to the Ministry of Justice asserting that certain State security forces had been responsible for the abduction and death of his son. He requested that his allegations be investigated. 35.     On 15 November 1994 the Elazığ Chief Public Prosecutor issued a permanent search warrant for the perpetrators of the killing of Ferhat Tepe. 36.     Following the applicant’s complaints to the authorities, the police took tight security measures. The applicant, his office, his home and the DEP party building were put under constant surveillance. The police filmed the applicant’s colleagues and his fellow-townsmen who came to console him, and checked their identity cards. 37.     In the meantime, the applicant’s family had been under intense pressure from the State authorities in relation to his political activities, the investigation he had personally carried out into the killing of his son and his application to the European Commission of Human Rights. The applicant’s daughter was remanded in custody in December 1993; his son was remanded in custody in 1994 for four months and is currently being tried for an offence which carries the death sentence; another of the applicant’s daughters was taken into custody in April 1994; four of the applicant’s nephews were remanded in custody in 1994, one of whom is being tried for an offence which carries the death sentence; the applicant’s brother was taken into custody in April 1994 and the applicant’s cousin has been in Elazığ Prison since 1994. On 24 February 1996 the applicant was arrested in Bartın and held in police custody for eight days in Bitlis. During his detention, the police officers asked him why he accused the State and why he had taken his complaints to the European Commission. They further threatened him and said among other things: “We will kill you just as we killed Ferhat. You are complaining to the infidels about our State. Are they the ones who will save you? Well, let them come and save you.” After being released, the applicant was acquitted of the charges by the Diyarbakır State Security Court. On 4 March 1996 the applicant was allegedly taken into custody in Bitlis on charges of aiding the PKK. He was released on an unspecified date after being interrogated. 38.     On 19 February 1997 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant on account of a speech he had made on a private TV channel, where he had alleged that his son had been murdered by the State. The applicant was charged with insulting the security forces. On an unspecified date, the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment. 39.     In 1999 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the anti-terrorist department while entering the HADEP (People’s Democracy Party) party building in the Kadıköy district in Istanbul. He was kept in detention for one day. The police officers insulted him and threatened him with death. One of the police officers said that they would kill him just as they had killed Ferhat. The applicant complained to the Fatih Public Prosecutor in Istanbul, who decided to discontinue the proceedings, as there was no witness to confirm his allegations. 2.     Facts as presented by the Government 40.     The applicant’s son Ferhat Tepe had been arrested on two occasions in 1991, as he was suspected of acting as a PKK courier. 41.     The Government submitted that, according to various witnesses, on 28   July 1993 Ferhat had met someone in the schoolyard and had left with him of his own free will. 42.     The authorities, at the request of the applicant, tapped the anonymous telephone call on 4 August 1993. Although a raid was carried out at the address mentioned in the telephone conversation, the premises were found to be empty. The authorities of the Ministry of the Interior nevertheless established that the residence searched belonged to reporters from Özgür   Gündem in Elazığ and concluded that Ferhat’s killing had been the work of the PKK. 43.     A report of 24 September 1993 from the Ministry of the Interior to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a letter of 16 November 1995 from the governor of Bitlis province indicate that the death of the applicant’s son was the work of the PKK. 44.     In a letter of 10 November 1995 the Chief Public Prosecutor of Elazığ, charged with investigating Ferhat Tepe’s death, informed the Ministry of Justice that there was no indication or record of Ferhat’s having been taken into custody. Moreover, the custody records of the Bitlis Security Directorate contained no mention of him. B.     Documents submitted by the parties 45.     The parties submitted various documents concerning the investigation into the alleged abduction and killing of Ferhat Tepe. 1.     Official documents (a)     The applicant’s further applications to the authorities 46.     On 30 March 1995 the applicant’s lawyer filed a petition with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in Bitlis requesting information as to what steps had been taken to find the perpetrators of the abduction and killing of Ferhat. 47.     On 31 March 1995, subsequent to the Bitlis Chief Public Prosecutor’s decision of non-jurisdiction, the applicant’s lawyer submitted a petition to the Sivrice Public Prosecutor’s office in Elazığ via the Şişli   Chief Public Prosecutor in İstanbul and requested information about the current state of the investigation into the impugned incident. (b)     Domestic investigation documents (i)     Custody records 48.     The custody records of the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmes headquarters for the period between 28 July and 4 August 1993 do not contain the name of Ferhat Tepe. (ii)     Transcription of tapes of the telephone conversation dated 4 August 1993 49.     The anonymous telephone caller told the applicant that their conditions for the release of Ferhat had not been fulfilled. The applicant replied that he was unable to close down the Bitlis branch of the DEP since this required a decision by the central board in Ankara. The applicant was then told to bring TRL 1 billion by 5 p.m. the next day to an address in Elazığ if he did not want his son to be killed. The person in question warned the applicant not to inform the authorities. The applicant’s request to talk to Ferhat was rejected. (iii)     Post-mortem examination and autopsy report of 4 August 1993 50.     An autopsy was carried out on Ferhat’s body by the public prosecutor, a medical expert and the latter’s assistant in the presence of two witnesses and a clerk. It was observed that rigor mortis had not set in and the body had not yet turned blue, that water spurted out when the chest was pressed, that light violet-coloured cyanosis was perceptible on the ears and the nails of both the hands and the feet as a result of suffocation and that there were no signs of any blow or of the use of force on the body, nor were there any signs of friction on the hands and feet. It was therefore concluded that the cause of death was drowning and that there was no need for a systematic autopsy. (iv)     Photographs of the corpse taken on 4 August 1993 51.     Nine photographs were submitted to the Court, taken when the body had been pulled out of the lake. No signs of any blows or ill-treatment are visible on the body in these photographs. (v)     Identification report dated 9 August 1993 52.     Following the finding of a corpse in Lake Hazar and its transfer to the morgue of Elazığ State Hospital, the applicant’s nephew, Mr   Talat   Tepe, went to the hospital to identify the body, which he recognised as being his uncle’s son, Ferhat Tepe. (vi)     Report dated 9 August 1993 signed by Talat Tepe and Public   Prosecutor no. 29242 53.     This document states that Ferhat Tepe’s clothes and shoes were given to Mr Talat Tepe. (vii)     Undated statement of Ömer Aceban, bearing the title “To the Public” 54.     In his statement, Mr Aceban submitted that he had been kept in detention in a military detention centre in Diyarbakır between 25 July and 6   August 1993. He alleged that he had seen a detainee called “Ferhat” or “journalist” by the [officers] on the 3rd and 4th days of his detention. He described Ferhat as being a young man of about 18 or 19 years of age, with long, dark hair. (viii)     Statement of Adnan Karslıoğlu, a shopkeeper who had a shop in the building where Ferhat lived, dated 29 July 1993, taken by police officers 55.     In this statement, the witness was asked to say what he knew about the incident. He replied that on 28 July 1993, at around 4 p.m., he had seen two plain-clothes men making enquiries about Ferhat. When one of them asked whether he knew Ferhat and the other residents of the building, the witness told them that Ferhat lived there and gave the names of the other residents. He claimed that he did not know whether these men were police officers but that they spoke Turkish with a western accent. (ix)     Statement of İsmetullah Güzelsoy, partner and brother-in-law of the applicant, dated 29 July 1993 and taken by police officers 56.     Mr Güzelsoy asserted that Ferhat had twice been taken into custody prior to his disappearance and that he was an irresponsible boy according to his father. The witness stated that on 28 July 1993, at 4 or 4.30 p.m., Mr   Karslıoğlu had told him that two police officers had made enquiries about Ferhat. He had told Mr Karslıoğlu that this might have been an investigation in relation to the attack on police buildings which had taken place the previous day. Later that day, at approximately 5 p.m., he had seen Ferhat and had informed him that two police officers had been looking for him. Ferhat had replied to him that he had not done anything wrong. The next day, the witness had learned from the applicant of Ferhat’s disappearance. (x)     Statement of Suat Başboğa, the witness who saw a white Renault Toros car, dated 29 July 1993 and taken by police officers 57.     On 28 July 1993, at around 6.30 or 7 p.m., the witness saw Ferhat   Tepe talking to two women and one or two men next to a bakery. A white Renault Toros with the registration number “65” attracted the witness’s attention as its parking lights were on. There were two young men in the car. The driver was bearded and approximately 35-40 years old, while the man sitting next to him was about 25-30. According to the witness, these men could not have been police officers, otherwise he would have recognised them. The witness learned of the abduction of Ferhat Tepe when he went to the Social Democrat Populist Party building next day. (xi)     Statement of Fatih Olcay, alleged eyewitness to the abduction of Ferhat, dated 30 July 1993 and taken by police officers 58.     The witness was 17 years old at the relevant time. On 28 July 1993, at about 7 or 7.30 p.m., he was playing football with his friends in the Şemsi Bitlis primary school yard. He saw a bearded man aged about 20-25 waiting in the schoolyard. Two or three minutes later Ferhat arrived and they left the schoolyard arm in arm, like two friends. The bearded man did not use any force against Ferhat. (xii)     Statement of Osman Pektaşoğlu, the owner of the beige Renault with the registration number 65 AD 095, dated 3 August 1993 and taken by police officers 59.     The witness was a police constable at the traffic registration and inspection department of Bitlis Security Directorate.   On 28 July 1993 he was on duty, between 7.30 a.m. and 6 p.m., in charge of traffic control in the town centre. His car was parked in front of his house throughout the day. Next day he went to the city centre at around 1 or 1.30 p.m. and parked his car in front of the Çarşı police station. He returned home at 5 p.m. He did not lend his car to anyone on 28 and 29 July 1993. (xiii)     Statements of Bahri Elçi and Migdat Yaşar, entitled “To the Public”, dated 10 August 1993 60.     In their statement addressed to the public, the witnesses alleged that they had been taken into custody on 24 July 1993 and kept in a detention centre in Diyarbakır where they were tortured for five days. During their detention, Mr Elçi heard some officers call out “Come on, journalist, it is your turn”. Mr Yaşar heard them asking a man “Journalist, where are you from?”, to which the reply was “I am from Bitlis”. Following their detention on remand they read in Özgür Gündem that a journalist called Ferhat Tepe had been killed under torture and that his corpse had been found in Elazığ. The witnesses submitted that Ferhat Tepe was the journalist whose voice they had heard during their detention. (xiv)     Statements of Murat Koparan, Taner Şarlak and Erkan Dağdelen, with the title “To the Public” and dated 16 August 1993 61.     The witnesses alleged that they had been kept in a military detention centre in Diyarbakır for twenty-two days. On the fourth or fifth day of his detention, Mr Dağdelen had seen a man called “journalist” by others. The journalist was chained by his hands to a water pipe and his body was bloody. He was unable to move or speak. Interrogators were torturing him and putting questions to him concerning his involvement with Özgür   Gündem . Following their detention on remand, the witnesses read in Özgür Gündem that Ferhat Tepe had been killed. They identified him from his photos. They claimed that they were sure that they had seen Ferhat Tepe in the military detention centre in Diyarbakır. (xv)     Letters from the Chief Public Prosecutor of Bitlis to the Central Gendarme Division Command and the Security Directorate in Bitlis, dated 30 July 1993 62.     The Chief Public Prosecutor informed the gendarmes and the police of Ferhat Tepe’s disappearance and asked them to verify whether he had been taken into custody for any offence. The Public Prosecutor further instructed that the whereabouts of Ferhat Tepe be determined, that those responsible for Ferhat’s disappearance be brought to his office and that all documents related to the case be sent to him. (xvi)     Letter from the Bitlis Central Gendarmes Division Command to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in Bitlis, dated 12 August 1993 63.     The Deputy Gendarmes Commander informed the prosecuting authorities in this letter that Ferhat Tepe had not been taken into custody and that he had eventually been found dead. (xvii)     Letters from Public Prosecutor no. 25225 in Elazığ to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in Bitlis and to the Security Directorate in Elazığ, dated 25 August 1993 64.     The Elazığ Public Prosecutor requested the former authority to carry out a comprehensive investigation into the death of Ferhat Tepe and to inform him of the outcome. He requested the latter authority to find the person(s) responsible for the killing of Ferhat Tepe and to bring them to his office. (xviii)     Letter from the Security General Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated 24 September 1993 65.     In this letter, the authorities of the Ministry of the Interior informed the Foreign Ministry of their conclusion that, having regard to the way in which Ferhat Tepe had been abducted and to the anonymous telephone calls, Ferhat must have been killed by members of the PKK, in a settling of scores within the organisation. They also noted that the allegation that the authorities had failed to respond to the applicant’s request for help was untrue since, following receipt of the applicant’s complaint, an investigation had been started and the photographs of Ferhat Tepe had been distributed to all the provinces and the security units had been alerted. (xix)     The Elazığ Chief Public Prosecutor’s decision of 15 November 1994 66.     The Chief Public Prosecutor, Mr Süleyman Tutal, issued a permanent search warrant for the perpetrators of the killing of Ferhat Tepe. He requested the Elazığ Central Gendarme Commander and the Bitlis Chief Public Prosecutor to inform him every three months of any developments in the investigation. (xx)     Letter of 3 May 1995 from the Elazığ Chief Public Prosecutor’s to the Şişli Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in Istanbul 67.     In reply to the petition filed by the applicant’s lawyer on 31 March 1995, the Elazığ Public Prosecutor declared that the perpetrators of Ferhat’s killing had not yet been found and that the complainants would be informed of any developments in the investigation. (xxi)     The letter from Public Prosecutor no. 25225 to the Elazığ Chief Public Prosecutor, dated 9 November 1995 68.     It is stated in this letter that there is no record of Ferhat Tepe’s having been taken into custody in Bitlis. According to the evidence given by the witnesses, Ferhat met a man in the Şemsi Bitlis Primary School yard and left the premises with that man arm in arm, without any force being used. It is also noted that, according to the autopsy report and the photos taken when Ferhat was found, there were no traces of ill-treatment and no blood stains on his body or his clothes, contrary to the allegations. (xxii)     Letter of 10 November 1995 from the Elazığ Chief Public Prosecutor to the International Law and External Relations Department of the Ministry of Justice 69.     Following the lodging of the present application with the former Commission and its communication to the Government, in a letter of 27   October 1995 the authorities of the Ministry of Justice requested information from the Elazığ Chief Public Prosecutor’s office on the current state of the investigation into the applicant’s allegations. 70.     The Chief Public Prosecutor wrote back stating that there was no evidence in support of the applicant’s allegations that Ferhat had been abducted, kept in custody and killed under torture by the security forces. He noted that the investigation into the murder was pending. He appended to his letter the post-mortem examination report, the autopsy and identification reports and copies of statements taken from İsmetullah Güzelsoy, Osman Pekdaşoğlu, Adnan Karslıoğlu, Fatih Olcay and the applicant as well as the decisions of non-jurisdiction, the permanent search warrant and 7 photos of Ferhat Tepe. (xxiii)     Report of 16 November 1995 by the Governor of Bitlis addressed to the Ministry of the Interior and the Gendarmes General Command 71.     The subject of this letter was Ishak Tepe’s application to the European Commission of Human Rights. Having summarised the events, the governor concluded that the accusations made by the applicant were mere allegations since there was no evidence to substantiate them. He noted that on 4 August 1993 the applicant had received a phone call from a person who had told him to bring TRL 1 billion to an address in Elazığ if he wanted to rescue his son. When the applicant had gone to the address accompanied by police officers from the Elazığ Security Directorate, they had not been able to find anyone. Meanwhile, following inquiries made by the Elazığ police, it had been established that the residents at this address were two journalists from Özgür Gündem who had moved out 15 or 20 days before. The police had found the two journalists concerned and had taken statements from them. The governor concluded from these facts that the impugned incident had been a settling of scores within the PKK. (xxiv)     Statements of Taner Şarlak, Murat Koparan and Erkan Dağdelen, dated 26 February 1996, taken by the Public Prosecutor no. 31562 in Hazro 72.     The Hozat Public Prosecutor took statements from the witnesses concerning the contents of the document signed by them on 16 August 1993 and entitled “To the Public”. 73.     The witnesses admitted to having signed this document but claimed that the contents were untrue. Mr   Şarlak and Mr Koparan submitted that a person called İrfan Güler, who was responsible for their prison ward, had written this document and made them sign it. They believed that nothing unpleasant would befall them if they signed the document. They further averred that they had not seen a person called Ferhat Tepe; nor did they know of how he had been killed. Mr Dağdelen, however, asserted that he did not remember when and where he had signed this document. (xxv)     Letter from Public Prosecutor no. 25225 to the Elazığ Chief Public Prosecutor, dated 11 April 1996 74.     In this letter, the Chief Public Prosecutor was informed that statements had been taken from Murat Koparan, Taner Şarlak and Erkan Dağdelen, that these persons did not know Ferhat Tepe and that they had denied the contents of the document entitled “To the Public”. It was further noted that on 15 November 1996 a permanent search warrant had been issued to find the perpetrators of the killing of Ferhat Tepe. (xxvi)     Correspondence among the national authorities and other relevant documents in regard to the investigation into Ferhat Tepe’s death 75.     The following documents concern the internal communication of the national authorities concerning the investigation into the disappearance and subsequent death of Ferhat Tepe: (α) Year 1993 (i) Letter of 29 July 1993 from the Bitlis Chief Public Prosecutor to the PTT Telephone Directorate; (ii) Letter dated August 1993 from the Elazığ State Hospital Chief Doctor to the Sivrice Chief Public Prosecutor; (iii) Letter of 4 August 1993 from the Bitlis deputy governor of Bitlis to the Bitlis governor requesting the latter to submit information pertaining to the fate of Ferhat Tepe; (iv) Letter of 5 August 1993 from the Bitlis Security Director to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in Bitlis; (v) The Sivrice Chief Public Prosecutor’s decision of 7 August 1993 to indemnify those who were involved in the conduct of the autopsy on the body of an unidentified person (Ferhat Tepe); (vi) Letter of 9 August 1993 from the Bitlis Security Director to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in Bitlis; (vii) Letter dated 9 August 1993 from Public Prosecutor no. 30760 to the PTT Telephone Directorate; (viii) Letter of 9 August 1993 from the Sivrice Chief Public Prosecutor to the Mayor of Elazığ; (ix) Letter of 9 August 1993 from the Sivrice Chief Public Prosecutor to the Registry Office enclosing Ferhat Tepe’s death certificate; (x) Letter of 11 August 1993 from the Bitlis Security Director to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in Elazığ; (xi) Letter of 16 August 1993 from the Sivrice Public Prosecutor to the Mayor of Elazığ; (xii) Letter of 17 August 1993 from the Elazığ Public Prosecutor to the Minister and Deputy Minister of Justice; (xiii) Letter of 25 August 1993 from the Elazığ Public Prosecutor to the Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor’s office; (xiv) Letter of 25 August 1993 from the Elazığ Public Prosecutor to the Bitlis Chief Public Prosecutor’s office; (xv) Letter of 26 August 1993 from the Sivrice Chief Public Prosecutor to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in Elazığ; (xvi) Letter dated 1 September 1993 from the public prosecutor, Süleyman Tutal, to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in Elazığ; (xvii) Letter of 1 September 1993 from the Elazığ Chief Public Prosecutor to the Elazığ Governor’s office. (xviii) Letter of 6 September 1993 from the Elazığ Chief Public Prosecutor to the Provincial Central Gendarme Command in Elazığ; (xix) Letter of 15   September 1993 from the Diyarbakır Security Directorate Traffic Department to the Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor’s office; (xx) Letter dated 27 October 1993 from the Public Prosecutor Süleyman Tutal to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in Elazığ; (xxi) Report of 12 December 1993 prepared by the police officers Mr   Nizamettin Elma and Mr Halit Yılmaz, informing the Security Director that it had been impossible to find those responsible for the killing of Ferhat Tepe; (xxii) Letter of 28 December 1993 from the Bitlis Security Directorate informing the Chief Public Prosecutor of Elazığ it had been impossible to find those responsible for the killing of Ferhat Tepe. (β) Year 1994 (i) Letter of 1 February 1994 from the Elazığ Chief Public Prosecutor requesting information from the Public Prosecutor, Mr Tuna Güngör; (ii) Mr Tuna Güngör’s letter of 3 February 1994 addressed to the Chief Public Prosecutor of Elazığ, informing the latter that no evidence had been obtained in regard to the death of Ferhat Tepe; (iii) Letter of 16 March 1994 from the Elazığ Chief Public Prosecutor requesting the Public Prosecutor Mr Süleyman Tutal to inform him of developments in the investigation into the death of Ferhat Tepe; (iv) Letter of 21 March 1994 from Mr Süleyman Tutal informing the Chief Public Prosecutor in Elazığ that no evidence had been obtained about the persons responsible for the killing of Ferhat Tepe; (v) Letter of 25 October 1994 from the Deputy General Director for the Council of Europe and Human Rights Affairs to the Ministry of the Interior and to the Ministry of Justice; (vi) Letter dated 7 November 1994 from Mr   İlmettin Köklü, Elazığ Public Prosecutor, to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in Elazığ; (vii) Letter of 17 November 1994 from Mr Süleyman Tutal to the Chief Public Prosecutor in Elazığ. (γ) Year 1995 (i) Letter dated 12 January 1995 from Mr   İlmettin Köklü, Elazığ Public Prosecutor, to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in Elazığ; (ii) Letter of 1   February 1995 from Mr Süleyman Tutal to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s offices in Bitlis and Elazığ and to the Provincial Central Gendarme Command in Elazığ. Mr   Tutal noted that there was a permanent search warrant for the person(s) responsible for the killing of Ferhat Tepe and requested those authorities to submit information every three months about the investigation; (iii) Letter of 5 March 1995 from the Elazığ Chief Public Prosecutor to the Registry of the Preliminary Investigation Department; (iv) Letters of 20 March 1995 from the Elazığ Chief Public Prosecutor to the Registry of the Preliminary Investigation Department; (v) Letter of 20 March 1995 from the Elazığ Chief Public Prosecutor’s to Mr Süleyman Tutal; (vi) Letter of 21 March 1995 from Mr Süleyman Tutal’s to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in Elazığ; (vii) Letter of 27   March 1995 from the Elazığ Provincial Central Gendarme Commander, informing the Chief Public Prosecutor in Elazığ that the perpetrator(s) could not be identified and that the investigation into the incident was still pending; (viii) Letter of 13 June 1995 from Mr Süleyman Tutal to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in Elazığ; (ix) Letter of 26   June   1995 from the Elazığ Chief Public Prosecutor to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in Bitlis; (x) Letter of 27 June 1995 from the Elazığ Provincial Central Gendarme Commander informing the Chief Public Prosecutor in Elazığ that the perpetrator(s) could not be identified and that the investigation into the incident was still pending; (xi) Letter of 11 July 1995 from the Elazığ Chief Public Prosecutor to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in Bitlis; (xii) Letter of 27 September 1995 from the Elazığ Provincial Central Gendarme Commander informing the Chief Public Prosecutor in Elazığ that the perpetrator(s) could not be identified and that the investigation into the incident was still pending; (xiii) Letter of 23 October 1995 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Ministry of Justice; (xiv) Letter of 23 October 1995 from the Ministry of Justice to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in Elazığ; (xv) Letter of 27 October 1995 from the Ministry of Justice to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in Elazığ; (xvi) Letter of 27 October 1995 from the Elazığ Chief Public Prosecutor to Mr Süleyman Tutal; (xvii) Letter of 21 November 1995 from the Ministry of Justice to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in Elazığ; (xviii) Letter of 22 November   1995 from the Elazığ Chief Public Prosecutor to Mr Süleyman Tutal; (xix) Letter of 7 December 1995 from the Elazığ Provincial Central Gendarme Commander informing the Chief Public Prosecutor in Elazığ that the perpetrator(s) could not be identified and that the investigation into the incident was still pending; (xx) Letter of 7   December 1995 from Mr Süleyman Tutal requesting the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court to submit information as to whether Mr Murat Koparan, Mr   Taner Şarlak, Mr Erkan Dağdelen and Mr Ömer Aceban had been kept in detention on remand in July and August 1993 and whether these persons had seen Ferhat Tepe in detention. He further requested information regarding the current addresses of these persons; (xxi) Report of 2