CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 19 octobre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   611 19.10.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KAMER DEMİR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Kamer Demir and Others v. Turkey (application no. 41335/98).   The Court held unanimously that there had been:   a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the death of the applicants’ relative; a violation of Article 2 on account of the lack of an investigation into the death of the applicants’ relative; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants 50,000   euros (EUR) jointly for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses, less the EUR 739 they had already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The nine applicants, Kamer Demir and his daughters Dilif Demir, Ani Demir, Elif Demir, Sultan Demir, Besime Demir, Saniye Demir, Gülfen Demir and Perihan Demir, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1934, 1953, 1959, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1967, 1971 and 1975 respectively and live in Tunceli (Turkey). Their wife and mother, Azimet Demir, died on 30   July 1997.   At the material time, the applicants lived in the village of Karşılar in Tunceli province, which was then under the state of emergency decreed in south-east Turkey because of serious clashes between security forces and members of the PKK.   On 30 July 1997, at around 11 p.m., troops from Geyiksuyu gendarmerie command fired mortar shells in the direction of Karşılar village, located some 15 km from their base. Around twenty dwellings, including those of the applicants, were damaged by the shells. Mrs   Azimet   Demir was fatally wounded close to her house while attempting to take shelter in a neighbour’s cellar. Several other villagers were wounded.   The following day an investigation was launched under the authority of the public prosecutor, in the course of which official reports were drawn up on the damage caused, photographs were taken, witness statements were gathered and an autopsy was performed on the dead woman’s body. The autopsy revealed multiple injuries and established the cause of death as an abdominal wound caused by “a high-velocity firearm”.   The investigation was subsequently referred to Tunceli Administrative Council in accordance with the Prosecution of Civil Servants Act. On 15 January 1998 the administrative council issued an order discontinuing the proceedings against 27 gendarmes who had been on duty at the Geyiksuyu base. According to the administrative council, the gendarmes in question had shelled the Istıran region, where a former military base was located, in an attempt to ward off a terrorist attack from that direction which posed a threat to the village of Geyiksuyu; there was insufficient evidence to conclude that they had intentionally targeted the village of Karşılar. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the order discontinuing the proceedings, which had been automatically submitted to it for consideration.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 16 January 1998 and allocated to the Court on 1 November 1998.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , John Hedigan (Irish), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), judges , and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants complained that the gendarmes had intentionally fired shells in the direction of their village and had caused the death of their relative. They further complained that, although those presumed responsible had been identified, they had not had to stand trial. The applicants relied in particular on Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention.         Decision of the Court   Article 2   As to the death of Mrs Azimet Demir The Court acknowledged that the situation in south-east Turkey at the relevant time had required Turkey to take exceptional measures in order to regain control of the region and put an end to acts of violence. Such measures might undoubtedly involve the deployment of artillery units.   The Court’s task was to ascertain whether the use of force had been justified in the applicant’s case. However, it had little information at its disposal in that regard, as the Turkish Government had not provided it with any information on the steps taken to assess and prevent possible harm to civilians.   It was clear, in the Court’s view, that the gendarmes, in contemplating the deployment of troops equipped with heavy weaponry in a populated area, had had a duty also to weigh up the risks inherent in such a course of action. However, there was no indication that such considerations had played a significant part in the preparation of the operation.   As it was unable to find that the necessary precautions had been taken, in preparing and carrying out the operation, to protect the lives of civilians, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 2 with regard to Turkey’s obligation to protect the life of the applicants’ relative.   As to the investigation into the events leading to the death of Mrs Azimet Demir The Court noted that the investigation had been referred to the Tunceli Administrative Council in accordance with the Prosecution of Civil Servants Act. It observed that it had already ruled in several cases that investigations carried out by the administrative councils gave rise to serious concerns, given that the councils were not independent from the executive. Furthermore, the administrative council’s examination had resulted in an order discontinuing the proceedings which had been upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court, thus bringing the investigation to a close.   In the circumstances, the Court concluded that the investigation had not been carried out by an independent body and held that there had been a violation of Article 2 on this point also.   Article 13   The Court also held that there had been a violation of Article   13, as the lack of an effective investigation had deprived the applicants of access to other remedies theoretically available to them, such as filing a claim for damages.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).       Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.     [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.