CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 31 janvier 2002

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 39 February 2002 Adalı v. Turkey (dec.) - 38187/97 Decision 31.1.2002 [Section I] Article 2 Article 2-1 Life Murder of journalist in the “TRNC” by unidentified perpetrators: admissible Article 3 Inhuman treatment Alleged repeated acts of intimidation by the authorities: admissible The applicant’s husband, Kutlu Adalı, was a Turkish Cypriot writer and journalist, known for his articles in which he strongly criticised the policies and practices of the Turkish Government and the authorities of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (hereafter, the “TRNC”). He was in favour of a united democratic republic for Turkish and Greek Cypriots. On 6 July 1996, he was shot dead in front of his house in the “TRNC” by unidentified persons. The applicant alleges that her husband’s murder was a manifestation of a continuing practice on the part of the authorities of the “TRNC” to try and silence voices of dissent by organising or encouraging the disappearance of those seen as opponents of the authorities. She claims that she could not get any assurances from the authorities that an effective investigation was being carried out into her husband’s assassination, as she received no specific information whenever she contacted them. In that respect, she maintains that she could not attend the coroner’s inquest as she had not been informed about it and that she was never sent a copy of its official outcome. In addition, she claims that she was denied effective access to court in order to have determined a right to compensation for his murder, which she alleged had been committed by agents of the “TRNC” or Turkey. The applicant also alleges that plain-clothed policemen followed her and that her telephone calls were tapped. She claims that she received several threatening telephone calls and that her telephone and fax were often being disconnected on purpose. She further submits that her correspondence was being controlled and refers to the small number of letters of condolences that she had received following her husband’s death. She also claims that she refused an invitation to receive an award in her husband’s name in southern Cyprus after having received a telephone call of intimidation from a high-ranking official of the “TRNC” authorities. She and her daughter were later refused permission to go to southern Cyprus in order to attend a meeting to which they had been invited. On the anniversary of her husband’s death, in 1997, she organised a ceremony to commemorate his death and inaugurate a foundation in his memory. On the day of the ceremony, municipal works started on the street where their house was. According to her, it was aimed at preventing people from attending the ceremony. She further complains that the “TRNC” refused to register the foundation in her late husband’s name. Finally, she contends that the respondent Government tried to hinder the effective exercise of her right to apply to the Court. She states that on 4 December 1999 she met the former agent of Turkey in a meeting in Cyprus and that he allegedly questioned her about her application and threatened that if the Court found in her favour she would be assassinated and her daughter’s scholarship would be cut. Admissible under Articles 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 34 of the Convention.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes