CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 16 juillet 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .sE13D6592 { margin-left:10.52pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:17.83pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .s8242CF8E { width:39.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     377   16.7.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ÜLKÜ EKINCI v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey (application no. 27602/95). The Court held:   unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights as regards the applicant’s allegation that her husband was killed in circumstances engaging the responsibility of Turkey;   by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article   2 on account of the failure of the Turkish authorities to conduct an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of the applicant’s husband;   unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment);   by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article   13 (right to an effective remedy);   unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article   6 (right to a fair trial) nor to examine separately whether there had been a violation of Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court, by six votes to one, awarded the applicant 15,590 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 5,200.85 pounds sterling for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   Ülkü Ekinci is a Turkish national of Kurdish origin, born in 1946 and resident in Ankara.   Her late husband, Yusuf Ekinci, born in Lice (south-east Turkey), was a lawyer and a member of a well-known Turkish family of Kurdish origin. During his studies, he worked for the Turkish Workers Party ( Türkiye İşçi Partisi ) and was a member of the Eastern Revolutionary Cultural Grouping ( Doğu Devrimci Kültür Ocakları ).   On 24 February 1994, at about 18.30 p.m., Yusuf Ekinci left Ankara city centre driving a red Toyota.   On 25 February 1994, at about 12.30 hours, road workers found Yusuf Ekinci’s body alongside the E-90 TEM highway in Gölbaşı on the outskirts of Ankara. A criminal investigation was opened into his death and an autopsy, carried out on 26 February 1994, found 11 bullet entry wounds on his body and concluded that he had died of bullet wounds to the head and breast.   In 1998 the applicant allegedly succeeded in contacting an eye-witness - whose identity has not been disclosed - who claimed he had seen a police patrol car stop a red Toyota, that the police officers had searched the driver and that a police officer had got into the Toyota, which drove off with the police patrol car. However, out of fear, the witness had refused to give a written statement. An account given by the witness was reported on the Internet site of the national daily newspaper Hürriyet .   The applicant submits that the killing of her husband was one of about 400 so-called “unknown perpetrator” killings in 1994, as documented by both Amnesty International and the Turkish Human Rights Foundation. The principal victims included prominent Kurdish businessmen and intellectuals. At the time Yusuf Ekinci was killed, the focal point of the campaign against terrorism was Lice and its surrounding villages. Moreover, the method used in the killing of Yusuf Ekinci was identical to that used in the murders of intellectuals and businessmen of Kurdish origin in the main Turkish cities in 1994.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 4 May 1995 and allocated to the former First Section of the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared admissible on 8 June 1999.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), judges , Feyyaz Gölcüklü , (Turkish), ad hoc judge   and also Lawrence Early , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant alleged that her husband was killed by one or more unknown perpetrators acting with the knowledge and under the auspices of the Turkish authorities, and that there was no effective investigation into his killing. She relied on Articles 2, 3, 6, 13 and 14.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   Whether Yusuf Ekinci was killed in circumstances engaging the responsibility of Turkey The Court noted that there was no indication in the case-file that the applicant’s husband had been threatened by anyone, or that he had had reason to believe that his life was at risk. Neither were there any eye-witnesses to the killing. The witness referred to by the applicant had remained anonymous and, reportedly, was unwilling to give a written statement. The only forensic evidence available consisted of a number of bullets found at the scene of the crime. A forensic examination of this evidence resulted in a finding that the bullets had all been fired from the same weapon and that they bore no resemblance to bullets previously examined.   The Court further noted that the investigating authorities looked for possible leads in Yusuf Ekinci’s professional and private circles. It appeared from various statements taken that one of the clients of his law practice was Behçet Cantürk, who had been killed one month earlier in similar circumstances. It further appeared from the Susurluk Report, commissioned and made public in January 1998 by the Prime Minister, that there were strong indications that State agents were in fact involved in the killing of Behçet Cantürk, that he was killed for supporting the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) from the proceeds of drug trafficking and that the Turkish authorities were aware of the existence of a list containing the names of about 100 businessmen, including Behçet Cantürk, who were believed to be providing the PKK with financial support. The Court observed that it was undisputed that Yusuf Ekinci was a wealthy person of Kurdish origin and that, at least in the past, he had publicly stated that he was a Kurdish nationalist and, to a certain extent, he had been politically active until 1990. It was therefore surprising that the investigating authorities had, from the very outset, failed to see the link between Yusuf Ekinci and Behçet Cantürk. In view of the above, the applicant’s allegation that her husband was killed by or at least with the connivance of State agents could not be dismissed as untenable.   However, on the basis of the material in its possession, the Court was of the opinion that the actual circumstances in which the applicant’s husband had died remained a matter of speculation and assumption and that, accordingly, there was an insufficient evidentiary basis on which to conclude that the applicant’s husband was, beyond reasonable doubt, killed by or with the connivance of State agents in the circumstances alleged by the applicant.   As to the alleged inadequacy of the investigation The Court recalled that the mere fact that the authorities were informed of the killing of the applicant’s husband gave rise to an obligation under Article 2 to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death.   Regarding the question of whether the criminal investigation in question could be considered adequate and effective, the Court had already noted that there was a striking omission in the investigation from the very outset, namely the failure to make the connection between Yusuf Ekinci and Behçet Cantürk who was killed one month earlier in similar circumstances. Even when, subsequently, various official reports on the Susurluk incident had been made or became public and reinforced the relevance of the connection between the two men, no investigation was carried out into the possibility that there might be a link between the two killings and that State agents might possibly have been involved in the latter’s death. As pointed out by the applicant, the criminal investigation into her husband’s killing was mainly focused on his family and friends and on his professional contacts and activities.   In those circumstances, the Court could not but conclude that the investigation by the Turkish authorities into the circumstances surrounding the killing of the applicant’s husband was neither adequate nor effective. There had therefore been a breach of the State’s procedural obligation under Article 2 to protect the right to life.   Article 3 Although the Court accepted that the inadequacy of the investigation into the killing might have caused the applicant feelings of anguish and mental suffering, the Court considered that it has not been established that there were special features which would justify finding a violation of Article 3 in relation to the applicant herself.   Article 13 The Court noted that the authorities had an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of the killing of the applicant’s husband, which could not be considered to have been conducted. There had therefore been a violation of Article 13.     Judge Gölcüklü expressed a partly dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) or   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [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.