CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 26 octobre 1995

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                      Application No. 21893/93                           Hüseyin Akdivar                       Abdurrahman Akdivar                          Ahmet Akdivar                           Ali Akdivar                         Zülfükar Çiçek                          Ahmet Çiçek                        Abdurrahman Aktas                        Mehmet Karabulut                               against                               Turkey                      REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                    (adopted on 26 October 1995)                          TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                               Page   I.    INTRODUCTION      (paras. 1-25). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        A.    The application           (paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        B.    The proceedings           (paras. 5-20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        C.    The present Report           (paras. 21-25). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS      (paras. 26-173). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4        A.    The particular circumstances of the case           (paras. 26-39). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4        B.    The evidence before the Commission           (paras. 40-156) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5             a) Documentary and audio-visual evidence              (paras. 40-76) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5             b) Oral evidence               (paras. 77-156) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13        C.    Relevant domestic law and practice           (paras. 157-173). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION      (paras. 174-265) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25        A.    Complaints declared admissible           (para. 174) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25        B.    Points at issue           (para. 175) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25        C.    As regards the applicants           (paras. 176-183). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25             Decision           (para. 183) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26        D.    The evaluation of the evidence           (paras. 184-214). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27        E.    As regards Article 8 of the Convention           and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention           (paras. 215-220). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32             Conclusions           (paras. 219-220). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32                          TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                               Page        F.    As regards Article 3 of the Convention           (paras. 221-225). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33             Conclusion           (para. 225) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33        G.    As regards Article 5 par. 1 of the Convention           (paras. 226-231). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33             Conclusion           (para. 231) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34        H.    As regards Articles 6 par. 1 and 13 of the Convention           (paras. 232-242). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34             Conclusions           (paras. 241-242). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35        I.    As regards Article 14 and 18 of the Convention           (paras. 243-248). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36             Conclusions           (paras. 247-248). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36        J.    As regards Article 25 of the Convention           (paras. 249-255). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36             Conclusion           (para. 255) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37        K.    Recapitulation           (paras. 256-265). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. H. DANELIUS. . . . . . . . 39 JOINED BY Mr. C.A. NØRGAARD ON THE ISSUE UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE CONVENTION   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK AND . . .    40 MR. A. WEITZEL CONCERNING ARTICLES 3, 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK CONCERNING. 46 ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. A. WEITZEL CONCERNING. .    47 ARTICLE 25 OF THE CONVENTION   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. J. LIDDY   . . . . . . . . 48   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. I. CABRAL BARRETO. . . . . 49   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. N. BRATZA. . . . . . . . . 50 JOINED ON THE WHOLE OPINION BY MR. H.G. SCHERMERS AND ON THE ISSUE UNDER ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION JOINED BY MR. C. A. NØRGAARD   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. G. RESS. . . . . . . . . . 52   APPENDIX   : DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE             ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION. . . . . . . . 54   I.    INTRODUCTION   1.    The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.    The application   2.    The applicants are Turkish citizens who were residents of the village of Kelekçi in the Dicle district of the province of Diyarbakir. They were represented before the Commission by Professor K. Boyle and Ms. F. Hampson, both teachers at the University of Essex.   3.    The application is directed against Turkey. The respondent Government were represented by its Agent, Mr. B. Çaglar.   4.    The applicants allege that their homes were burnt and that they were forcibly and summarily expelled from their village by State security forces on 10 November 1992.   They invoke Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   B.    The proceedings   5.    The application was introduced on 3 May 1993 and registered on 18 May 1993.   6.    On 30 August 1993 the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.   7.    The Government's observations were submitted on 15 February 1994, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose.   The applicants replied on 19 April 1994.   8.    On 27 June 1994 the Commission decided to hold a hearing of the parties in Strasbourg on 18 October 1994, jointly with two other cases: No. 21894/93, Akkum and others v. Turkey, and No. 21987/93, Aksoy v. Turkey. Prior to the hearing, the parties submitted additional material: the applicants on 15 August, 23 September and 4 and 10 October 1994, the Government on 4 and 7 October 1994. The applicants were granted legal aid on 14 October 1994.   9.    At the hearing on 18 October 1994, the Government were represented by Mr. B. Çaglar, Agent, Mr. S. Alpaslan, Mr. M. Özmen, Ms. D. Akçay and Mr. H. Golsong, all counsel, and Ms. i. Boivin, Mr. i. Kovar, Mr. A. Kurudal, Mr. F. Erdogan, Mr. Y. Kizilkaya, Mr. C. Duatepe and Ms. S.B. Ersöz, all experts.   The applicants were represented by Professor K. Boyle and Ms. F. Hampson, both counsel, Mr. S. Aslantas, legal adviser from the Diyarbakir Bar, and Mr. M. Yildiz, assistant.   10.   On 19 October 1994 the Commission declared the application admissible.   11.   On 7 December 1994 the Commission decided to take oral evidence in respect of the applicants' allegations. It appointed three delegates for this purpose: Mr. H. Danelius, Mr. I. Cabral Barreto and Mr. N. Bratza.   12.   The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 14 December 1994 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished. They were also invited to indicate the oral evidence they wished to put before the delegates. The Government submitted observations on 14 February 1995, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose. In those observations, the Government invited the Commission to declare the application inadmissible, pursuant to Article 29 of the Convention. Amongst the material submitted by the Government was an undated video of an interview with Hüseyin Akdivar and Ahmet Çiçek, who, it later appeared, was a cousin of the applicant with the same name. Further video material was submitted by the Government on 8 March 1995.   13.   The parties indicated the names of possible witnesses: the applicants on 1 January, 13 February and 21 March 1995, the Government on 16 and 21 January and 5 April 1995.   14.   Protests about alleged governmental intimidation of applicants, witnesses and local lawyers involved in the case, in violation of Article 25 of the Convention, were lodged with the Commission by the applicants' representatives on 1 January, 7, 8 and 9 March and 18 April 1995.   15.   Evidence was heard by the delegation of the Commission in Diyarbakir on 13 and 14 March 1995, and in Ankara from 12 to 14 April 1995. At the first hearing the Government submitted further video material. Before the delegates the Government were represented by Mr. B. Çaglar, Agent, assisted by Mr. T. Özkarol, Mr. N. Akinci, Mr. A Someren, Ms. B. Pekgöz, Mr. i. Kovar, Mr. A. Kurudal, Mr. F. Erdogan, Mr. Y. Kizilkaya and Mr. A. Kaya. The applicants were represented by Professor K. Boyle and Ms. F. Hampson, counsel, assisted by Ms. A. Reidy and Ms. J. Cunnison.   16.   On 20 May 1995 the Commission decided to invite the parties to present their conclusions on the merits of the case at a hearing to be held in Strasbourg. A pre-hearing memorial on the merits was submitted by the applicants' representatives on 23 June 1995.   17.   The hearing of conclusions was held on 3 July 1995, the case having been disjoined at this stage from those mentioned above (para. 8). The Government were represented by Mr. B. Çaglar, Agent, advised by Ms. D. Akçay, Mr. T. Özkarol, Mr. Y. Kizilkaya and Ms. i. Boivin. The applicants were represented by Professor K. Boyle and Ms. F. Hampson, counsel, assisted by Ms. A. Reidy.   18.   Further documentary evidence was submitted by the applicants' representatives on 14 June 1995 and by the Government on 10 July 1995.   19.   On 17 October 1995 the Commission decided that there was no basis on which to apply Article 29 of the Convention.   20.   After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.    The present Report   21.   The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:             MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President                H. DANELIUS                C.L. ROZAKIS                C.A. NØRGAARD                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                A. WEITZEL                J.-C. SOYER                H.G. SCHERMERS           Mrs. G.H. THUNE           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                J. MUCHA                D. SVÁBY                G. RESS   22.   The text of this Report was adopted on 26 October 1995 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   23.   The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:        (i)   to establish the facts, and        (ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose           a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under           the Convention.   24.   The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is attached hereto as an Appendix.   25.   The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   26.   The facts of the case, particularly concerning events in November 1992, are disputed by the parties. For this reason, pursuant to Article 28 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, the Commission has conducted an investigation, with the assistance of the parties, and has accepted written material, as well as oral testimony, which has been submitted. The Commission first presents a brief outline of the events, as claimed by the parties, and then a summary of the evidence submitted to it.   A.    The particular circumstances of the case   27.   The applicants, Turkish nationals, all lived in the village of Kelekçi, in the Dicle district of the province of Diyarbakir.   28.   The applicants' village was attacked by the PKK, an armed terrorist group, on 17 or 18 July 1992. Three people died (the uncle and two cousins of the applicant Ahmet Çiçek), and three others were injured (the father, uncle and cousin of the applicant Abdurrahman Aktas).   29.   On the night of 1 November 1992 between 100 and 150 PKK terrorists attacked the gendarme station at a neighbouring village, Bogazköy, with heavy weapons, killing a soldier and injuring eight others. The Bogazköy gendarme station collapsed under the bombardment and had to be evacuated.   30.   Searches were then made of the surrounding area by the security forces in an attempt to find the terrorists concerned.   31.   According to the applicants, on 10 November 1992, in the evening, soldiers entered their village. These forces included, in addition to regular military forces, a group of soldiers known as "special teams" who are trained for anti-terrorist operations.   32.   The soldiers instructed Hüseyin Akdivar, who was the mayor of the village, to evacuate all the inhabitants immediately. According to the applicants, while the mayor attempted to call the people together, the soldiers set fire to a number of houses including those of the mayor, his son and other houses belonging to the applicants. A total of nine houses and their contents were burnt to the ground.   33.   Following the destruction of the houses, many of the inhabitants left the village. Most went to the city of Diyarbakir. Some who had relatives there moved in with them. Others were homeless.   34.   On 6 April 1993, after having been tipped off about an imminent PKK attack, the security forces returned to Kelekçi and set fire to the rest of the village.   35.   Kelekçi has now been completely evacuated since most of the houses were destroyed, particularly during the further military attack on the village in April 1993.   36.   The applicants are in difficulties, having received no compensation from the State, although some food and clothing were provided to villagers after these incidents.   37.   According to the Government, after the PKK attack on the   Kelekçi village in July 1992, the villagers began to evacuate their homes voluntarily as they felt insecure there. Three families later returned.   38.   After the attack on Bogazköy gendarme station on 1 November 1992, the security forces made a search of the area and found several deserted terrorist shelters containing food and clothes. Originally it was stated that Kelekçi had been searched without any damage being caused. Subsequently, officers testified that no search had been made of Kelekçi and no troops had entered the village on 10 November 1992. Soldiers had merely stopped on the outskirts of the village around that date for a rest.   39.   On 6 April 1993 the security forces searched Kelekçi without causing any damage. They noticed the return to the village of three families, as well as the collapse of several mud houses which had not resisted the effects of the winter climate in the absence of any maintenance. Later that night, after the security forces had left, terrorists returned to the village and set fire to the remaining houses.   B.    The evidence before the Commission        a)    Documentary and audio-visual evidence   40.   The parties submitted various documents, photographs, sketches and video cassettes to the Commission. The documents included reports about Turkey, its judicial system and certain case-law, statistics concerning, inter alia, prosecutions of officials for allegedly unlawful acts, and affidavits from some of the applicants and witnesses concerning the authenticity of their applications to the Commission and their version of the events in the case.   41.   The Commission had particular regard to the following documents:        aa)   General reports        (1)   Report dated 23 September 1994 by Bekir Selçuk,           Chief Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakir State           Security Court, to the Ministry of Justice   42.   Bekir Selçuk reported that the PKK attacked Kelekçi on 17 July 1992, killing Adem Çiçek, Ahmet Çiçek and Ali Aktas, and wounding three other persons. They then attacked Bogazköy gendarme station, killing a gendarme and wounding eight others. This conflict spread to Kelekçi where subsequently nine houses were burnt and damaged in the clashes between the terrorists and the security forces. The village was abandoned as a result, the villagers being in fear of the PKK. The remaining abandoned houses at Kelekçi were burnt on 6 April 1993.   43.   According to the report no application from the victims of these incidents has been made to the authorities, i.e. the District Council, the District Attorney or the Dicle courts.   44.   Hüseyin Akdivar, mayor of Kelekçi, had denied to the authorities that he had applied to the Commission, and Abdurrahman Aktas and Ahmet Çiçek had stated that they were called to the Diyarbakir Human Rights Association and signed petitions, which had been prepared in advance and which they did not read, in order to receive compensation. They have since acknowledged that these petitions, which were forwarded to the Commission, were untrue.        (2)   Exploratory report dated 21 September 1994 by           Bekir Selçuk and others   45.   The report states that, in order to evaluate the existing evidence regarding the incidents of 1 November 1992 at Bogazköy and of 6 April 1993 at Kelekçi and to collect further evidence, an exploratory mission had been set up. A team composed of Bekir Selçuk, a photographer and Mehmet Nur Taranci, a construction engineer and expert of the Directorate of Public Works, had travelled to the area concerned by helicopter on 21 September 1994. The team landed at Bogazköy but not at Kelekçi. They noted, however, during low level flights that all the houses at Kelekçi had collapsed and that there were no inhabitants in the village.   46.   In a special statement, Mehmet Nur Taranci declared that the collapse of the houses at Kelekçi was the result of a lack of maintenance. It was due to natural causes and to the material used in the construction of the houses.        (3)   Incident report dated 8 April 1993 by           Gendarmerie Officers Gürsel Demirtas, Tayfur Nur           and others, also signed by several inhabitants           of Kelekçi, including Hüseyin Akdivar and           Abdullah Karabulut   47.   The report describes the events at Kelekçi on 6 April 1993. It states that on that day a military unit came to the village, completed their search activities by 13.00 hours and returned to their posts without causing any damage or destruction. After the military had left the village, unidentified armed members of a terrorist organisation had, according to certain accounts, arrived at the village at around 18.00 hours on the same day. This group had entered and spread around the village. They had then set fire to some of the houses. They had pressured the residents into claiming that the military had set fire to their houses. Various residents of the village had not been present at the time of the incident. Their houses were built of mud bricks, and during the winter these residents remained in Diyarbakir. They only returned and lived in the village for a short period during the summer.        bb) Statements by applicants        Hüseyin Akdivar        (4)   Statement dated 15 April 1993 by Hüseyin           Akdivar, mayor of Kelekçi, to gendarmes   48.   Hüseyin Akdivar recounted that villagers had told him that Kelekçi had been burnt some 10 days before, but he did not know who had done it.        (5)   Statement dated 22 September 1994 of           Hüseyin Akdivar to the Chief Public Prosecutor           Bekir Selçuk and others   49.   Hüseyin Akdivar confirmed the attack on Bogazköy gendarme station on 1 November 1992, and the subsequent burning of nine houses in Kelekçi. However, he had not seen who had committed this latter deed as he had been out with the security forces helping them with their searches. He had petitioned the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister and the state of emergency governor for the houses to be rebuilt and their losses compensated. He had not applied to the district authorities or the Commission.        (6)   A transcript dated 19 November 1994 of questions           and answers between Hüseyin Akdivar and officers           of the Operation and Security Section   50.   In answer to the question whether he had applied to the Commission alleging that his village had been forcibly evacuated and houses burnt, Hüseyin Akdivar stated that he had applied to the gendarme station and the district mayor's office but to nobody else. The villagers had evacuated the village for security reasons. He had heard that terrorists had come to the village, as with all other villages, but he had never seen any.        Abdurrahman Akdivar        (7)   Statement dated 14 November 1992 of           Abdurrahman Akdivar, a Kelekçi villager, to the           Diyarbakir Human Rights Association   51.   Abdurrahman Akdivar stated that on 10 November 1992 a military special team arrived at Kelekçi, ordered his father, the mayor, to gather the villagers together, and burnt down nine houses, including that of his family, without explanation. The households concerned had to migrate elsewhere or were homeless. They were financially and psychologically ruined.          Ahmet Ciçek        (8)   Statement dated 16 April 1994 of Ahmet Çiçek           (born in 1968), a Kelekçi villager, to the           Diyarbakir Human Rights Association, witnessed           by Mahmut Sakar   52.   Ahmet Çiçek stated that he had witnessed soldiers burning houses at Kelekçi on 10 November 1992. Some villagers were beaten up. Thereafter, the villagers started leaving. On 5 April 1993 when he was in the vicinity of the village tending the vineyards, soldiers again burnt houses and beat up any one who spoke.   53.   He did not ask the State for help with his financial difficulties because he knew it would be fruitless. He had heard that other villagers had been summoned by the Dicle District Governorship and District Gendarme Command and told they would get aid if they said that the village had not been burnt by State forces, but by terrorists. Villagers had signed statements to this effect without knowing their exact content, but had received no aid. He confirmed his application to the Commission.        Abdurrahman Aktas        (9)   Statement (undated but probably around           20 April 1993) of Abdurrahman Aktas, a Kelekçi           villager, to gendarmes   54.   Abdurrahman Aktas stated that soldiers came to Kelekçi on 6 April 1993 and searched causing no damage. That evening terrorists came and burnt down the village. He recalled the incident in July 1992 when terrorists had come to the village, killed three people and injured three others. He asserted that the villagers always help the State and have always shown respect. They have never helped the terrorists. He wished for State help in the difficult circumstances that were being faced.        (10) Statement dated 22 September 1994 of Abdurrahman           Aktas to the Chief Public Prosecutor Bekir           Selçuk and others   55.   Abdurrahman Aktas stated that he had left Kelekçi after his father had been killed during the PKK attack in July 1992. He had no knowledge of subsequent incidents. He was later called by the Diyarbakir Human Rights Association and promised compensation if he made an application. He confirmed his signature on the application made to the Commission.        cc) Statements by other persons        Ahmet Aksakal        (11) Statement dated 20 April 1993 of Ahmet Aksakal,           a Kelekçi villager, to gendarmes   56.   Ahmet Aksakal stated that soldiers had come to the village 15-20 days earlier at about 11.00 hours. They searched the houses one by one and later left without doing any harm or causing any damage. On the same day in the evening a group of armed terrorists entered the village and started destroying it. These terrorists had already come to the village in July 1992. Then they had killed three people and disabled three others by injuring them. He added that the villagers have always been respectful and helpful to the State, and do not like to help those who rebel against the State. They wanted help from the State in their difficult conditions.        Ahmet Aktas        (12) Statement dated 20 April 1993 of Ahmet Aktas, a           Kelekçi villager, to gendarmes   57.   Ahmet Aktas stated that about 15 days earlier, around 11.00 hours, soldiers had come to the village for a search. After they had completed their search, they left the village without doing any harm. In the evening of the same day an armed group of terrorists came and set fire to the houses in the village and destroyed them. Then they left the village. Those terrorists had killed three people and wounded three others in July 1992. He pointed out that the villagers have always been respectful and helpful to the State. They have never helped terrorists, nor will they do so. They wanted the State to help them in their difficult situation.        (13) Statement dated 22 September 1994 of Ahmet Aktas           to the Chief Public Prosecutor Bekir Selçuk and           others   58.   Ahmet Aktas stated that on 18 July 1992 the village was ambushed by members of the PKK. The ambush resulted in the loss of three lives, and three other persons were wounded. One of the dead was his brother Ali. Following the incident Ahmet Aktas left the village and moved to Diyarbakir. On 1 November 1992 and 6 April 1993 other incidents took place in the village, but, as he was then in Diyarbakir, he was not aware of the particulars. However, his house was burnt as a result of these incidents. He did not know if it was burnt in connection with the first or the second incident. Nor did he know how the fire began and who started it.        Fahri Akyüz        (14) Statement (apparently from April 1993) of           Fahri Akyüz, a Kelekçi villager, to gendarmes   59.   Fahri Akyüz stated that 15 days earlier at about 11.00 hours soldiers had come to the village for a search. They searched and left the village without any harm. In the evening of the same day a group of terrorists came to the village. They set fire to the houses and destroyed them. Those terrorists had come to the village in July 1992, had killed three people and wounded another three. He further stated that the villagers have always been respectful and helpful to the State. They were now under difficult conditions and wanted the Government to help them.        (15) Statement dated 23 September 1994 of Fahri Akyüz           to the Chief Public Prosecutor Bekir Selçuk and           others   60.   Fahri Akyüz stated that he had not been present in the village during the incidents concerned. However, his house had been burnt down, although he did not know how the fire started or who started it.        Ahmet Çiçek          (16) Statement dated 26 April 1993 of Ahmet Çiçek           (born in 1967), a Kelekçi villager, to gendarmes     61.   Ahmet Çiçek stated that, about 20 days before, soldiers had harmlessly searched the village, but during the night armed terrorists had destroyed the village by fire. He recalled that those terrorists had also come to the village in July 1992, killed three persons and wounded three others. He stated that the villagers had always been respectful and helpful to their State. They have not helped the terrorists and will not do so. He sought Government support because of the very difficult conditions he and others were under.        (17) Statement dated 22 September 1994 of the same           Ahmet Çiçek, apparently to the Chief Public           Prosecutor Bekir Selçuk and others   62.   Ahmet Çiçek stated that Kelekçi and Bogazköy had been attacked on 17 July 1992 and 1 November 1992 respectively, the latter conflict with security forces having extended to Kelekçi. He had left after three days of conflict and had heard that nine houses had been burnt. In the spring of 1993, when he had been tending the vineyards, the village was burnt completely and, as there were only soldiers present in the village then, he assumed that they had done it.   63.   He had subsequently been called to the Diyarbakir Human Rights Association and denied that he had said to gendarmes that terrorists had set fire to the village. Consequently they typed a petition letter for him to the Commission.        (18) A transcript dated 19 November 1994 of questions           and answers between the same Ahmet Çiçek and           officers of the Operation and Security Section   64.   Ahmet Çiçek stated that he had not made an application to the Diyarbakir Human Rights Association on 1 November 1992 declaring that his house had been burnt by security forces. However, he had been called by the Association in April 1993 about the burning that same month which he had supposed had been perpetrated by soldiers. He denied having applied to the Commission.        Mehmet Emin Çiçek        (19) Statement dated 20 April 1993 of Mehmet           Emin Çiçek, a Kelekçi villager, to gendarmes   65.   Mehmet Emin Çiçek stated that, about 15-20 days before, soldiers had come to the village for a search at about 11.00 hours. They searched the houses one by one and left the village without harming the villagers. In the evening of the same day armed people came and set fire to the village. They burnt it down and destroyed it. Terrorists had already come to the village in July 1992 when they had killed three people and handicapped three others by injuries. He stated that the villagers have always been respectful and helpful to the State.   They did not want to help those who rebel against the State. They wanted help from the State in their difficult conditions.        Abdullah Karabulut        (20) Statement dated 20 April 1993 of           Abdullah Karabulut, a Kelekçi villager, to           gendarmes   66.   Abdullah Karabulut stated that the perpetrators of the fire in April 1993 were terrorists. He mentioned that in the attack in July 1992 the terrorists had killed three people and wounded three others. He asserted that the villagers were respectful and helpful to the State. They do not like those who are against the State and did not help them. They wished for State help in the difficult circumstances that were being faced.        (21) Statement dated 22 September 1994 of           Abdullah Karabulut to the Chief Public           Prosecutor Bekir Selçuk and others   67.   Abdullah Karabulut stated that he had left the village after the PKK attack in July 1992. He heard from others that after the conflict in November 1992 villagers of both Bogazköy and Kelekçi had evacuated their homes. He returned to Kelekçi with his father in April 1993 to prune the vineyard. Then the village was set alight. As there were only soldiers in the village, he assumed that it was they who had started the fire.        Ahmet Önal        (22) Statement dated 15 April 1993 of Ahmet Önal, a           Kelekçi villager, to gendarmes   68.   Ahmet Önal asserted that he had always helped the State and that the villagers have always been respectful of the State. They have always been against those who are against the State and certainly did not help them. In July 1992 terrorists had killed three people and wounded three others in Kelekçi. On another occasion at a time when the fields were being tended, armed men had set fire to houses in the village at night, so no one had seen them. He wished the State to help in the difficult circumstances they were facing.        (23) Statement dated 22 September 1994 of Ahmet Önal           to the Chief Public Prosecutor Bekir Selçuk and           others   69.   Ahmet Önal stated that he had no knowledge of the events in Kelekçi on 18 July 1992 or 1 November 1992. In the spring of 1993 he had been in Kelekçi working in the vineyards when the village caught fire. Gendarmes were there already. He did not know who had started the fire and had lodged no complaint.        Bedri Özalp        (24) Statement (undated) of Bedri Özalp, a Kelekçi           villager, to the Diyarbakir Human Rights           Association   70.   Bedri Özalp stated that on 10   November 1992 Kelekçi village was raided by a group of soldiers. They came to the village at around 13.00 hours, waited and, in the evening at around 17.30 hours, entered the village. They collected the villagers, and while some of the soldiers waited with the villagers, others went into the village to set houses alight. They burnt the homes of eleven families, including his home, and told the villagers to leave the village. On the following day the villagers evacuated the village. In March 1993 some villagers returned, but after the soldiers had burnt the rest of the houses, they ejected all the villagers again. Bedri Özalp believes that the reason for the burning of the village was that there had previously been village protectors in the village since 1989, but that on 18 July 1992 these protectors had given up their functions.        Adil Simsek        (25) Statement dated 20 April 1993 of Adil Simsek,           a Kelekçi villager, to gendarmes   71.   Adil Simsek stated that he has always been helpful to the State. The village has always been respectful of the State and has never liked or helped those who harm the State. About 20 days before his statement was made, around 11.00 hours, soldiers had come to the village and searched the houses one by one, but had done no damage or harm to anything. After they had left, terrorists came in the evening and set the houses on fire and destroyed them. Adil Simsek was absent from the village. His house together with the things inside burnt down completely. He pointed out that the villagers are always against those people who rebel against the State. They wanted help from the State in their difficult conditions.        (26) Statement (undated) of Adil Simsek to the Chief           Public Prosecutor Bekir Selçuk and others   72.   Adil Simsek stated that on 18 July 1992 he was a temporary village protector at Kelekçi village when the PKK ambushed the village, killed three persons and wounded three others. Following this incident he abandoned the village and settled in Diyarbakir. Subsequently his house was burnt down, but he does not know how this happened or who set it on fire. After 1 November 1992 all the residents left the village.        Hüseyin Yavuz        (27) Statement dated 15 April 1993 of Hüseyin Yavuz, a           Kelekçi villager, to gendarmes   73.   Hüseyin Yavuz stated that about ten days earlier around 11.00 hours soldiers had come to the village to search. They searched the houses one by one and left the village without causing any harm. Later he heard that a few armed terrorists had come to the village in the evening of the same day, had set fire to houses and destroyed them. Afterwards they left the village. In July 1992 terrorists had killed three people and wounded three others in the village. The villagers have always been respectful of their State and people. They do not like those who are against the State and did not help them. They wanted Government help in their difficult conditions.        (28) Statement dated 22 September 1994 by           Hüseyin Yavuz to the Chief Public Prosecutor           Bekir Selçuk and others   74.   Hüseyin Yavuz stated that he had no direct knowledge of the incidents which took place on 18 July 1992 and 1 November 1992. He received news, however, that his house was burnt, and when he went there, he saw that the house was actually burnt. He did not know how it was burnt or by whom.        Mehmet Yavuz        (29) Statement dated 15 April 1993 of Mehmet Yavuz, a           Kelekçi villager, to gendarmes     75.   Mehmet Yavuz stated that he was a member of the village council and that he had always helped the State. While he was in the village ten days ago, at about 11.00 hours, soldiers came to the village for a search. They searched the houses one by one and left the village without doing any harm. He heard that later on armed terrorists had come to the village in the evening, set fire to houses and then left. In July 1992 terrorists had killed three people and wounded three others in the village. He stated that the villagers have always been respectful of the State. They do not like those who are against the State and did not help them. They wanted Government help in their difficult situation.        (30) Statement dated 22 September 1994 of           Mehmet Yavuz to the Chief Public Prosecutor           Bekir Selçuk and others   76.   Mehmet Yavuz stated that he was elected a member of the village council in 1989. At that time there were 14 temporary village protectors in the village. However there was enormous pressure by the terrorist organisation to give up their positions. The village was ambushed on 18 July 1992 by the PKK in order to suppress the village protectors and make them give up their positions. The result of the ambush was that three persons died and three others were wounded. After this incident the village protectors gave up their duties. On 1 November 1992, when Mehmet Yavuz was not in the village, the Bogazköy gendarme station was attacked by terrorists. He heard that this developed into a ten day struggle, and that the safety of the Kelekçi villagers was jeopardised. They collectively evacuated the village on 10 November 1992. Since Mehmet Yavuz never returned to the village, he had no knowledge of the incident which took place on 6 April 1993. He was only told that his house had burnt.        b)    Oral evidence   77.   The evidence of 14 witnesses heard by the Commission's delegation may be summarised as follows:        (1) Hüseyin Akdivar   78.   Hüseyin Akdivar stated that he was born in 1943 and was the mayor of Kelekçi. He is the father of Abdurrahman Akdivar and the brother of Ahmet and Ali