CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 décembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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   801 19.12.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ANTER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Anter and Others v. Turkey (application no. 55983/00).   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’ father; a violation of Article 2 on account of the lack of an effective investigation into the death of the applicants’ father; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants jointly 25,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   Rahşan Anter Yorozlu and Dicle Anter are Turkish nationals who were born in 1948 and 1950 respectively and live in Vasteras (Sweden) and Muğla (Turkey); Anter Anter is a Swedish national who was born in 1945 and lives in Uppsala (Sweden).   The applicants are the children of Musa Anter, a pro-Kurdish politician who was one of the founders of the HEP (People’s Labour Party), director of the Kurdish Institute in Istanbul, a journalist and leader-writer for, among other publications, the weekly newspaper Yeni Ülke and the daily newspaper Özgür Gündem.   He was shot dead in 1992.   Musa Anter was killed by gunshots on 20 September 1992 in Diyarbakır, where he was attending a festival, organised by the local council, to which he had been invited. Orhan Miroğlu, a friend who was accompanying him, was seriously wounded.   The police found 13 cartridges at the scene of the shooting. An autopsy carried out on the day of death showed that Musa Anter had been hit by five bullets and had died as a result of his injuries. The investigators took statements from numerous witnesses: according to several accounts, Musa Anter had held a meeting in his hotel in order to resolve a property dispute; one of the individuals at that meeting, aged between 25 and 30, had taken a taxi to the scene of the incident with the victim and had shot him. The person concerned was allegedly a member of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) named Dijvar. According to a witness, Musa Anter had received several threats from the PKK and had been obliged to leave his native village after refusing to pay the “revolutionary tax”.   To date, Musa Anter’s killer has not been identified.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 22 February 2000 and declared admissible on 7 December 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants complained that their father had been the victim of extrajudicial killing and criticised the lack of an effective and efficacious investigation which would have made it possible to identify those responsible for the murder. They also complained that they had not had an effective remedy to present their complaints. The applicants relied on Articles 2, 13 and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 2 of the Convention   As to Musa Anter’s death The Court notes that there was no evidence to support the applicants’ allegation that their father had been the victim of an extrajudicial killing. However, there were grounds for seriously considering that the perpetrators of the murder were known to the authorities. In this connection, the Court points out that the Susurluk report [3] had found that Musa Anter’s murder was one of a serious of extrajudicial killings committed with the authorities’ knowledge. According to information provided in that report, the authorities were aware of murders committed in order to eliminate presumed supporters of the PKK, such as Musa Anter. This document contained reliable information in support of allegations which were widespread at the relevant time to the effect that groups of counter-revolutionaries, including individuals who had turned state evidence, were targeting people who were presumed to be acting against the State’s interests, with the consent and even the assistance of the security forces.   The Court is persuaded that Musa Anter, a political figure and a well-known pro-Kurdish writer, long known for his involvement in public life, was particularly likely to be attacked. In addition, having regard to the circumstances, that risk could have been considered genuine and imminent, so that the authorities could not have been unaware of it. However, it found that the authorities, who were present in force in the south-east of the country in order to impose public order in view of armed violent attacks perpetrated by the PKK and other groups, could have taken measures to ensure that the victim had had effective protection against an attack.   Having regard to the circumstances of the case and given Musa Anter’s personality, the Court considered that the authorities had not taken those measures which they could reasonably have been expected to in order to prevent the realisation of a definite and imminent threat to Musa Anter’s life. It therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 on account of the killing of the applicants’ father.   As to the investigation into Musa Anter’s death The Court noted that the authorities had immediately conducted an investigation. However, certain information which came to light subsequent to the event and was of direct relevance to Musa Anter’s killing, such as the Susurluk report, did not seem to have been used by the authorities.   The Court concluded that the Turkish authorities had not carried out an adequate and effective investigation into the death of the applicants’ relative. Accordingly, it concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 in this respect. It held that the complaint under Article 14 was based on the same facts as those examined under Article 2, and ruled that it was not necessary to examine it separately.   Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention   The Court decided to examine the complaints based on the lack of an effective remedy under Article 13 alone. It noted that the authorities were obliged to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the killing of the applicants’ father. It could not be considered that an effective criminal investigation had been carried out in accordance with Article 13, the requirements of which went further than the obligation to carry out an investigation imposed by Article 2. Consequently, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 13.       ***   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. [3] “Susurluk” is a location where, in November 1996, an accident took place, involving a vehicle containing a member of parliament, the former deputy director of security for Istanbul, a right-wing extremist and a drug trafficker sought by Interpol, as well as the latter’s girlfriend; the last three individuals were killed. The fact that those individuals had been in each other’s company had shocked public opinion, to the extent that it was necessary to open several judicial investigations at various levels and to conduct a parliamentary inquiry.