Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)69
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Actions of the security forces in Turkey
Progress achieved and outstanding issues
General measures to ensure compliance with the judgments of the
European Court of Human Rights in the cases against Turkey concerning actions of members of the security forces (listed in Appendix II)
(Follow-up to Interim Resolutions DH(99)434, DH(2002)98 and ResDH(2005)43)
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers
on 18 September 2008,
at the 1035th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)
General measures to ensure compliance with the judgments of the
European Court of Human Rights in the cases against Turkey concerning actions of members of the security forces (listed in Appendix II)
(Follow-up to Interim Resolutions DH(99)434, DH(2002)98 and ResDH(2005)43)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”);
Having regard to 175 judgments and decisions in the cases against Turkey listed in Appendix II, in which the European Court of Human Rights (the “Court”) found that there had been numerous violations of the Convention on account of:
- deaths of the applicants’ next-of-kin as a result of excessive use of force by members of security forces;
- failure to protect the right of life of the applicants’ next-of-kin;
- death and/or disappearance of the applicants’ next-of-kin;
- ill-treatment;
- destruction of property and
- lack of effective domestic remedies into the applicants’ complaints;
Bearing in mind that 69 cases involving similar complaints have been struck off the list by the Court following the conclusion of friendly settlements or other solutions found, in particular on the basis of the government’s undertaking to take rapid remedial measures;
Noting that most of the violations in the cases at issue took place against the background of the fight against terrorism in the 1990s and recalling that each contracting state, in combating terrorism, must act in full respect of its obligations under the Convention, as set out in the Court’s judgments, and developed in the Council of Europe Guidelines on human rights and the fight against terrorism;
Noting further that all these violations resulted from various structural problems, in particular;
- ineffectiveness of procedural safeguards in police custody;
- general attitude and practices of members of security forces, their education and training system, inadequacy of the legal framework governing their activities;
- shortcomings in establishing criminal liability for abuses at the domestic level, and
- shortcomings in ensuring adequate reparation to victims.
Recalling that in response to the violations of the Convention found, Turkey has taken important remedial action aimed at
- improving the procedural safeguards in police custody;
- improving the professional training of members of security forces;
- giving direct effect to the Convention requirements;
- providing reparation to victims;
- establishment of enhanced accountability of security forces;
- training of judges and prosecutors.
Bearing in mind the Committee’s assessment of the progress achieved by Turkey in adopting the necessary execution measures, as indicated in the Committee’s Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 of 9 June 1999, DH(2002)98 of 10 July 2002 and ResDH (2005)43 of 7 June 2005 and the further measures identified in those texts to ensure that new, similar violations are prevented;
Recalling that, in Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43, the Committee, in particular:
“Welcomed the adoption of a number of important reforms as well as the ongoing efforts to ensure full compliance with the Convention in these cases;
Expressed satisfaction with the results obtained so far, while encouraging the authorities:
- to consolidate their efforts to improve the procedural safeguards surrounding police custody through the effective implementation of the new Regulations based on the new Code of Criminal Procedure, in the light of the requirements of the Convention and bearing in mind the recommendations of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT);
- to consolidate their efforts to reorganise the basic, in-service and management training of the police and gendarmerie by making use of the results obtained in the Council of Europe/European Commission Joint Initiative, in particular as regards the mainstreaming of human rights into initial and in-service training;
- to take the necessary measures to ensure that the new status of the Convention and the case-law of the Court flowing from the change of Article 90 of the Constitution is translated into the daily practice of the security forces, in particular in the instructions given to them, and that prosecutors and judges are also encouraged to give effect to this new provision;
- to ensure the prompt and efficient implementation of the new “Law on Compensation of the Losses Resulting from Terrorism and from the Measures Taken against Terrorism”, to reconsider its limited time-frame so that all claims can be processed in an impartial manner, and to ensure that individuals do not have to bear a disproportionate burden as a result of lawful actions of the security forces;
- to take the necessary measures to remove any ambiguity regarding the fact that administrative authorisation is no longer required to prosecute any serious crimes allegedly committed by members of security forces;
- to pursue the training provided for judges and prosecutors in the Academy of Justice, in particular by mainstreaming the training on the Convention and the case-law of the Court into the initial and in-service training of judges and prosecutors within the framework of the Academy;
Urged the Turkish authorities regularly to keep the Committee of Ministers informed of the practical impact of the measures taken, including the provision of statistics regarding number of investigations, acquittals and convictions into alleged abuses.”
Assessment of the Committee of Ministers
Having examined the information provided by the Turkish authorities concerning the measures taken since the adoption of Interim Resolution DH(2005)43 and bearing in mind the measures taken by the Turkish authorities since the adoption of the first two interim resolutions mentioned above (see Appendix I for the information submitted by the Turkish authorities);
A. Improvement of procedural safeguards in police custody
Recalling that in its Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43 the Committee has welcomed the additional safeguards introduced in Turkish law for persons held in police custody aiming at combating torture and other forms of ill-treatment effectively, notably with regard to;
- the right of all persons to see a lawyer of their own choosing;
- the right to free legal assistance;
- the right to inform a family member or a designated person of their detention;
- the right of apprehended persons to receive information about their rights and charges against them;
- the right of the suspects’ representative, in principle, to have access to the investigation file;
- the right to a medical examination without the presence of members of security forces;
Emphasising in this respect the importance of regular monitoring of custody records and detention premises by public prosecutors in order to ensure that the detention facilities and custody records comply with the required standards;
Noting the findings of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment (CPT) on its December 2005 visit confirming that “detention by law enforcement agencies (police and gendarmerie) is currently governed by a legislative and regulatory framework capable of combating effectively torture and other forms of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials”;
Encouraging the Turkish authorities to pursue their efforts in ensuring effective implementation of the Turkish legislation with a special focus on the recommendations of the CPT;
DECIDES to close the examination of this issue as the necessary legislative framework is now in place;
B. Improvement of professional training of members of security forces
Noting that human rights has now become a part of the curriculum in the initial training of members of security forces, in particular of the gendarmerie, as a separate subject and as an integrated aspect of other subjects;
Noting further that the Turkish authorities have assured the Committee that they will continue with their efforts to ensure that members of security forces receive initial and in-service training on human rights with a specific focus on the Convention and the Court’s case-law;
DECIDES to close the examination of this issue;
C. Giving direct effect to the Convention requirements
Noting with interest the amendment introduced in June 2007 in “the Law on the duties and legal powers of the police” which now provides that the police are not entitled to use force unless confronted with resistance and that the use of force should be proportionate, be directed to break the resistance, and be increased gradually;
Noting also the detailed instructions given to the gendarmerie with the aim of ensuring that its members comply with the Convention standards in their daily practice and, in particular, use force no more than strictly necessary;
Stressing in this respect that the Committee continues examination of the measures taken and envisaged by the Turkish authorities aiming at ensuring that members of security forces use proportionate force during public demonstrations within the context of the cases of Güzel Şahin and others (No. 68263/01) and Oya Ataman (No. 74552/01);
Welcoming the Circulars of the Minister of Justice drawing the attention of judges and public prosecutors to the shortcomings identified by the Court in its judgments here at issue, in particular with regard to the effectiveness of investigations, as well as Turkey’s obligations flowing from the Convention;
Recalling the Turkish authorities’ repeated commitments before the Committee that the measures taken shall be applied in compliance with the Convention standards by virtue of Article 90 of the Turkish Constitution giving direct effect to the Convention, as well as their undertaking that the implementation of these measures shall strictly be supervised;
DECIDES to close the examination of this issue;
D. Prompt and efficient implementation of the “Law on Compensation of the Losses Resulting from Terrorism and from the Measures taken against Terrorism”
Recalling that the “Law on Compensation” of 27 July 2004 provides a possibility to obtain, directly from the administration, compensation for pecuniary damages caused to natural and legal persons as a result of terrorist activities and operations carried out in combating terrorism during the period of July 1987 to December 2006 with a possibility of judicial review of decisions taken in this respect;
Noting that, within the context of the execution of the judgment in the case of Doğan and Others (no. 8803/02), the Turkish authorities have informed the Committee of the measures taken concerning the implementation of the Law on Compensation, in particular with respect to the work carried out by the Damage Assessment and Compensation Commissions;
Noting with satisfaction that it appears from a substantial number of sample decisions furnished by the Turkish authorities in the above case that persons who have sustained damage in cases of denial of access to property, damage to their property or death or injury can successfully claim compensation by using the remedy offered by the Compensation Law and that therefore the Committee decided to close its examination of this case at its 1028th meeting (June 2008) (see, CM/ResDH(2008)60);
Noting that the effectiveness of the Compensation Law was confirmed by the Court in its decision of 12 January 2006 in the case of İçyer (No. 18888/02) where it found that “the provisions of the Compensation Law are capable of providing adequate redress for the Convention grievances of persons who were denied access to their possessions in their places of residence”;
Taking note of the insurances given by the Turkish authorities on the availability of a wide range of remedies for situations falling outside the Compensation Law, in particular with regard to the continuing practice of the administrative courts of ensuring reparation by the state for damages caused as a consequence of actions of security forces;
DECIDES to close the examination of this issue;
E. Establishment of enhanced accountability of members of security forces
Recalling that the precondition for administrative authorisation required for the investigation of accusations of torture and ill-treatment has been lifted following the amendments introduced in January 2003 to Law No. 4778 on the Prosecution of Civil Servants;
Noting that, with respect to the prosecution of serious crimes other than torture and ill-treatment, there are examples of decisions of courts and prosecutors where prosecutions had been initiated against members of security forces without administrative authorisations having been sought;
Noting however that the amended Turkish legislation appears to have lifted the requirement of administrative authorisations only with respect to allegations of torture and ill-treatment but that it continues to exist with respect to other allegations of serious crimes,
Noting also that highest ranking members of security forces enjoy the special procedures of prosecution applicable to judges;
URGES the Turkish authorities to take the necessary legislative measures to remove any ambiguity regarding the fact that the administrative authorisation is no longer required to prosecute not only for torture and ill-treatment but also any other serious crimes and to ensure that members of security forces of all ranks could be prosecuted without an administrative authorisation;
F. Training of judges and prosecutors
Welcoming the ongoing training activities for judges and prosecutors initiated by the Turkish authorities, in particular on the Convention and the Court’s case-law, as well as the training activities carried out within the context of the Academy of Justice in the form of seminars, conferences and study-visits;
Noting with satisfaction that training on the Convention and the Court’s case-law has now become a part of the curriculum in the initial training of judges and prosecutors at the Academy of Justice;
DECIDES to close the examination of this issue;
G. Practical impact of the measures taken
Noting the statistical information provided with regard to the number of investigations, acquittals and convictions of crimes of torture and ill-treatment between 2003 and the first nine months of 2007;
Noting with interest that the statistical information provided can be interpreted as indicating a slight decrease in the number of investigation files opened since 2003 into allegations of torture and ill-treatment;
Regretting however that no information was made available to the Committee with regard to the number of investigations, convictions and acquittals concerning serious offences other than torture and ill-treatment allegedly committed by members of security forces;
Noting the examples provided of indictments lodged with criminal courts and decisions of those courts demonstrating that allegations of abuses by members of security forces are prosecuted and their criminal accountability is established;
STRONGLY ENCOURAGES the Turkish authorities to actively pursue their “zero tolerance” policy aimed at total eradication of torture and other forms of ill-treatment, as well as their efforts to ensure that the domestic authorities carry out effective investigations into alleged abuses by members of security forces;
URGES the Turkish authorities to provide detailed statistical information regarding the number of investigations, acquittals and convictions into alleged abuses with a view to demonstrating the positive impact of the measures taken so far;
Conclusions of the Committee of Ministers
DECIDES to pursue the supervision of the execution of the present judgments until the Committee has satisfied itself that all outstanding general measures have been adopted and their effectiveness in preventing new, similar violations has been established;
DECIDES to resume consideration of these cases, as regards outstanding general measures, at its third DH meeting in 2009.
Appendix I to Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)69
Information provided by the Government of Turkey to the Committee of Ministers on the general measures to comply with the European Court’s judgments
A. Improvement of procedural safeguards in police custody
1. General regulations and instructions
a. Length of detention in police custody: According to the Code of Criminal Procedure (which came into force on 1 June 2005), the length of detention in police custody shall not exceed 24 hours from the moment of arrest (plus, a maximum period of 12 hours during which a suspect is being brought before a judge) (see Article 91 of the Code). In organised crimes or crimes committed collectively, the detention period shall not exceed 48 hours. In such crimes, the total detention period can be extended to 4 days by a decision of a public prosecutor. After the elapse of 4 days, the accused should be heard by a judge, who is authorised to extend the detention period for further 3 days (this period also applies to crimes committed in areas where a state of emergency is declared) (Article 251§5).
b. Right to inform a family member: Anyone who is apprehended or taken into custody or whose custody period is extended shall have the right to inform a family member (Article 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
c. Right of apprehended persons to receive information about their rights and charges against them at the time they are taken into custody: According to “Regulation on Apprehension, Police custody and Interrogation” (which also came into force on 1 June 2005 and hereinafter referred to as “Regulation”), anyone who is apprehended shall be informed of his/her rights, including the right to appoint a lawyer (of his/her own choosing or to be appointed by the Bar Association), as well as the nature of the charges against him/her (Article 6 of the Regulation). A suspect or an accused shall be given the same information (including the information on the right to remain silent) before being questioned by police officers (Article 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
d. Right to a lawyer: A suspect or an accused shall have the right to a lawyer before being questioned (in private) and during his/her questioning (Articles 147 and 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The provisions of the new Code provide that no statement obtained by security forces in the absence of a lawyer shall be considered as a basis of a conviction unless the suspect or accused confirms that statement before a judge or a court (Article 148 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The new Code also prohibits the statements obtained under torture, ill-treatment or any methods such as medication, tiring, deception or use of physical force or duress to be used as evidence.
A suspect prosecuted under the Anti-terrorism Law (No. 3713) might be restricted to see his/her lawyer in the first 24 hours of custody by a decision of a judge following a request made by a public prosecutor. However, if such a decision is taken, the suspect shall not be interrogated during the first 24 hours (Article 10 of Law No. 3713).
Furthermore, the legal representative of a suspect shall have the right to have access to the investigation file and to obtain documents. The exercise of this right might be restricted by a decision of a judge if it puts the conduct of the investigation into jeopardy (Article 10 of the Regulation).
In a Circular (No. 24) issued by the Minister of Justice on 01/01/2006, the attention of the authorities is drawn to the effective use of the right to a lawyer at the investigation stage in accordance with the requirements of the Convention and of domestic law.
2. Medical examinations
Article 9 of the new Regulation provides the following rules relating to medical examinations:
- All apprehended persons shall be subject to medical examination at the time of their apprehension.
- When a detainee is transferred to another detention area or a decision is taken to prolong the detention period or when a detainee is released, a medical examination shall be carried out before he or she is brought before the judicial authorities.
- Any detainee whose health deteriorates or whose health situation appears to be suspicious while in custody shall immediately be examined by a doctor and be treated if necessary.
- The police officer who interrogates a detainee or carries out the investigation against him or her should not be the same person who brings the detainee to the medical examination unless there is a lack of personnel in the detention premises.
- When requesting a medical examination of a detainee, members of security forces should indicate in writing to the medical team whether such examination is requested at the beginning of custody or upon release.
- Three copies shall be made of medical reports to be prepared on the entry of a detainee. One copy will remain in the medical file, one copy will be given to the detainee and one copy will be kept in the investigation file. Three copies shall be made of medical reports to be prepared following a decision given to prolong the custody period or the transfer of a detainee or his or her leaving custody. One of these copies will remain in the medical file and two copies will be sent to the relevant public prosecutor in a sealed envelope who shall keep copy in the investigation file and submit the other one to the detainee or to his or her representative. Medical personnel should take the necessary precautions to preserve confidentiality.
- If a doctor finds that torture (Article 94 of the Criminal Code), aggravated torture (Article 95 of the Criminal Code) or torment (Article 96 of the Criminal Code) has been inflicted on the detainee, he or she should immediately report the situation to the public prosecutor. The public prosecutor shall take the necessary steps to make sure that a further medical examination be carried out in accordance with Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation on Physical and Genetic Examinations and Identification in Criminal Procedures.
3. Monitoring of custody records and detention premises by public prosecutors:
With the coming into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure, public prosecutors are now authorised to monitor detention premises, in particular cells and interrogation rooms. Public prosecutors are also responsible for monitoring the state of detainees, the reasons for their detention and the length of their detention and all other relevant information in the custody records. Public prosecutors shall note their findings in the custody register (Article 92).
Members of security forces are also under an obligation to ensure that detention premises comply with the standards as enshrined by the Regulation (Article 26).
In a Circular (No.3) issued by the Minister of Justice on 01/01/2006 the authorities have been reminded of their obligations under the Convention and of the case-law of the Court, as well as domestic law provisions, concerning the right to liberty and security and procedural safeguards in police custody. It is emphasised in the Circular that the necessary measures should be taken rapidly in case the detention facilities are found to be below the standards described in the Regulation. Public prosecutors are requested to fill out a form (a sample of which is attached to the Circular) concerning the monitoring of detention facilities and are asked to return the forms to the Ministry of Justice four times in a year so that they can be presented to the Human Rights Coordination Council attached to the Prime Minister’s Office.
4. Report of the Committee of Prevention of Torture (CPT) of 06/09/2006 on the visit to Turkey from 7 to 14 December 2005
The CPT noted in its report that “New Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes, as well as a revised version of the Regulation on Apprehension, Detention and Statement Taking, entered into force on 1 June 2005. These texts have consolidated improvements which had been made in recent years on matters related to the CPT’s mandate. It is more than ever the case that detention by law enforcement agencies (police and gendarmerie) is currently governed by a legislative and regulatory framework capable of combating effectively torture and other forms of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials” (see §12).
The CPT’s findings confirm that progress continues to be made as regards the implementation in practice of the safeguards against ill-treatment, including the length of detention in police custody and proper keeping of custody records.
However, the CPT noted that problems still remained in certain areas, notably as regards the implementation of the legislation concerning the right to access to a lawyer and confidentiality and quality of medical examinations of detainees (see, in particular, §§21 – 29) (for further information, including the recommendations of the CPT, see http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/tur/2006-30-inf-eng.htm).
B. Improvement of professional training of members of security forces
The Turkish authorities have underlined the importance of raising human rights awareness through human rights courses in police colleges and academies and training activities on human rights in general and on the crime of torture and ill-treatment in particular. In this context, the Turkish authorities referred to the various training projects organised in the past, in particular through the Council of Europe/European Commission Joint Initiative.
The Turkish authorities have also submitted extensive information regarding the human rights education of members of security forces. Interested delegations can review this information at the Secretariat. The information is summarised below:
The Turkish authorities informed that the ongoing efforts to enhance human rights training of security forces, including the anti-terrorism branch, have been intensified following the coming into force of the new Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure in June 2005. These training activities comprised courses on human rights and on new procedures that came into force after the adoption of the new legislation, as well as seminars on practical aspects of the new legislation and codes of conduct of the security forces.
As far as the Gendarmerie is concerned, the Turkish authorities have in addition informed that human rights training is part of the curriculum, as a separate subject and as an integrated aspect of other subjects, in all relevant education institutions. Human rights courses focus on the following topics: Introduction to human rights, fundamental rights and freedoms, international organisations and human rights instruments (UN, CoE, OSCE and EU) and obligations of members of security forces within the context of human rights. There are also specific courses on the Convention and the case-law of the Court where the judgments of the Court concerning the actions of security forces, in particular the gendarmerie, are examined in depth. In those courses the attention of the participants is drawn to the shortcomings identified by the Court in its judgments against Turkey. Human rights courses are taught between 22 to 34 hours during one school year depending on the rank of the officers in question. Furthermore, a large number of seminars and conferences have been organised for the gendarmerie on the new Turkish legislation, as well as on human rights, between 1999 and 2006.
C. Giving direct effect to the Convention requirements
1. Legal framework regarding the use of force by the police
The Turkish authorities informed of the changes introduced on 2/6/2007 to Law No. 2559 on the duties and legal powers of the police, which now provides that the police are not entitled to use force unless confronted with resistance. According to the amended Article 16 of the law, the use of force should be directed to break the resistance and should be proportionate. The use of force could be increased gradually, depending on the nature and level of the resistance confronted with (i.e. the police shall first use physical force, then will interfere with other devices (such as tear gas, truncheon etc) and, as a last resort only, the police shall use firearms). The police shall warn the person(s) resisting that they will use force if they continue resisting. However, if the circumstances of the resistance so require, the police might use force without warnings. The police shall consider and decide the level of the force that they will use; including the devices they will use to break the resistance. The police are entitled to legitimate defence in cases of attacks directed against them or to third persons. The police are entitled to use weapons in self-defence, in cases where they cannot neutralise resistance by physical force or other devices or in order to secure an arrest, detention or in cases of flagrante delicto. In those situations the police shall issue a stop order before using a firearm. The police are entitled to use a firearm without hesitation to person(s) attempting to use a firearm against them within the limits of neutralising the danger.
2. Instructions given to the gendarmerie
As regards the instructions given to the gendarmerie, the Turkish authorities gave detailed information on these instructions which, they said, were aimed at ensuring that the members of the gendarmerie comply with human rights in their daily practice. These instructions can be summarised as follows:
- Compliance with human rights standards and with legal obligations constitutes the fundamental basis for the actions of the members of the gendarmerie. Gendarmes are expected to avoid any action that would violate human dignity or put into question the substance of rights and freedoms. The actions of members of the gendarmerie should be in compliance with human rights irrespective of the crime they will have to deal with.
- The members of the gendarmerie shall use force no more than strictly necessary. When it is necessary to use force, it should be proportionate to the aim pursued.
- During the course of military operations (and during the preparatory phase of such operations) carried out with the help of planes, helicopters and heavy weapons, it is obligatory to take the necessary measures in order to prevent any collateral damage to civilians and to urban areas. In this regard, it should be born in mind that the administration has objective liability. Any damage caused – even involuntarily – should be recorded, photos should be taken or be filmed and the damage should be compensated without delay.
- The investigatory measures taken by gendarmes, such as arrest, taking into custody, carrying out autopsies or identification of bodies etc., should comply with human rights standards, as well as with the relevant domestic legislation. Custody records should be kept meticulously; time of entry to and exit from custody should be recorded in detail. The state of health of detainees should also be kept in the record and, if possible, the detainees should be filmed or photographed before they are taken into custody.
- When a detainee is taken into custody, gendarmes should ensure the following: The detainee should be disarmed in order to prevent him causing harm to others or to himself; the detainee should be informed of the charges against him and of his right to remain silent; he should be allowed to have access to a lawyer; the arrest should be put into record and a form concerning the detainee should be filled in; this form should be read aloud to the detainee in the presence of a witness and a copy of it should be signed by the detainee; all these documents should be transmitted to the office of the public prosecutor who should give the instructions to follow; an arrested person should be allowed to inform his relatives.
- Medical examinations of detainees, accused or convict shall be carried out in private unless there are security concerns.
- The right to life of a person in custody should be protected; necessary measures should be taken to prevent the risk of suicide or self-mutilation. If necessary, medical equipment should be provided without delay.
- No one shall be subjected to ill-treatment, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. The members of the gendarmerie shall be reminded frequently of the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment; they should likewise refrain from any action that might give rise to allegations of torture or ill-treatment. All complaints of torture or ill-treatment shall be taken into consideration.
- No high volume musical devices or spot light projectors shall be present in interrogation rooms which might lead the detainee to believe that he will be intimidated by making use of such devices.
- High-ranking gendarmes shall take all the necessary measures in order to prevent acts of torture and ill-treatment. Allegations of torture and ill-treatment against gendarmes shall immediately be investigated by their superiors and their withdrawal from service shall be requested from the Gendarmerie Headquarters, in case it is necessary. Allegations of torture and ill-treatment shall be pursued, even if there is no strong evidence to that effect, and investigations shall immediately be initiated.
- During public demonstrations, members of the gendarmerie are expected to maintain their calmness and avoid emotional reactions; it should be kept in mind that failure to do so will be considered as disobedience to orders and might result in disproportionate interference.
- Criminal or administrative proceedings shall rapidly be initiated against members of the gendarmerie who engage in unlawful acts despite the warnings and measures taken.
3. Legal framework regarding armed operations
A Regulation on Operations of the Security Directorate came into force on 16/11/2001 which sets the framework for the instructions to be given to the staff participating in law enforcement operations. According to the Regulation, all operations should be composed of three phases: the preparation, execution and follow-up phases. In particular, the regulation provides for the following: Before the planning of an operation, the staff should ensure to prepare an inventory of the area where the suspects are. An evaluation of the staff that will participate in the operation, the vehicles, arms and other equipment that will be used in the operation should be made. Detailed instructions should be given to senior staff members. During the different phases of the operation staff shall only have recourse to firearms when it is strictly necessary to carry out an arrest. If necessary, specialised staff or psychologists shall intervene in order to establish dialogue with the suspects. Necessary measures should be taken in order to protect the suspects from an eventual attack or lynching attempts. The regulation in question is unpublished.
4. Direct effect given to the Convention
Concerning the direct effect given by prosecutors and judges to the Convention, the Minister of Justice issued a series of Circulars on 01/06/2005 drawing the attention of the former to the newly enacted legislation, as well as the shortcomings identified by the Court in its judgments against Turkey. Recalling Turkey’s obligations flowing from the Convention, the Minister referred, in particular, to the following:
- All criminal investigations should be carried out speedily and effectively in compliance with the requirements of the Convention. Respect for human rights presupposes that the interrogation of a suspect in custody should not be used to incriminate the suspect but to collect evidence for and against him or her. Public prosecutors should calculate with diligence the prescription periods and should do all that is necessary in order to finalise the investigations pending without any outcome (Circular No. 2).
- The shortcomings identified by the Court regarding the criminal investigations should be remedied in order to avoid future violations, in particular those relating to ineffective investigations in allegations of torture and ill-treatment, discrepancies in autopsy reports, the absence of photos that should be taken during autopsies and decisions of non-prosecution issued by public prosecutors without the necessary investigation being carried out into the facts (Circular No. 4).
- Investigations into allegations of torture or ill-treatment should be carried out by the chief public prosecutors or a public prosecutor appointed by him or her (not by the police or members of security forces) in accordance with the requirements of international conventions on human rights, the case-law of the Court, the Constitution and the relevant provisions of domestic law (Circular No. 8).
- Investigations into unknown perpetrator killings should be carried out rapidly and effectively taking into account the requirements of the Convention, in particular the pursuit of such crimes should be carried out in coordination with the security forces. All necessary evidence should be collected from the scene of the crime and should be kept with care. The rules on ballistic examinations, autopsy reports and identification of the body should strictly be followed. Furthermore, such investigations should be carried out directly by public prosecutors who should examine the investigation files with regular intervals and do their utmost to make sure that the perpetrators are found rapidly and in any case within the prescription period (Circular No. 22).
It has to be recalled that according to Article 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, decisions of public prosecutors not to prosecute can be challenged by the interested persons before the competent assize courts. The European Court rejected in a decision of 31/12/2002 the applicant’s complaints in the case of Epözdemir (No: 57039/00) on the grounds that the applicant has not availed himself to this remedy under Turkish law.
5. Instructions regarding the proportionate use of force during public demonstrations
The Ministry of Interior issued three instructions to the General Directorate of Security (in May 2001, April 2003 and August 2004) setting out the level and nature of use of force to be applied by members of security forces during public demonstrations. The instructions state that the use of force should be proportionate and should be increased gradually.
Before any public demonstration (whether or not it is legal), the General Directorate of Security holds meetings at local level in order to ensure that members of security forces use force no more than necessary and aim to protect public order.
Furthermore, the curriculum prepared in 2008 for the training of Special Forces contains special subjects such as the use of arms (including the use of tear gas), the methods to be used during interventions in public demonstrations and issues related to human rights protection.
D. Prompt and efficient implementation of the new “Law on Compensation of the Losses Resulting from Terrorism and from the Measures taken against Terrorism” (hereinafter “the Law on Compensation”)
1. The scope of the Law on Compensation
The Turkish Parliament adopted on 27/07/2004 the “Law on Compensation of the Losses Resulting from Terrorism and from the Measures Taken against Terrorism”. (Several provisions of this law were amended by Law no. 5442 of 28/12/2005; in particular its time-frame was extended for one year). The law provides a possibility to obtain, directly from the administration, compensation for pecuniary damages caused to natural or legal persons as a result of terrorist activities and operations carried out in combating terrorism during the period of July 1987 to December 2006 with a possibility of judicial review of decisions taken in this respect.
The law does not cover the damages settled by the State by other means, damages compensated by the judgments of the European Court, damages resulting from social and economical reasons and damages of those who left their residences voluntarily (reasons not related to concerns of security), damages caused by intentional acts and damages of those who were convicted under Articles 1, 3 and 4 of Anti-terrorism Law and of those who were convicted for aiding and abetting terrorist organisations. On 20 October 2004 the “Regulation on the Compensation of the Losses Resulting from Terrorism and from the Measures taken against Terrorism” entered into force, which lays down the rules governing the functioning of “compensation assessment commissions” and their working methods. The Regulation further lays down the rules relating to methods of determining the amounts of compensation to be awarded.
2. The decision of the Court in the case of İçyer v. Turkey (no. 18888/02)
In this case the applicant complained of the refusal of the authorities to allow him to return to his home and land in the south east of Turkey. The Court observed that, when it took its decision, the applicant was not prevented from returning to his village. In this situation the Court concentrated on the availability of adequate economic compensation. It noted that the compensation commissions established with the coming into force of the Law on Compensation seemed to be operational in seventy-six provinces in Turkey and that there were already 170,000 persons seeking a remedy before these commissions. It also appeared from a substantial number of sample decisions furnished by the Government that persons who had sustained damage in cases of denial of access to property, damage to their property or death or injury could successfully claim compensation by using the remedy offered by the Compensation Law. In the Court’s opinion, these decisions demonstrated that the remedy in question was available not only in theory but also in practice. The Court therefore concluded that the measures taken by Turkey to remedy the situation of the internally displaced persons, including the Compensation Law, today provided an effective remedy.
E. Establishment of enhanced accountability of security forces
1. Administrative authorisation to prosecute
As regards the requirement of administrative authorisation to prosecute serious crimes allegedly committed by members of security forces, Law No. 4483 on Prosecution of Civil Servants came into force on 2/12/1999 replacing the Law of 1914. The new law lays down the procedures applicable concerning the authorisation to be given in order to bring proceedings against civil servants for the crimes committed during the performance of their duties. However, Article 2 of the law provides for the exceptions to this rule. Accordingly, no administrative authorisation shall be required in the below situations in the prosecution of a civil servant:
- Investigations and prosecutions of civil servants who are subject to special procedures of investigation and prosecution because of the nature of their duties or because of the nature of the crime at issue;
- Situations of flagrante delicto requiring severe punishment;
- Disciplinary proceedings;
As a forth exception, the below paragraph was added to Article 2 by Law No. 4778.
- Investigations and prosecutions to be initiated under Articles 243 and 245 of the [former] Criminal Code and Article 154 § 4 of the [former] Code of Criminal Procedure (These articles concerned the crimes of torture and ill-treatment and were replaced by Articles 94 and 95 of the new Criminal Code. Article 154§4 gave authority to public prosecutors to launch proceedings against members of security forces in cases where they fail to carry out the orders and requests of public prosecutors. Article 161 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure confirms the authority of public prosecutors to launch proceedings against members of security forces. However, for prosecutions to be brought against governors and provincial governors, the provisions of Law No. 4483 shall apply. Highest ranking members of security forces shall be prosecuted in accordance with the provisions applicable for judges).
Decisions denying administrative authorisation are subject to appeal before the Council of State.
2. Examples of prosecutions
The Turkish authorities have pointed out a number of indictments lodged against members of security forces between December 2004 and August 2005 in the south-east of Turkey concerning, in particular, the following alleged crimes: negligence in carrying out an effective and prompt investigation: causing bodily harm: disproportionate use of force and trafficking in arms. In particular, the Turkish authorities drew the Committee’s attention to a prosecution order from the Ankara Public Prosecutor to the Bakırköy (Istanbul) Public Prosecutor requesting the latter to remedy the shortcomings in an investigation carried out into a killing by unknown perpetrators and to take necessary steps in accordance with requirements of the Convention under Article 2 and with reference to a number of judgments of the Court.
3. Other complaint bodies
The Turkish authorities have informed that on 26/04/2003 a new body was introduced with the aim of receiving and examining complaints about alleged human rights violations committed by gendarmes (“JİHİDEM”) which is reachable 24 hours per day by internet, telephone or in person. 770 complaints have been received by JİHİDEM, 185 of which involved human rights. 18 complaints were referred to judicial organs, in 34 complaints the investigation was already underway and in 3 cases disciplinary sanctions were imposed. 130 complaints have been judged as ill-founded.
Likewise, the Regional and Local Human Rights Councils established in 2000 have substantially been reorganised in 2003 to be able to effectively and rapidly deal with complaints of human rights violations. The total number of the Regional and Local Councils has now reached 931 in 81 regions and 850 provinces. A total of 847 applications have been lodged in 2004 and 1377 in 2005 with the Councils. In 2004, 64 % of the applications lodged with the Councils concerned complaints of ill-treatment. In this regard, it has to be noted that these councils are also charged with duties to monitor the situation in law enforcement establishments.
F. Training of judges and prosecutors
The Turkish authorities provided information regarding a series of conferences and training activities which were carried out in 2004 and 2007 for judges and prosecutors on the Convention and the case-law of the Court in collaboration with the European Commission and various universities and institutes in Turkey.
The Ministry of Justice is also organising regular training activities within the context of “Human Rights Education in Turkey Program 1998-2007” for in-service training of judges and prosecutors, as well as the paralegal staff, who are subject to training on human rights prior to their appointments and promotions.
Furthermore, the Ministry of Justice is regularly publishing the judgments of the Court in its “Bulletin of Jurisprudence” and distributing 13,000 copies of it to the relevant authorities. The judgments of the Court are also published at the Ministry’s webpage (www.inhak-bb.adalet.gov.tr). The webpage includes articles written by scholars or judges and public prosecutors on general human rights issues and the Convention.
As regards the training activities carried out within the context of the Academy of Justice, the Turkish authorities have submitted a list of seminars, conferences, study-visits and other training activities organised in 2004, 2005 and in the first three months of 2006 within the context of Council of Europe/European Commission Joint Initiative and with the collaboration with various universities and institutions both in Turkey and abroad. Many of these activities concern seminars given on the Convention and the case-law of the Court, with particular focus on the procedural safeguards in police custody.
Lastly, the Turkish authorities submitted that the curriculum of the Academy of Justice now incorporates training on human rights and fundamental freedoms, including courses on the direct application of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and on the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights following the amendments introduced on 27 April 2008 in the Regulation on the initial and final training of trainee judges and prosecutors.
G. Practical impact of the measures taken
The Turkish authorities submitted statistical information regarding the number of investigations, acquittals and convictions into crimes of torture and ill-treatment for years between 2003 and 2007.
This statistical information can be summarised as follows:
|
Year |
Number of investigation files opened |
Number of members of security forces indicted |
Decision of not to prosecute given |
Number of members of security forces convicted |
Number of members of security forces acquitted |
|
2003 |
2612 (against 5588 members of security forces) |
2333 |
1153 |
862 |
1375 |
|
2004 |
2413 (against 5173 members of security forces) |
1824 |
1230 |
462 |
1631 |
|
2005 |
1721 (against 4277 members of security forces) |
1052 |
1005 |
459 |
1870 |
|
2006 |
1965 (against 4443 members of security forces) |
831 |
1216 |
1921 |
146 |
|
2007 (first nine months) |
1421 (against 3722 members of security forces) |
426 |
1068 |
139 |
590 |
The Turkish authorities also drew the Committee’s attention to a number of judicial acts between February 2003 and July 2005 (approximately 200 court decisions and public prosecutors’ decisions whether to prosecute or not) in which reference was made to the judgments of the Court. In the opinion of the Turkish authorities, these examples are indicative of the direct effect given to the Convention and the case-law of the Court by the Turkish judiciary.
Appendix II to Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)69
Aksoy group against Turkey
- 175 cases concerning the actions of the Turkish security forces
(Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43)
I. Violation of the right to life (Article 2)
30015/96 A. and others, judgment of 27/07/2004, rectified on 17/08/2004, final on 27/10/2004
38418/97 A.K. and V.K., judgment of 30/11/2004, final on 28/02/2005
36088/97+ Acar and others, judgment of 24/05/2005, final on 12/10/2005
26307/95 Acar Tahsin, judgment of 08/04/04 - Grand Chamber
23954/94 Akdeniz and others, judgment of 31/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
25165/94 Akdeniz, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 31/08/2005
22947/93+ Akkoç Nebahat, judgment of 10/10/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
21894/93 Akkum and others, judgment of 24/03/2005, final on 24/06/2005, rectified on 26/01/2006
56760/00 Akpınar and Altun, judgment of 27/02/2007, final on 27/05/2007, rectified on 01/03/2007
24351/94 Aktaş, judgment of 24/04/03
63758/00 Anık and others, judgment of 05/06/2007, final on 05/09/2007
55983/00 Anter and others, judgment of 19/12/2006, final on 23/05/2007
30949/96 Ateş Yasin, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 31/08/2005
25657/94 Avşar, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 27/03/00
41964/98 Ayan Cennet and Mehmet Salih Ayan, judgment of 27/06/2006, final on 11/12/2006
25660/94 Aydın Süheyla, judgment of 24/05/2005, final on 24/08/2005
25659/94 Bilgin İrfan, judgment of 17/07/01, final on 17/10/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
45403/99 Bişkin, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006
28298/95 Buldan, judgment of 20/04/2004, final on 10/11/2004
23657/94 Çakici, judgment of 08/07/99, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
39436/98 Canan, judgment of 26/06/2007, final on 26/09/2007
54182/00 Çelebi Halit, judgment of 02/05/2006, final on 23/10/2006
27693/95 Çelikbilek, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 31/08/2005
25704/94 Çiçek, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 05/09/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
41335/98 Demir Kamer and others, judgment of 19/10/2006, final on 19/01/2007
27308/95 Demiray, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 04/04/01
68188/01 Diril, judgment of 19/10/2006, final on 19/01/2007
26972/95 Dündar, judgment of 20/09/2005, final on 20/12/2005
28497/95 E.O., judgment of 15/07/2004, final on 15/10/2004
27602/95 Ekinci Ülkü, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02
75632/01 Ekrem, judgment of 12/06/2007, final on 12/09/2007
57049/00 Erdoğan Yüksel and others, judgment of 15/02/2007, final on 15/05/2007
57778/00 Eren Aydın and others, judgment of 21/02/2006, final on 21/05/2006
23818/94 Ergi, judgment of 28/07/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98
28637/95 Erkek, judgment of 13/07/2004, final on 13/10/2004
20764/92 Ertak Ismail, judgment of 09/05/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
34594/97 Gezici, judgment of 17/03/2005, final on 17/06/2005
22676/93 Gül Mehmet, judgment of 14/12/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
21593/93 Güleç, judgment of 27/07/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98
16275/02 Gülşenoğlu, judgment of 29/11/2007, final on 29/02/2008
28299/95 Haran Nesibe, judgment of 06/10/2005, final on 06/01/2006
26144/95 İkincisoy A. and H., judgment of 27/07/2004, final on 15/12/2004
25760/94 İpek, judgment of 17/02/2004, final on 17/05/2004
35838/97 Kaçar Fatma, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005
32444/96 Kanlıbaş, judgment of 08/12/2005, final on 08/03/2006
36749/97 Kaplan and others, judgment of 13/09/2005, final on 13/12/2005
45784/99 Karabulut Sultan, judgment of 19/09/2006, final on 19/12/2006
53489/99 Kavak, judgment of 06/07/2006, final on 06/10/2006
4451/02 Kaya and others, judgment of 24/10/2006, final on 24/01/2007
33420/96+ Kaya Belkıza and others, judgment of 22/11/2005, final on 22/02/2006
22535/93 Kaya Mahmut, judgment of 28/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
22729/93 Kaya Mehmet, judgment of 19/02/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98
47544/99 Kaya Sara and others, judgment of 02/10/2007, final on 02/01/2008
22492/93 Kiliç, judgment of 28/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
27306/95 Kişmir, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 31/08/2005
27305/95 Koku, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 31/08/2005
36217/97 Menteşe and others, judgment of 18/01/2005, final on 18/04/2005, rectified on 13/09/2005
49160/99 Mordeniz, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006
21594/93 Oğur, judgment of 20/05/99 - Grand Chamber, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
31889/96 Orak Abdurrahman, judgment of 14/02/02, final on 14/05/02
25656/94 Orhan Salih, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 06/11/02
32457/96 Özalp and others, judgment of 08/04/2004, final on 08/07/2004
38607/97 Özgen and others, judgment of 20/09/2005, final on 20/12/2005
21689/93 Özkan Ahmet and others, judgment of 06/04/2004, final on 10/11/2004, rectified on 01/03/2005, ResDH(2001)13 ; ResDH(2001)66
50739/99 Perk and others, judgment of 28/03/2006, final on 28/06/2006
21986/93 Salman, judgment of 27/06/00 – Grand Chamber, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
24490/94 Şarli, judgment of 22/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
52390/99 Şeker, judgment of 21/02/2006, final on 21/05/2006
22876/93 Şemse Önen, judgment of 26/01/02, final on 14/05/02
25354/94 Şen Nuray No. 2, judgment of 30/03/2004, final on 30/06/2004
33384/96 Seyan, judgment of 02/11/2004, final on 30/03/2005
35875/97 Şirin Yılmaz Mehmet, judgment of 29/07/2004, final on 29/10/2004, rectified on 01/02/2005
65899/01 Tanış and others, judgment of 02/08/2005, final on 30/11/2005
26129/95 Tanlı, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01, rectified on 28/04/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
23763/94 Tanrikulu, judgment of 08/07/99, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
24396/94 Taş Beşir, judgment of 14/11/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
27699/95 Tekdağ, judgment of 15/01/2004, final on 14/06/2004
27244/95 Tepe İsak, judgment of 09/05/03, final on 19/08/03
23531/94 Timurtaş, judgment of 13/06/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
27601/95 Toğcu, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 31/08/2005
34506/97 Türkoğlu, judgment of 17/03/2005, final on 17/06/2005
75527/01+ Üçak and others, judgment of 26/04/2007, final on 24/09/2007
37410/97 Uzun Kamil, judgment of 10/05/2007, final on 24/09/2007
22495/93 Yaşa, judgment of 02/09/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98
48884/99 Yazıcı, judgment of 05/12/2006, final on 05/03/2007
40074/98 Yıldırım Feyzi, judgment of 19/07/2007, final on 19/10/2007
56154/00 Yıldırım Selim and others, judgment of 19/10/2006, final on 19/01/2007
46928/99 Zengin Güli, judgment of 28/10/2004, final on 28/01/2005
II. Violation of the right not to be subjected to torture or to inhuman and degrading treatment
46747/99 Akdoğdu, judgment of 18/10/2005, final on 12/04/2006
47938/99 Akkurt, judgment of 04/05/2006, final on 04/07/2006
21987/93 Aksoy, judgment of 18/12/96, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98
32574/96 Algür, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03
22279/93 Altay, judgment of 22/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
56003/00 Asan and others, judgment of 31/07/2007, final on 31/10/2007
19735/02 Atıcı, judgment of 10/05/2007, final on 12/11/2007
32572/96+ Aydın and Yunus, judgment of 22/06/2004, final on 22/09/2004, rectified on 03/02/2005
23178/94 Aydin, judgment of 25/09/97, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98
39812/98 Bakbak, judgment of 01/07/2004, final on 01/10/2004
50988/99 Baltaş, judgment of 20/09/2005, final on 20/12/2005
22493/93 Berktay, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
34482/97 Bilen, judgment of 21/02/2006, final on 21/05/2006
77092/01 Bulut Necdet, judgment of 20/11/2007, final on 20/02/2008
28340/95 Büyükdağ, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01
52165/99 Çalışır, judgment of 21/02/2006, final on 21/05/2006
40516/98 Çalışkan Fahriye, judgment of 02/10/2007, final on 02/01/2008
28039/98 Cancöz, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006
44093/98 Çelik and İmret, judgment of 26/10/2004, final on 26/01/2005
14166/02 Ceylan Eser, judgment of 13/12/2007, final on 13/03/2008
39449/98 Çiftçi Evrim No. 2, judgment of 26/04/2007, final on 26/07/2007
32578/96+ Çolak and Filizer, judgment of 08/01/04, final on 08/04/04
38585/97 Dalan, judgment of 07/06/2005, final on 07/09/2005
48581/99 Demirel Kekil, judgment of 11/04/2006, final on 11/07/2006
20869/92 Dikme, judgment of 11/07/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
68351/01 Diri, judgment of 31/07/2007, final on 31/10/2007
27309/95 Dizman, judgment of 20/09/2005, final on 20/12/2005
50125/99 Doğanay, judgment of 21/02/2006, final on 21/05/2006
23145/93+ Elçi and others, judgment of 13/11/03, final on 24/03/04
29484/95 Esen, judgment of 22/07/03, final on 22/10/03
49391/99 Güler Irfan, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006
29/02 Gündoğan Kazım, judgment of 30/01/2007, final on 30/04/2007
68694/01 Güven and others, judgment of 12/04/2007, final on 12/07/2007
71908/01 Güzel (Zeybek), judgment of 05/12/2006, final on 05/03/2007
22277/93 Ilhan Nasir, judgment of 27/06/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
69988/01 Karakaş Hüseyin No. 2, judgment of 22/06/2006, final on 22/09/2006
63181/00 Karayiğit, judgment of 20/09/2005, final on 20/12/2005, rectified on 31/01/2006
35044/97 Kılıç Hasan, judgment of 28/06/2005, final on 28/09/2005
18207/03 Koç Nevruz, judgment of 12/06/2007, final on 12/09/2007
32581/96 Koçak, judgment of 03/05/2007, final on 03/08/2007, rectified on 10/10/2007
45742/99 Köylüoğlu, judgment of 22/06/2006, final on 22/09/2006
24276/94 Kurt, judgment of 25/05/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98
56365/00 Kurt Cafer, judgment of 24/07/2007, final on 24/10/2007
12101/03 Kurt Durmuş and others, judgment of 31/05/2007, final on 31/08/2007, revised on 08/11/2007
30465/02 Mete Ahmet No. 2, judgment of 12/12/2006, final on 23/05/2007
39464/98 Ölmez, judgment of 20/02/2007, final on 20/05/2007
31553/02 Onay, judgment of 20/09/2007, final on 20/12/2007
28520/95 Önder Sadık, judgment of 08/01/04, final on 08/04/04
54430/00 S.B. and H.T., judgment of 05/07/2005, final on 05/10/2005
7928/02 Şahin Muhammet, judgment of 25/09/2007, final on 25/12/2007
31866/96 Satık and others, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
57916/00 Saygılı, judgment of 04/05/2006, final on 04/08/2006
22496/93 Tekin, judgment of 09/06/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98
29422/95 Tepe Ayşe, judgment of 22/07/03, final on 22/10/03
29100/03 Timur, judgment of 26/06/2007, final on 26/09/2007
30494/96 Tuncer and Durmuş, judgment of 02/11/2004, final on 02/02/2005
879/02 Turan Devrim, judgment of 02/03/2006, final on 02/06/2006
33168/03 Uslu, judgment of 12/04/2007, final on 12/07/2007
32357/96 Veznedaroğlu Sevtap, judgment of 11/04/00, final on 18/10/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
27473/02 Yağiz Erdoğan, judgment of 06/03/2007, final on 06/06/2007
69912/01 Yavuz Nazif, judgment of 12/01/2006, final on 12/04/2006
67137/01 Yavuz, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006
29485/95 Yaz, judgment of 22/07/03, final on 22/10/03
61898/00 Yıldız Emirhan and others, judgment of 05/12/2006, final on 05/03/2007
58030/00 Yılmaz Dilek, judgment of 31/10/2006, final on 31/01/2007
40154/98 Yüksel Mehmet Emin, judgment of 20/07/2004, final on 20/10/2004
III. Violations of the right to respect for the applicants’ home (Article 8) and/or of the right to property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1)
33240/96 Ağtaş, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 03/07/2006
21893/93 Akdivar, Çiçek, Aktaş, Karabulut, judgment of 16/09/96, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98
37850/97 Halis Aksakal, judgment of 15/02/2007, final on 09/07/2007
24561/94 Altun, judgment of 01/06/2004, final on 01/09/2004
33239/96 Artun and others, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 03/07/2006, rectified on 07/12/2006
23656/94 Ayder and others, judgment of 08/01/04
23819/94 Bilgin İhsan, judgment of 16/11/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
25801/94 Dulaş Zubeyde, judgment of 30/01/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98
22494/93 İlhan Hasan, judgment of 09/11/2004, final on 09/02/2005
33238/96+ Keser and others, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 03/07/2006, rectified on 07/12/2006
37038/97 Kurt Nuri, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006
23186/94 Menteş, Turhallı M. and S, and Uvat, judgment of 28/11/97, Interim Resolution DH(99)434
33247/96 Öztoprak and others, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 03/07/2006
33243/96 Şaylı, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 03/07/2006
23184/94 Selçuk and Asker, judgment of 24/04/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98
26973/95 Yöyler, judgment of 24/07/03, final on 24/10/03
36211/97 Yılmaz Kumri and others, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 03/07/2006, rectified on 07/12/2006
IV. Violations exclusively of the right to tribunal or to an effective remedy against abuses (Articles 6 and 13) or lack of procedural safeguards in police custody (Articles 5 and 8)
22677/93 Çetin, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98
42596/98+ Sarı and Çolak, judgment of 04/04/2006, final on 04/07/2006
52392/99 Uçar, judgment of 11/04/2006, final on 11/07/2006
23179/94+ Yilmaz, Ovat, Şahin and Dündar, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98
69 Friendly settlements and striking-out concerning actions of the Turkish security forces and involving undertakings by the Turkish government
24940/94 Acar, judgment of 18/12/01 - Friendly settlement
31137/96 Adalı, judgment of 12/12/02 - Friendly settlement
32598/96 Akbay, judgment of 04/10/01 - Friendly settlement
37453/97 Akman, judgment of 26/06/01, final on 25/10/01 – Striking-out
28292/95 Ateş, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement
24935/94 Avcı, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement
28293/95 Aydın K., C. Aydin and S. Aydin and others, judgment of 10/07/01- Friendly settlement
29289/95 Aydın Mehmet, judgment of 16/07/02 - Friendly settlement
29875/96 Başak and others, judgment of 16/10/03 – Friendly settlement
24922/94 Binbay Yavuz, judgment of 21/10/2004 - Friendly settlement
24946/94 Boğ, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement
24938/94 Boğa, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement
35851/97 Bozkurt, judgment of 31/03/2005 - Friendly settlement
40299/98 Boztaş and others, judgment of of 09/03/04 - Friendly settlement
41993/98 Çelik and Çelik, judgment of 27/07/2004 - Friendly settlement
24934/94 Değer, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement
22280/93 Demir Mahmut, judgment of 05/12/02 - Friendly settlement
24990/94 Demir, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement
31845/96 Dilek Kemal, judgment of 17/06/03 - Friendly settlement
24939/94 Doğan, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement
32270/96 Doğan Ülkü and others, judgment of 19/06/03 - Friendly settlement
30492/96 Erat and Sağlam, judgment of 26/03/02 – Friendly settlement
31246/96 Ercan, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement
26337/95 Erdoğan Mahmut, judgment of 20/06/02 - Friendly settlement
42428/98 Eren and others, judgment of 02/10/03 - Friendly settlement
46649/99 Güler and others, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement
24945/94 Güngü Kemal, judgment of 18/12/01 - Friendly settlement
29864/96 H.K. and others, judgment of 14/01/03 - Friendly settlement
25754/94 Haran, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 15/12/2004 - Striking-out
30953/96 I.I., I.S., K.E., and A.O., judgment of 06/11/01 - Friendly settlement
24849/94+ Kalın, Gezer and Ötebay, judgment of 28/10/03 - Friendly settlement
38578/97 Kaplan Süleyman, judgment of 10/10/02 - Friendly settlement
37446/97 Kara and others, judgment of 25/11/03 - Friendly settlement
38588/97 Keçeci, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement
42591/98 Kılıç Özgür, judgment of 22/07/03 - Friendly settlement
31890/96 Kınay M. and Kınay R., judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement
24944/94 Kızılgedik, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement
28516/95 Macir, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement
42593/98 Memiş, judgment of 21/02/2006, rectified on 30/05/2006 - Friendly settlement
28504/95 Merinç, judgment of 17/06/03 - Friendly settlement
33234/96 N.Ö, judgment of 17/10/02 - Friendly settlement
31865/96 O.O. and S.M., judgment of 29/04/03 - Friendly settlement
39978/98 Oğraş and others, judgment of 28/10/03 - Friendly settlement
31136/96 Önder Yalçın, judgment of 25/07/02 - Friendly settlement
24936/94 Orak Adnan, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement
27735/95 Oral and others, judgment of 28/03/02 - Friendly settlement
41306/98 Örnek and Eren, judgment of 15/07/2004 - Friendly settlement
31883/96 Özbey, judgment of 31/01/02 - Friendly settlement
29856/96 Özcan Mehmet, judgment of 09/04/02 – Friendly settlement
37088/97 Özkur and Göksungur, judgment of 04/03/03 - Friendly settlement
24942/94 Parlak, Aktürk and Tay, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement
37415/97 Şahmo, judgment of 22/06/2004 - Friendly settlement
29359/95 Saki, judgment of 30/10/01 - Friendly settlement
41926/98 Sarı Ramazan, judgment of 31/07/03 - Friendly settlement
31154/96 Şen Filiyet, judgment of 12/12/02 - Friendly settlement
24991/94 Şenses, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement
31153/96 Soğukpınar, judgment of 12/12/02 - Friendly settlement
28632/95 Sünnetçi, judgment of 22/07/03 - Friendly settlement
37047/97 Temel, judgment of 13/07/2004 - Friendly settlement
38382/97 Toktaş, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement
31731/96 Tosun Hanım, judgment of 06/11/03 - Friendly settlement
36189/97 Yakar, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement
31152/96 Yalçın Şaziment, judgment of 12/12/02 - Friendly settlement
37049/97 Yaman Mehmet, judgment of 22/05/03 - Friendly settlement
22281/93 Yaşa Sıddık, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement
32979/96 Yıldız Özgür, judgment of 16/07/02 - Friendly settlement
28308/95 Yıldız Zeki, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement
31730/96 Yurtseven and others, judgment of 18/12/03 - Friendly settlement
27532/95 Z.Y., judgment of 09/04/02 - Friendly settlement