CASE OF KAVAKLIOĞLU AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Egidijus Kūris;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Ksenija Turković

Although the present case primarily relates to the anti - riot operation of CARDINAL DATE , that operation in fact constituted the climax of a series of long - standing conflicts between the Ulucanlar prison staff and some of the CARDINAL male and female prisoners convicted of belonging to illegal extreme left - wing organisations ( “ the leftist prisoners ” ) .

It transpires from old classified documents exchanged among the office of the prosecutor attached to FAC ( “ the prosecutor ’s office ” ) , the Governor of GPE ( “ the Governor ” ) and the various regional gendarmerie commands , including ORG ( “ the CDGA ” ) , that the hostilities between the prison authorities and the prisoners dated back to DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Since that time the authorities had been aware of the problems , particularly relating to overcrowding and the age and inadequate facilities of the Ulucanlar complex , which , moreover , had been intended as a short - term prison and should never have housed convicted prisoners . It transpires from the various information sources that the exiguity of the living area in the “ dormitories ” was central to the leftist ORG complaints and actions , which they conducted together despite their political differences and personal conflicts of interest .

A clearer picture might be gained of the present dispute by recapitulating the factors mentioned in the above - mentioned exchange of documents and the facts noted by the CARDINAL - MP sub - commission set up under ORG in ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) in order to investigate and ascertain the circumstances under which the impugned incidents had occurred .

On DATE , under the Governor ’s supervision , the prosecutor ’s office , the CDGA , the gendarmerie unit on duty at Ulucanlar ( “ CGP ” ) and the other gendarmerie commands drew up their so - called “ FAC No . CARDINAL ” . The authorities in question were convinced that the leftist prisoners were planning a mass break - out , that they would therefore probably engineer an internal clash among the various extreme left - wing fractions in the prison and would dig tunnels , knock down walls , occupy the roofs , start fires and , finally , trigger an insurrection against the prison authorities . The authorities considered that as the ORG lacked the operational capacities to deal with such eventualities , they had to work together in order to identify the ringleaders and ensure durable security in the prison .

On DATE the Governor ratified the plan , under which the ORG would be backed up by auxiliary forces , that is to say CARDINAL senior officers and QUANTITY gendarmes , to be seconded from other commands , accompanied by the local police .

NORP However , that plan was not implemented as foreseen .

Accordingly , on DATE the authorities met to reassess the situation and draw up a new ORG in accordance with ORG CARDINAL DATE concerning the suppression of rioting in prisons .

On DATE the Secretary General of ORG urged the relevant ministries and several decision - making bodies , as well as ORG , to implement that new plan promptly , drawing on some more specific coercive measures . In substance , the parts of the plan relevant to the assessment of the present case were based on short- and medium - term actions , as follows :

– refusing any compromise with the “ terrorist ” organisations , as this would encourage them to make impossible demands ;

– reaffirming the ORG ’s determination to combat such propaganda - based movements ;

– endeavouring to restore the ORG ’s authority in prisons and to reform the legislation on internal prison surveillance ;

– transferring the leaders of the “ terrorist ” organisations to other appropriate prisons ;

– preparing television programmes involving specialists capable of analysing and assessing the mental state of insurgent prisoners and the difficulties encountered by the security forces in combating terrorism ;

– conducting counter - propaganda vis - à - vis sections of the media being used by the “ terrorist organisations ” in relation to conditions of detention ;

– making public declarations conducive to reducing the impact of propaganda sullying the reputation of and demoralising members of the security forces , and emphasising the determination of the ministries , political parties and senior officials to combat any form of insurrection in prisons .

Nevertheless , no practical action was taken until DATE , because of an escalation in criminal activities in GPE DATE and CARDINAL DATE , including CARDINAL murder involving the use of a firearm , CARDINAL murder by stabbing , CARDINAL case of arson , CARDINAL attempted escape , CARDINAL case of hostage - taking of prison officers and CARDINAL cases of infliction of serious bodily harm .

On DATE the ORG alerted the authorities ( by letter , HRK no . : CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL/ ASYŞ [ DATE ] ) to the risks arising from the aforementioned situation , which , it said , had robbed the prison staff of all their authority . According to the PERSON , although security outside the prison LOC was duly guaranteed by the gendarmerie , “ it was only a matter of time before the volcano inside the building erupted ” .

Having received that information , the Governor drew the attention of the ORG and Interior Ministers and the prosecutor ’s office to the following findings , which he considered called for urgent action :

– Ulucanlar is an old prison which no longer meets current standards , and its structure encourages prison breaks via tunnels , given that the prison LOC , and in particular the living areas , contain vegetation and trees blocking the prison PERSON view , which facilitates the digging of such tunnels and concealment of the earth extracted ;

– the passages between dormitories run through the living areas , thus hampering any necessary intervention by the guards ; the fact that the dormitories are adjacent to each other promotes the hierarchisation of the prisoners , ideological indoctrination , racketeering and all modes of communication with the outside ;

– under pressure exerted by leftist prisoners , the prison doctors use dietary pretexts to bring all kinds of foodstuffs and medicines into the prison ; the prison staff are also unscrupulous ; some of them act as messengers and smugglers ; and the prison guards can only inspect the dormitories if the prisoners authorise it ;

– the leftist prisoners post up ideological placards around the living areas ; the doors to the dormitories and living areas are left open between presence checks , the prisoners are free to move around the premises as they wish , including the female dormitory , and they even stand guard over various parts of the prison ;

– it is common knowledge that the prisoners in Ulucanlar have weapons , mobile telephones , shovels , picks , iron bars , cudgels and stones , ready to be used during riots ; during the most recent searches , CARDINAL handguns , CARDINAL mobile phones and CARDINAL ORG cards were discovered on the LOC .

From DATE the leftist prisoners gradually took over Ulucanlar Sector CARDINAL . That sector comprised male dormitories nos . CARDINAL and DATE and the female dormitory , where virtually no routine inspections had been carried out since DATE .

According to the authorities , no concessions were to be made to those individuals , whose complaints concerning , in particular , inadequate living space in the dormitories , were pure fabrication .

The main developments during that period can be summarised as follows .

On DATE , at the request of the GPE public prosecutor ’s office ( see letter no . MONEY ) , the gendarmerie issued an order ( HRK no . : CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL/ASYŞ [ DATE ] ) to carry out the hitherto impeded searches and transfers of the leftist prisoners .

At TIME a search operation was instigated in FAC . However , under explicit instructions from ORG attached to ORG ( “ DGPM ” ) and the prosecutor ’s office , dormitories nos . CARDINAL and DATE and the female dormitory , as well as the dormitory exclusively housing former MPs , were excluded from the searches . The reasons behind those instructions are still unknown .

Following that operation , ORG prisoners were transferred , and the authorities discovered , in particular , CARDINAL skewers and stilettos , CARDINAL large nails , CARDINAL fruit knives , CARDINAL PERSON knives , CARDINAL packet of ORG knife blades , CARDINAL daggers , CARDINAL penknives , CARDINAL cudgels , QUANTITY of cannabis and CARDINAL mobile phones , complete with accessories .

On DATE the Governor sent the Ministers of Justice and the ORG a confidential letter from the PERSON ( HRK no . : CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL/ ASYŞ DATE ) listing the dysfunctions observed at Ulucanlar during the CARDINAL DATE operation and the results of the latter , which can be summarised as follows :

– at the end of the operation , the prisoners convicted of terrorist offences forced the windows and doors of their dormitories open and began to move freely around the building , with a view to protesting against the search and the transfer of their cellmates ;

– on DATE the same individuals installed barricades in the corridors with banners proclaiming “ the revolutionary prisoners shall never be slaves ” ; some prisoners smashed through the dormitory ceilings and climbed on to the roofs , while others began to prowl around in small groups , armed with cudgels ;

– on DATE the prisoners demanded to talk to the authorities , which was not authorised as they refused to submit to body searches and twice intentionally set off the prison alarm bell ;

– continuing overnight until TIME , the prisoners set up further barricades with beds and pieces of wood from doors and windows ; they also plundered the kitchens , the dispensary and the canteen , purloining all the food items and also all the sharp instruments and storing them in dormitories nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL .

The talks mentioned in that letter finally took place at TIME . A delegation made up of a PERSON lieutenant - colonel , the public prosecutor , the Prison Director and the ORG commander heard the spokesmen for dormitories CARDINAL . CARDINAL and DATE and the spokeswoman for the female dormitory , namely the applicants PERSON , PERSON and ORG , respectively . Complaining that they had been given no advance notice of the search operation , those persons , in particular :

– demanded the return of their leader , ORG , who had been transferred to FAC - type prison ;

– requested that the prison staff involved be spared any disciplinary sanctions in respect of the incidents which had occurred ;

– requested leave to talk to their lawyers , GPE and GPE , and the families to be designated by the latter ;

– denounced the ill - treatment inflicted and the visiting restrictions imposed by the gendarmes on their comrades in hospital , as well as the body searches , which they claimed had gone far beyond external inspection of clothing .

The case - file contains no mention of the authorities’ reaction to those demands .

A second series of searches was scheduled for TIME on DATE .

At the request of the Prison Director and the prosecutor ’s office , dormitories nos . CARDINAL and DATE and the female dormitory were once again excluded from the search on the grounds that the prison guards would take charge of that part of the operation . However , none of those dormitories was in fact inspected .

At the end of that second operation , the gendarmes confiscated the following items discovered in other parts of the premises :

– CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL-mm semi - automatic PERSON pistol ( series no . DATE ) , CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL-mm semi - automatic PERSON pistol ( no series number ) complete with magazine and CARDINAL bullets and CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL-mm pistol marked “ PERSON GPE ( series no . CARDINAL ) with CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL-mm bullets ;

– CARDINAL large dagger , CARDINAL knives , CARDINAL flick knife , CARDINAL home - made blades and CARDINAL skewers ;

– CARDINAL cudgels , QUANTITY of cabling and serum bottles containing mixtures for Molotov cocktails and pieces of iron ;

– CARDINAL ORG cards and CARDINAL mobile phones , complete with accessories .

Moreover , the record of the search which was drawn up by the gendarmes mentioned the following facts :

– the skylights leading to the roofs had been dismantled ,

– cudgels and stones had been strewn along the corridors ,

– preparations had been made for manufacturing Molotov cocktails in the attic ,

– barricades had been erected close to the entrances , using stovepipes and old cupboards , and

– the empty tanks on the roofs had been disconnected and moved to block access .

On DATE the CDGA alerted , in vain , ORG and the ORG to the absolute necessity of acting to counter the situation whereby Ulucanlar had become a “ terrorist training centre ” .

In DATE the local gendarmerie unit began receiving complaints to the effect that the prisoners were still in possession of firearms and had started digging a tunnel in the female dormitory . The complaints continued until DATE , when a number of prison guards were taken hostage for TIME .

The gendarmerie had offered to intervene on several previous occasions , but the administrative authorities had consistently turned them down as regards dormitories nos . CARDINAL and DATE and the female dormitory .

The main information on that episode are summarised below .

On DATE the CDGA wrote to the authorities concerned to inform them of the following :

– in the absence of effective surveillance at GPE , the prisoners convicted of terrorism were free to do as they wish ;

– during the inspection of the drains in the female dormitory , heaps of gravel had been discovered , and the authorities were duly informed ; on DATE an DATE - long tunnel was discovered and blocked ;

– there was reason to suspect that similar works had also been conducted in dormitories nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ;

– it was well - known that “ terrorists ” housed in different prisons communicate via mobile phones which had been smuggled in , and that this was how they planned their joint actions ;

– moreover , messages faxed from official machines showed that those persons also had access to standard office applications in order to devise their strategies .

There were no further incidents until TIME on DATE , when the prisoners from dormitories nos . CARDINAL to CARDINAL , having declared that they had ended their protest actions , allowed the Deputy Governor of Ulucanlar and the Head Warden in , and then held them as hostages until TIME There were no injuries .

On DATE the ORG informed the PERSON and the regional commands ( via message HRK no . : MONEY - CARDINAL ) of that incident , following which the rebels had allegedly attempted to occupy the roofs , having climbed up through the ventilation shafts and forced the duty guards to back off ; they had also reportedly stolen a gas cylinder and concealed iron bars and cudgels in their dormitories , probably , according to the ORG , in order to riposte to any possible intervention by the security forces .

Still on DATE , the CDGA reported ( message HRK no . : CARDINAL ) that ORG for leftist prisoners housed CARDINAL individuals in dormitory no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL in dormitory no . CARDINAL and DATE in the female dormitory , that is to say a total of CARDINAL convicted prisoners , including CARDINAL ORG members . According to the ORG , the latter had not supported the actions of the other prisoners and had disassociated themselves from them vis - à - vis the security forces , nor did the prisoners in dormitories nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and the “ officials’ dormitory ” pose any kind of threat . On the other hand , according to the ORG , the leftist prisoners were potentially dangerous , because it was well - known that on a number of occasions they had obtained solvents , glue , fuel oil and bottles of serum in order to manufacture Molotov cocktails for use should the gendarmes raid their dormitories .

On DATE the ORG once again wrote to the PERSON ( message HRK no . : MONEY - CARDINAL ) to inform it that when the prison guards had recently been taken hostage , the attackers had stolen their GPE uniforms and that they could therefore be expected to attempt to escape wearing the uniforms . That message was forwarded ( HRK no . : CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) to all the officials and concerned .

DATE and DATE the ORG kept the PERSON informed DATE ( via telegrams HRK nos . : CARDINAL et seq . ) of the continued refusal by the prisoners in dormitories nos . CARDINAL and DATE and the female dormitory to answer the presence checks and to respect the curfew and the compulsory closing of doors . Each message was immediately forwarded to all the other bodies concerned .

On DATE , according to the faxes distributed by the PERSON ( messages HRK nos . : MONEY et seq . ) and the ORG ( messages HRK nos . : CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , the leftist prisoners demolished the wall of dormitory no . CARDINAL adjacent to their own dormitory , expelled its occupants and took over the LOC . Following this takeover , they refused even more vehemently to comply with the presence checks , disrupted the prison rounds and impeded the prison guards in the exercise of their duties . That situation continued for DATE .

Still on DATE the Director of Ulucanlar , backed up by the ORG , once again complained of the criminal activities of the leftist prisoners in dormitories nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL and requested the intervention of the gendarmerie to restore order ( letter no . LAW ) .

Nevertheless , immediately after that request , the Minister for ORG ordered that no such operation should be instigated .

The ORG then informed the PERSON ( telegram no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) that the operation had been cancelled , even though the leftist prisoners were still occupying dormitory no . CARDINAL and continuing to refuse to comply with the TIME presence checks . The prison guards and gendarmerie patrols at Ulucanlar were reinforced as a precaution .

On DATE the PERSON informed all the authorities concerned of that cancellation ( message HRK no . : CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the gendarmerie intelligence department informed the PERSON ( message ISTH no . : CARDINAL ) and the regional commands that prisoners convicted of terrorism in all the NORP prisons were planning to initiate various insurrectional actions should the ORG attempt to intervene in any of the prisons housing such prisoners .

Up until DATE the ORG continued to keep the PERSON abreast of the situation in GPE with DATE updates , and the telegrams in question were consistently transmitted to all the authorities concerned . It transpires from those messages that throughout the whole period in question the prisoners in dormitories nos . CARDINAL and DATE and the female dormitory had continued to occupy dormitory no . DATE and to refuse to submit to presence checks , and that the entrance doors to the dormitories , the exercise yards and the living areas had remained open and unguarded .

On DATE the Prison Director submitted to the GPE public prosecutor ’s office a request for a search of dormitories CARDINAL . CARDINAL and DATE and the female dormitory , which had so far been exempted from such inspection . On DATE the Deputy Director , ORG , was attacked with a makeshift flame - thrower while removing cardboard boxed placed by the prisoners in the ventilation zones on the roof .

DATE the authorities reached the conclusion that the situation in GPE was no isolated case : the ringleaders in the different prisons were freely communicating via mobile phone and planning a series of riots and simultaneous break - outs . The facts relating to that episode are set out , in particular , in the internal reports of CARDINAL , CARDINAL ( report , HRK no . : CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and DATE as drawn up by the ORG and PERSON and then forwarded , inter alia , to ORG and the GPE public prosecutor ’s office .

According to those reports , in the leftist ORG dormitories , which had long remained unsupervised , there were CARDINAL pistols of an unknown model and in dormitory no . CARDINAL , a CARDINAL-mm ORG - type pistol ; all the other relevant parts of the prison contained large quantities of cannabis , brought in by prison guards ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , ORG , ORG , GPE and GPE , who had allegedly hidden them in their undergarments ; lastly , the ORG cards had been provided by the prison guard PERSON The ORG and PERSON recommended that those members of the prison staff be immediately removed from their current duties and transferred to other prisons .

Still according to those reports , surveillance of dormitory no . DATE which had been under the control of the insurgents since CARDINAL September CARDINAL – was no longer possible and the persons occupying it were now in a position to instigate all kinds of actions . Furthermore , since Sector CARDINAL was a no - go area for the authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , according to the reports the prisoners would probably resume their tunnelling work with a view to a mass break - out .

In this connection , the reports pointed out that of the prisoners in the “ terrorist dormitories ” , CARDINAL were prisoners who had been transferred to GPE for medical treatment . Obeying instructions from the illegal organisations , of which they were still members , those individuals had managed to avoid returning and had congregated in Sector CARDINAL . The reports stated that it was absolutely vital and urgent that those CARDINAL prisoners be transferred back to the prisons where they were supposed to be , otherwise insurrection and confrontation could be expected at any time .

On DATE , in view of the foregoing considerations , the Director of Ulucanlar Prison requested the PERSON ’s assistance to protect the prison staff members who had been tasked with inspecting the CARDINAL dormitories housing the leftist prisoners .

In that regard , ORG no . DATE , classified secret , was drawn up and forwarded to the regional commands , the Governor , the prosecutor ’s office , ORG and ORG . Under the plan , at TIME on DATE CARDINAL Ulucanlar Prison would be raided and subjected to a general search , and , if so requested by the public prosecutor , the transfers of leftist prisoners to other prisons , which had so far been blocked , would also be carried out .

The relevant parts of the plan might be summarised as follows :

– the task force would comprise CARDINAL ORG gendarmes , CARDINAL commando squads , CARDINAL riot squad , CARDINAL special operations squad and CARDINAL officers , CARDINAL junior officers and CARDINAL sergeants on contract , and CARDINAL gendarmes from the regional gendarmerie commands ;

– within each command providing manpower , the gendarmes would be trained in frisking procedure and identification of prohibited items ;

– the prison guards detailed to take part in the operation would be under the orders of the gendarme commanders ;

– in order to guarantee the safety of the search teams and to act in the event of armed resistance , gendarme officers would operate with their official weapons and would take the requisite precautions to ensure that they could not be disarmed ;

– during the searches , the passages between dormitories would be blocked , all outside access to the prison and all means of communication would be supervised , and no one would be allowed in or out , apart from the prosecutors and commanders ;

– the searches would concerntrate on dormitories nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE and the female dormitory ;

– no one would speak with the prisoners or let the latter persuade them to take any type of action , and a firm , strict attitude would be maintained in order to keep up the psychological pressure ;

– in the dormitories , the prisoners known as “ group leaders ” would be kept under particular surveillance and prevented from inciting the others ;

– all the prohibited items discovered on the premises would be inventoried and placed in safekeeping ;

– any prisoners sustaining injuries during the operation would receive initial treatment in the prison dispensary and then transferred to hospital if necessary .

The plan also provided for an auxiliary force comprising CARDINAL officer , CARDINAL junior officers , CARDINAL sergeants on contract and QUANTITY gendarmes , as well as one gendarmerie commando squad , accompanied by an adequate number of police officers , specifying that all those forces would assemble at ORG ready to spring into action .

Moreover , the plan also provided for the presence of CARDINAL teams from the gendarmerie intelligence service equipped with CARDINAL camera and CARDINAL video cameras ; CARDINAL of the cameramen would work on tower no . CARDINAL , and the other cameraman and the photographer would operate inside the building . The personnel in situ was also to include CARDINAL squadrons from ORG , CARDINAL bomb disposal team and the entire staff of the forensic and anti - drugs departments .

The instructions for the operation were as follows :

– personnel involved in the operation should be fully equipped and have all the necessary service weapons , ammunition and other requisite equipment , such as truncheons , shields and glass - fibre helmets ;

– each unit should also have as many torches available as possible and CARDINAL sledgehammer , CARDINAL pick and CARDINAL chisel ;

– the commands in question were required to provide equipment such as handcuffs ( CARDINAL pairs per command ) , shields and gas - masks , as well as fire extinguishers ( CARDINAL per command ) in case of fire ;

– since the operation was likely to be protracted , an adequate quantity of food rations was to be provided ;

– TIME before the operation , an ambulance with a doctor and medical assistants was to be placed at the disposal of the provincial command .

At TIME or , according to some of the prisoners , at TIME on DATE the gendarmerie units , under the orders of Lieutenant - Colonel GPE . , entered Ulucanlar prison . The police officers remained outside in order to secure the outside of the building .

Despite the warnings – although there is still disagreement among the parties on whether and how those warnings were in fact given – informing the prisoners about the searches scheduled for dormitories nos . CARDINAL and DATE and the female dormitory , the violence escalated , quickly turning into a riot .

Ulucanlar was the scene of confrontations between the gendarmerie units and the leftist prisoners , particularly those who were cornered in dormitory no . CARDINAL . The account given below is a summary of the information provided , albeit with a number of uncertainties , in the CARDINAL reports drawn up after the operation , CARDINAL

Once inside the building , at TIME , the gendarmes took up position in the watch towers located between the roofs of dormitories nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; they spotted CARDINAL “ terrorists ” on the lookout at the end of each corridor ; on seeing the gendarmes the latter shouted “ traitor ! ” at the prison guard who had opened the door to the gendarmes and then ran off towards their dormitories .

The “ terrorists ” locked behind them the entrance gates to the central corridor , the female “ terrorist ” dormitory and the inside areas of dormitories nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE . The gendarmes tried in vain to explain to the rioters that they would not be harmed if they allowed them to carry out the searches . The latter responded by chanting “ the revolutionary prisoners will never give in ! – Come on if you have the guts ! – Long live our independence struggle ! ”

Arriving at the second gate , the gendarmes tasked with protecting the search units were attacked with Molotov cocktails and lumps of concrete . Junior officer ORG ’s uniform caught fire ( although no such name is included in the list of injured persons in PERSON ) .

In view of the deteriorating situation , the whole prison staff took shelter behind the gendarmerie units .

The “ terrorists ” , ignoring Commander PERSON . ’s warnings , continued to chant : “ The prisoners will never give in DATE we will resist or die . ” TIME they attacked the gendarmes with flame - throwers made out of gas cylinders . The gendarmes responded to the attack with force .

Under a hail of stones , logs and pieces of coal , the gendarmes first of all dismantled the barricades in the central corridor and then broke down the entrance door to the female dormitory with sledgehammers .

While the gendarmes were preparing to go into the dormitory living area , CARDINAL rioters lunged at them with iron bars and then aimed a home - made flame - thrower at them , which started a fire . The security forces used tear gas to drive the rioters back into their dormitory . Once they had taken control of the area , the gendarmes heard female prisoners shouting slogans from the upper floor . Those prisoners refused to comply with orders , and riposted with Molotov cocktails .

The gendarmes dismantled all the barricades in that zone and inspected the LOC before heading towards the stairs to the upper floor . The rioting female prisoners , who had barricaded the staircase with cupboards , threw stones at them . Using their shields to ward off the stones , the gendarmes managed to clear the staircase . When they attempted to enter the dormitories , they were doused with bleach and pelted with stones , broken glass and porcelain and food jars .

The female prisoners , who had blocked the entrance with chairs , tables and bedsteads , continued throwing stones and Molotov cocktails . They set fire to the mattresses piled up outside the dormitory , which led to a massive blaze , completely filling the area with smoke . The gendarmes brought in the firemen stationed on the roofs to deal with the fire .

At that moment an official told the gendarmes that there were CARDINAL ORG members inside who had to be evacuated , but that the female rioters were refusing to release them . The warnings issued were once again ignored and the female “ terrorists ” became more aggressive ; they began to take direct aim at the gendarmes’ faces with the flame - throwers , skewers and broken glass through the door opposite the staircase . During that episode , junior officer GPE , who was responsible for video - recording the events , was injured on the hand by a glass fragment . The gendarmes broke down the door of the adjacent room in order to reach the room in a corner of which the female rioters were grouped , having been driven back by the tear gas and the fire hoses ; when the gendarmes entered the room the rioters launched a final assault with iron bars , stones and skewers , still ignoring the calls to surrender .

The gendarmes resorted to force to neutralise the attack . Some of the women were slightly injured , as was gendarme conscript K.Uça . , who was wounded in the hip by a skewer , and conscripts A.Gök . and M.Ayd . , who were injured in the abdomen and the right hand , respectively .

At TIME the female prisoners were forced to exit CARDINAL by CARDINAL . Several knives were discovered in their dormitory and filmed . According to the documents on file , during this episode neither the prisoners nor the gendarmes used firearms .

The other operational units met with extremely violent resistance when they attempted to remove the barricades behind the doors to dormitories nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE . While the gendarmes made their way towards the area of dormitory no . CARDINAL , “ terrorists ” behind the barricades opened fire , threw Molotov cocktails and stones and then retreated into dormitory no . CARDINAL . This withdrawal enabled the gendarmes to evacuate CARDINAL prisoners who were ORG members from dormitory no . CARDINAL ; those prisoners had previously informed the prison authorities that they dissociated themselves from the rioters .

The rioters , thus cornered in dormitory no . CARDINAL , tried to climb on to the roofs , but were prevented from doing so by truncheon blows from the gendarmes . They nevertheless managed to start a fire in the dormitory by burning mattresses . Some of the gendarmes almost died of asphyxiation , and reinforcements were called in to take control of the area ; several tear - gas canisters were thrown in , forcing a group of “ terrorists ” to take refuge in the aforementioned dormitory . Despite the calls to surrender , the surrounded “ terrorists ” opened fire , chanting : “ NORP , we ’ll kill you ! – bring on the flame - throwers , torch them ! ” Specialist sergeant PERSON was hit in the abdomen .

The gendarmes stationed on the roofs of dormitories nos . CARDINAL and DATE and in watch tower no . CARDINAL riposted with tear gas and their official weapons , while the firemen used high - power hoses and carbon dioxide foam . Subsequently , the gendarmes saw “ terrorists ” going back and forth between the living area and the dormitory to fetch their LOC bodies ; the prisoners who were severely affected by the gas and the foam and were squatting in various parts of the area were easily apprehended .

Despite low visibility due to the tear gas , the gendarmes saw some of the “ terrorists ” approaching the exit in order to surrender ; at the same time shouts of “ Traitors ! PERSON the cowards ! ” were followed by “ bursts of gunfire ” inside the dormitory . CARDINAL “ terrorists ” managed to get out ; CARDINAL others were gunned down by their own comrades .

The remaining rioters , who were once again barricaded behind the door to dormitory no . CARDINAL , attempted to reach the gendarmes with stones , iron bars , cudgels and flame - throwers , and they picked up and threw back tear - gas canisters . During the confrontations junior officers E.A. and ORG were injured on the arm and the nose , respectively , by stones ; sergeant PERSON was hit on the right eyebrow , and conscripts PERSON and ORG sustained a fracture of the right auricular and a traumatic injury to the right eyebrow , respectively .

ORG in front of the aforementioned door , the gendarmes saw a rioter pointing a gun at them at CARDINAL of the upstairs windows . When the gendarmes went up to the first floor and approached the door , the “ terrorists ” , including the person later identified as GPE . Gök . , opened fire indiscriminately from the windows . During that attack one bullet seriously injured junior officer GPE and another went through sergeant ORG ’s helmet , leaving him in a state of shock ; the “ terrorists ” also shot and injured captain GPE and sergeant GPE

At TIME the gendarmes took control of dormitory no . CARDINAL , just as the rioters were trying to flee the area ; prisoner GPE died at TIME , following – according to the prisoners DATE a burst of gunfire .

The operation ended with that incident .

During TIME of the raid on dormitory no . CARDINAL , prisoners PERSON and PERSON ( relatives of the applicants PERSON and PERSON and ORG ) were killed ; their bodies were found in the dormitory no . CARDINAL living area . GPE ( a relative of the applicant PERSON ) died CARDINAL later inside the same dormitory .

According to the statements by the applicants and the prisoners , Under PERSON ( the son of applicant PERSON ) , PERSON ( the son of applicant PERSON ) and PERSON ( the brother of applicant PERSON ) later died of their wounds , during the ensuing mayhem .

According to the official version , PERSON ( the husband of applicant PERSON ) , who was shot in the leg , died later in hospital . According to the applicant and witness statements , PERSON and PERSON ( the son of the applicant PERSON ) were beaten up and executed in an isolated room after the operation ; several prisoners claimed to have heard ORG screaming in the shower room . A certain GPE , who displayed no bullet wounds , had allegedly suffered the same fate , having also been dragged into the showers .

The Government contested those allegations , adhering to the aforementioned official version of events .

The result was as follows : CARDINAL prisoners dead and CARDINAL injured , CARDINAL of whom had sustained life - threatening injuries ; and QUANTITY gendarmes injured , CARDINAL seriously .

According to the official version , once the situation was completely under control , the unharmed prisoners were placed in cells . The gendarmes took CARDINAL injured “ terrorists ” ( no names are given ) to the prison dispensary . The others , including several applicants ( List B ) , were retained for TIME in the shower room , where they were given first aid before being transferred to various hospitals .

According to the injured applicants , however , it was in that shower room and the CARDINAL long corridor leading to it that they were dragged , stamped on and beaten up by the gendarmes and prison guards lined up on either side of them . In the said room they had been forced to strip and lie on the floor , under a rain of blows , particularly concentrating on their injuries , and making comments such as “ why is this guy not dead yet ? – we shot CARDINAL of your mates , it ’s your turn now ! – no hospital for him , we ’ll finish him off here ! ” The gendarmes allegedly pushed injured prisoners down the stairs or laid them out on stretchers only to immediately drop them . The torturers included officers from the GPE police department ’s anti - DHKP - C office with whom the convicts , as members of the DHKP - C , were well acquainted .

At the end of the operation , the transfers of the other prisoners to other prisons were also carried out .

NORP The medical information on the officers injured during the operation is summarised in PERSON .

It transpires from the case file that in the instant case the gendarmes , instead of being taken to ORG DATE which was the usual practice – were examined at the PERSON military hospital , which issued their medical reports .

According to those reports , the condition of gendarmes DATE . , ORG . and Ü.Soy . , who had bullet wounds , necessitated convalescence leave for CARDINAL , DATE and DATE respectively , on the understanding that Ü.Soy . ’s life was in danger .

Contradicting the findings of the medical report concerning the conscript Z.Eng . , indictment no . CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , identifies this person as one of the officers suffering from a gunshot wound .

According to the same reports , the condition of conscripts A.Er . , A.Gök . and K.Uça . did not necessitate sick leave . The number of days’ unfitness for work prescribed for the other gendarmes was CARDINAL for PERSON . , PERSON . and PERSON . , CARDINAL for N.Kar . , DATE . and GPE . , and CARDINAL for E.Ayd . and M.Özk .

All the relevant medical data on the applicants’ CARDINAL deceased relatives ( List A ) are summarised in LAW .

Those data show that the CARDINAL persons in question all died of wounds caused by bullets from various types of firearms . In view of that fact , ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL in fine below ) tasked a committee of CARDINAL forensic scientists to assess the appropriateness of the autopsy and pathological exploration procedures followed in the present case . That committee found that there had been no major shortcomings attributable to the medical staff involved in the said examinations , having regard , in particular , to the shortage of personnel and the poor working conditions . However , it noted that , in breach of the principles set out in the “ LOC LAW ” , the forensic experts had omitted to dissect the corpses’ skin and sub - cutaneous tissue and to take samples from the traumatic and burn injuries in order to conduct histopathological research on them . Expressing doubts as to the origin of those burns , which had , on the face of it , been caused by chemicals , the committee regretted that more specific necropsies had not been considered , especially since some of the injuries observed on the corpses corresponded to acts generally classified as lethal acts or acts of torture .

As regards the applicants who were injured ( List B ) , and whose clinical pictures are provided in Appendix IV , it should be noted that there is no medical evidence relating to PERSON , ORG ( PERSON ) , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON Çınar , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr Gürhan Hızmay , Mr PERSON and Mr ORG . Furthermore , the medical report on Mr PERSON , which was obtained further to a complaint lodged on DATE , DATE after the events ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG findings concerning those applicants also prompted a number of comments from the aforementioned committee ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) :

“ ... CARDINAL . Some of the traumatic injuries displayed by the injured persons resemble lesions resulting from trauma caused by a blunt instrument ; having regard to their distribution and orientation on the body , as well as their shape and extent , some of those lesions might have been caused during the confrontations and captures , but it is medically inconceivable that they all appeared during the operation ; some of the lesions consist of ‘ parallel lines of bruising’ and , having regard to their length , they characterise injuries resulting from direct blows struck with CARDINAL or more long , blunt , convex or round instrument(s ) ;

As the healing process for injuries depends on their nature and their position on the body , as well as the individual ’s physical peculiarities , no medical opinion can be provided on which came first , the firearm injuries or the traumatic damage ... ”

Appendix IV also sets out CARDINAL categories of applicant ( List B ) broken down by DATE sick leave prescribed , as follows :

– DATE for PERSON and PERSON ;

– DATE for PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON and PERSON ;

– DATE for PERSON , PERSON , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( annotated “ getting better within DATE ” ) and PERSON ;

– DATE for PERSON , PERSON , Yıldırım Doğan ( DATE according to the indictment of DATE see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , GPE LANGUAGE ( DATE according to the aforementioned indictment ) , PERSON and PERSON ( ORG ) ;

– DATE for PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG and ORG ; and

– DATE for PERSON and PERSON , in a condition described as life - threatening , and for PERSON and PERSON .

It transpires from the first CARDINAL search resorts that , in view of the large haul , it had been decided to film the prohibited items found in the dormitories with a view to subsequently inventorying them , and that the officers had reprimanded the prison guards , accusing them of having brought the weapons into FAC . The inventory in question listed the following items :

– CARDINAL AMD-CARDINAL assault rifle ( series no . PERSON ) with a magazine containing CARDINAL bullets , CARDINAL CARDINAL-mm short - barrelled shotgun with CARDINAL cartridges ( CARDINAL of them empty ) , CARDINAL “ PERSON ” pistol ( series no . DATE ) with CARDINAL magazines , CARDINAL “ CARDINAL-shot Baretta pistol ” ( series no . CARDINALPYCARDINAL ) with CARDINAL magazine , CARDINAL semi - automatic ORG pistol ( series no . D CARDINAL ) with CARDINAL magazines , CARDINAL home - made pen guns , CARDINAL “ silencers ” , CARDINAL PERSON cartridges , CARDINAL bullets for CARDINAL-mm pistol , CARDINAL of them spent , CARDINAL G-CARDINAL gun cartridges , QUANTITY of them spent , QUANTITY blank bullets , CARDINAL projectiles and CARDINAL magazine cases ;

– CARDINAL knives , CARDINAL PERSON knives , CARDINAL stilettos , CARDINAL machetes , CARDINAL wooden dagger , CARDINAL miscellaneous blunt instruments , CARDINAL iron bar , CARDINAL wooden sledgehammer , QUANTITY cudgels and CARDINAL catapults ;

– CARDINAL unused Molotov cocktails , CARDINAL gas cylinders , CARDINAL home - made gas masks , CARDINAL packets of explosive powder , CARDINAL home - made tear - gas canister , and miscellaneous solvents and combustible liquids ;

– CARDINAL welding machine , CARDINAL drill , CARDINAL wood chisels , CARDINAL nails , CARDINAL chisels , CARDINAL different - sized saws , CARDINAL screwdriver and CARDINAL , CARDINAL trowel ;

– CARDINAL firearms ( PERSON , PERSON and revolvers ) and CARDINAL bombes , CARDINAL telescope , CARDINAL truncheons and CARDINAL fake training batons ;

– CARDINAL mobile portables with accessories , CARDINAL hollowed - out book and CARDINAL master - keys .

The third and fourth reports , which were drawn up DATE specified that the aforementioned “ GPE ” semi - automatic pistol ( series no . CARDINAL ) had been used by prisoner PERSON . Gök . , who , having fired CARDINAL or QUANTITY shots , had retreated to dormitory no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL in fine above ) . CARDINAL more reports drawn up DATE mentioned the discovery of a CARDINAL-mm Star semi - automatic pistol with CARDINAL bullet in the magazine .

Four further searches were conducted CARDINAL , revealing :

– CARDINAL hunting knife with a CARDINAL blade , complete with sheath ( DATE ) ;

– CARDINAL g bags of cement , CARDINAL packets of floor tiles , QUANTITY packets of plaster , and CARDINAL blades and iron casts ;

– QUANTITY of telephone cable ( DATE ) ; and

– CARDINAL CARDINAL-cm iron tubes soldered to CARDINAL blades , to be used as picks or axes ( DATE ) .

In the light of the foregoing considerations , it is important to reiterate the following statements made to ORG by Colonel PERSON , the commanding officer of the PERSON :

“ ... We drew up our plan and arrived at Ulucanlar on TIME of CARDINAL DATE ; the prisoners riposted with firearms and flame throwers , and we were attacked with knives ; so we also used our arms in accordance with the powers conferred by Act No . CARDINAL [ on the organisation of ORG ] . My men were injured , and unfortunately on the other side prisoners were also injured or lost their lives . Their deaths have greatly saddened me . I am sad because there should not have been any weapons there . If there had been no weapons there would have been no confrontation and these people would not have died , and my men would not have been injured ... After those events ORG issued the directive of CARDINAL DATE . Prior to that date , we ( gendarmes ) were not empowered to search prison guards entering the prison ; the prison guards were searched by other prison guards . Imagine CARDINAL prison guards who have links with the ... prisoners . What sort of links might these be ? They might be material , pecuniary or ideological , or be based on fear . Therefore , if the ‘ ORG organisation told those CARDINAL guards that someone would be bringing a gun from outside and that they had to hand it over to [ a given prisoner ] , they would be certain to obey . The prison guard goes into the prison and [ CARDINAL of his colleagues ] searches him , not a gendarme . A lawyer arrives and no one searches him . He has a private conversation with the detainee or prisoner and leaves , after which the detainee or prisoner is taken back to his cell , still without any body searches . Normally no such items should have been brought into the prison ... The prison in question has CARDINAL more special feature : it is next to the open prison section , where individuals come and go , stroll around and do whatever they want , and they could easily throw whatever objects they wish over the wall . There have been lots of incidents of this kind . We drew up a report and informed the prison authorities that a package had been thrown inside ; [ the guards ] searched the LOC but found nothing . After all , we could never have interfered in the running of the prison ! ... ”

Lieutenant - Colonel GPE . , the commanding officer of the task force , had stated the following :

“ No search had been carried out in the section housing prisoners convicted of terrorist offences for DATE ... No request to that effect was ever submitted , and we did not act because the public prosecutor had never called on our services . As you know ... we can only act inside the prison if the prosecutor or Prison Director so requests ... ”

The statement by Captain PERSON , commander of the ORG , on that matter can be summarised as follows :

“ This affair did not begin on DATE ] ; its origins go back into the distant past . In GPE , but also in all the other prisons housing ‘ ORG , the prison authorities had no control over the sections reserved for such prisoners ; this is a well - known fact . In those sections ... the ‘ ORG ruled the roost ... ; TV and the other media covered this : the State Prosecutor sitting down with the prisoners and negotiating with them , and the latter then taking hostages and obtaining everything they had been demanding . Despite all the denials , whole pages of such agreements have been published in the newspapers ... ; it was obvious that a lot of weapons and mobile phones were circulating in the prison ; during ordinary body searches , even where prison guards felt a weapon , they were all too scared to confiscate it ... An incident was sure to occur if gendarmes raided the ‘ terrorists ’’ dormitories ... because no gendarme had ever entered those premises to conduct a search for CARDINAL or DATE ... Many staff have been caught red - handed smuggling weapons and drugs into the prison ... ”

On DATE the gendarmes discovered a QUANTITY , CARDINAL - CARDINAL-cm deep hole in the middle of the concrete floor of dormitory no . CARDINAL , at a distance of QUANTITY from the wall , which the gendarmes identified as the entrance to a future tunnel . The hole was filled with pieces of wood and blankets .

On DATE the gendarmes inspected the floor of dormitory no . CARDINAL . In the kitchenette , underneath the worktop , they noted that an CARDINAL x CARDINAL area had been bricked up and replastered to merge in with the colour of the walls . The gendarmes broke through the bricks and found that the floor had been dug up to a depth of QUANTITY . They deduced that what they had found was the beginnings of a tunnel .

On DATE the floor of the dormitory no . CARDINAL living area was inspected . The gendarmes dug into the ground around CARDINAL poplar trees , and discovered a QUANTITY plywood trapdoor covering QUANTITY tunnel entrance . The entrance led to an approximately CARDINAL-m long tunnel running towards the aforementioned hole inside dormitory no . CARDINAL . The tunnel was found to contain CARDINAL home - made iron picks , a bag containing QUANTITY of dug - out rubble and a bag with QUANTITY of gravel .

Before ORG , the ministerial authorities submitted that the occupation of dormitory no . CARDINAL had been solely aimed at facilitating the preparation of a mass break - out ; that had also been the aim pursued by the rioters in hitherto blocking the access of prison guards to the dormitories and preventing presence checks , as allegedly proved by the incipient tunnel discovered after the operation . According to those authorities , CARDINAL and DATE the prison authorities had unsuccessfully attempted to put an end to the said occupation of the dormitory . In view of the failure of these attempts and the increasing number of leaks concerning an imminent prison break - out , an anti - riot operation had become inevitable .

Although ORG accepted that the leaks concerning the tunnelling activities had played a major role in the decision to raid the LOC in question , it considered that there was some doubt as to the real nature of the sites identified in the area of dormitories CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL as incipient tunnels . ORG pointed out that the first alleged tunnel , which was QUANTITY , began in the living area of dormitory no . CARDINAL and ended inside that dormitory . It took the view that it was implausible that the prisoners had ventured to dig a tunnel in an open yard which was overlooked by watch towers . Furthermore , ORG considered that the second digging site found behind the worktop in the dormitory no . CARDINAL kitchen did not really match the profile of an attempted escape tunnel .

Between DATE and DATE ORG was sent to Ulucanlar , where it held talks with a number of prisoners – including some of the applicants – prison staff , officers and other governmental and non - governmental officials . ORG report covered CARDINAL pages , CARDINAL of which concerned the impugned operation , and comprised a plethora of damning observations .

ORG began by enumerating the obstacles encountered during the investigations . ORG responsible for investigating the case had failed to attend the scheduled meeting , and , furthermore , the forensic medical team and the prison authorities had refused to hand over specific items of physical evidence such as the video recordings made during the operation and the photographs taken during the autopsies . It noted that although the gendarmerie authorities DATE which merely presented a few photographs taken long after the events – had denied the existence of such audiovisual material , several of the individuals questioned had affirmed that the operation had indeed been filmed and that , in fact , “ the junior officer responsible for the video recording had sustained an injury to his hand ” .

According to ORG , this situation had reinforced the suspicions of concealment of evidence , particularly since the authorities had refused to grant the ORG lawyers leave to attend the autopsies , which refusal they alleged was in breach of the requirement to reassure the general public in such a sensitive case .

The report included several specific chapters , converging on an overall assessment of the impugned situation based on witness statements and other relevant evidence .

According to prisoners who did not actively participate in the riot , the occupation of dormitory no . CARDINAL was intended , in particular , as a protest against overcrowding in the dormitories after the failed attempts to negotiate that issue with the prison authorities .

ORG held that the prisoners in dormitories nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL had certainly violated the law , infringed the rights of their cellmates in dormitory no . CARDINAL and contributed to the escalating tensions by refusing to terminate their actions . However , ORG pointed out that of the CARDINAL dormitories available in GPE , CARDINAL were exclusively earmarked for leftist prisoners , and that there was a real overcrowding problem liable to goad those concerned into action .

ORG considered that if dormitory no . CARDINAL had been raided on DATE , it was inexplicable why the authorities had waited for TIME before instigating an operation on that scale , with attempting beforehand to act in CARDINAL way or another . It added that there was also no explanation for the fact that , at the height of the tension , the prison prosecutor had gone on leave or that the operation had been launched on DATE of the Prime Minister ’s departure on an official visit to GPE .

According to the official version , before entering the dormitories the gendarmes had duly ordered the rioters to surrender , but the latter had riposted with guns , home - made bombs , gas cylinders transformed into flame - throwers and various sharp tools . The non - rioting prisoners explained that there had indeed been shouted orders such as “ surrender ! If you surrender you will be well treated ! ” , but that those orders had been drowned out by the noise of the gunfire . The security forces said that they had attempted to contain the attacks with tear - gas canisters and high - pressure foam sprays , but that that had not stopped the prisoners , who were wearing home - made gas masks .

According to ORG , and contrary to the official version , the incidents of DATE could not just be put down to the resistance of prisoners occupying a dormitory to prison officers assisted by the security forces . Similarly , the CARDINAL deaths which had occurred could not have been the result of an improvised reaction by the gendarmes .

ORG explained that a plan had been drawn up DATE beforehand , that the LOC had been inspected on a number of occasions and that the situation had been discussed in detail with the prison guards and the administrative staff . ORG held that the operation had even been prepared in such a way as to include special strike forces . In the light of the number of dead and injured , it should have been obvious that , owing to the absence of prior measures to protect the lives of the prisoners , who were incarcerated under the ORG ’s responsibility , that operation had been a serious failure .

ORG took the view that the real reasons for the operation lay elsewhere ; there had been a serious longstanding problem of mutual confidence between the prisoners and those responsible for FAC at all levels , including with the gendarmes on duty at the prison . Accordingly , all the officials questioned had begun by acknowledging that “ the ORG was no longer in control of the prisons ” .

Nevertheless , ORG noted that the meaning of the word “ control ” was unclear . “ Control ” could not mean preventing escapes – such cases being extremely rare – or carrying out regular searches and presence checks ; nor could control be aimed at preventing freedom of movement by the prisoners between dormitories , monitoring the prison activities of members of the “ terrorist ” organisations , undermining the authority of their leaders or preventing large quantities of foodstuffs from being smuggled into the prison .

All such aims could have highlighted only the structural inadequacy of the prisons , the shortage of public funds and a deficient prison regime , and not any legitimate need for control of prison life .

On that subject , ORG reported that the prisoners interviewed had complained of the denial of their rights under a “ protocol of understanding ” which they claimed to have signed with the officials of the prison and ORG .

It pointed out that , whereas that ORG had officially denied the existence of any such document , many of the prisoners and the prison administrators had confirmed its existence , explaining that before the operation the said protocol , which comprised CARDINAL articles , had been deposited with the public prosecutor ’s office , but that the document had been missing since the operation .

According to ORG , in view of the difficulties encountered in effectively applying the prison rules , which situation would in fact have been difficult to reconcile with current human rights requirements , it was clear that the officials , who had already been under media pressure , had concluded agreements with the leaders of the leftist prisoners in order to define the terms and conditions of prison life . ORG took the view that even though such agreements could be seen as useful for protecting ORG rights , in the instant case it was precisely the issue of implementing the agreement in question which triggered the events at GPE . ORG explained that when there had been changes in the management of a given prison or when government policy had changed , the rights afforded to prisoners under such agreements had been denied , with the successive authorities proclaiming the unlawfulness of such privileges and the prisoners refusing to give up rights which they now took for granted .

It added that CARDINAL illustration of the feeling of powerlessness experienced by the prison staff ( many of whom had a rather low standard of education ) on this matter was their interpretation , for example , of the signs and tags which had been observed in the dormitories inspected following the operation as showing the ORG belonging to an illegal organisation . The prisoners interviewed had firmly denied that the LOC had ever been used as “ terrorist ” cells ; they had said that in the dormitories they had considered themselves entitled to conduct activities of a strictly cultural and intellectual nature . ORG considered that the reaction of the authority ’s vis - à - vis the nature of those activities and the fact that they had sought to ban them as illegal had only exacerbated the situation .

Furthermore , ORG highlighted the statement by ORG . , who had directed the operation , to the effect that the men had acted to “ restore the ORG ’s authority ” , and emphasised that the PERSON had on several occasions invited the Ministers of Justice and of the Interior to take action to “ restore the ORG ’s authority and prevent ORG from becoming a ‘ terrorist’ training centre ... ” .

In ORG view , however , those facts alone were insufficient to explain the above - mentioned feeling of powerlessness ; behind the “ desire to control persons ” above and beyond their physical confinement there also lurked a wish to stigmatise prisoners convicted of political or terrorist acts vis - à - vis the other inmates .

The Sub - Commission took the view that although it was incontrovertible that in cases of absolute necessity the security forces could resort to firearms within the limits of the law , inflicting death out of frustration at a loss of authority was clearly inadmissible . The deaths and injuries in FAC had revealed an intention to kill , rather than an intention to put an end to the occupation of dormitories or to break down resistance . It analysed the existence of mutual resentment powerful enough to induce individuals to take the risk of killing or being killed as a sign that the prisoners and gendarmes had viewed each other as enemies .

In that regard , it emphasised that the military - style training given to members of the gendarmerie had been inappropriate for such an operation because , to a “ soldier ” , any “ adversary ” would have become an “ enemy ” whom he had a mission to destroy . That was why , according to ORG , no ordinary gendarmes should have been involved in situations such as that pertaining in the present case , unless the personnel to be sent in had received appropriate training for such missions , in the knowledge that their duty was not solely to prevent the prisoners from escaping , but also to protect their lives and ensure respect for human rights .

ORG observed , however , that , in the present case the gendarmes had behaved as if they were facing a group of terrorists who had taken to the mountains , “ whereas there were CARDINAL prisoners suffering from the effects of gas and foam and confined to an area of QUANTITY , who could neither escape nor remain barricaded in for ever ” .

It explained that it had asked a number of officers whether any methods other than firearms could have been used and why the forces involved had not concentrated more on the use of tear gas and carbon dioxide foam in order to bring the situation under control .

The officers had allegedly replied that they had begun by using all possible non - lethal methods , in particular tear gas , until the gendarmes wearing military gas masks had themselves been affected by the gas , as had all the persons inspecting the dormitories DATE after the incident . Moreover , according to CARDINAL colonel , it would have been pointless to wait or to fire off more tear - gas canisters because the rioters had protected themselves with masks .

According to ORG , the only possible conclusion was that the tear - gas canisters in question had proved their efficacy in terms of their quantity and power . But since they had been insufficient to contain the rioters , should it not have been accepted that the prisoners , with their home - made masks , had been better protected from the gas than the gendarmes with their professional masks ?

The Sub - Commission further recounted the explanations given by another captain , to the effect that “ since we already had CARDINAL wounded gendarmes and were facing violent resistance , we could no longer decide to retreat , to halt the combat ; we had no say in the matter ” . ORG pointed out that Lieutenant - Colonel A.Öz . ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had also acknowledged that he could not have called off an operation without undermining the morale of the troops and allowing the “ adversary ” to regain confidence . It quoted that officer ’s words as follows :

“ ... In my view , it was impossible to restrain [ the rioters ] by any other means because they had larges stores of food in the dormitories . Furthermore , we had no ‘ paralysing’ gas , and to my knowledge there is no such gas . We have tear - gas canisters ... We could not opt to ‘ wait and DATE because that would have raised the problem that a long period of waiting would have enabled the other side to prepare better and step up their resistance ... Once the armed confrontation has begun it can no longer be stopped . I am glad that my next - in - command and my lieutenant survived , thanks be to God , but if CARDINAL of them had been martyred , how could we have explained that to people ? ... In the past , when we came here on an operation , we only searched the ordinary ORG dormitories , not those of the prisoners convicted of terrorism . When the operation was instigated the latter prisoners resisted to the death . Firearms were the last resort , and we held back until our personnel began to sustain injuries ... That is when you have to react ; the longer you hold off the worse the eventual losses [ in your own ranks ] will be ... ; if you wait too long before riposting you will allow the ‘ ORG to adjust their aim and erect barricades ... They even began killing each other ; there were burst of gunfire inside the dormitory ... I shouted down from the first floor ‘ but that ’s automatic gunfire!’ and the reply came ‘ we know , sir ... we have no hunting rifles , we do n’t use them ... ”

Finally , ORG quoted Captain PERSON on that specific issue ( cf . paragraph DATE above ) , who had considered it unfair to ask them how they could have avoided “ killing CARDINAL individuals ” :

“ ... We did n’t kill them ... Honestly , if I had wanted to kill someone , why would I have chosen ordinary guys like GPE or PERSON , instead of shooting the group leaders ? Those CARDINAL were about to be released ... and pulled no weight in the organisation . Those were the kind of people who were killed . Did n’t you notice that [ the first persons who died ] did not include any of the leaders ? It was because to begin with the other guys had wanted to surrender that many of them were executed by those [ leaders ] ... We do not deny that we used firearms , but it was n’t us who killed those CARDINAL individuals ; it should be realised that if we had intended to shoot to kill we would have targeted the group leaders , or else we would already have eliminated them in the past , during quieter times ... ”

The Sub - Commission considered that those arguments were strictly military in nature and had , moreover , highlighted a lack of authority on the ORG part over the actions of the men under their command .

ORG considered that more information was required on the nature of the “ violent resistance ” which had to be “ broken ” by the security forces .

According to the official version , a PERSON , CARDINAL pistols and a hunting rifle had been found in the dormitories . Of the QUANTITY fatalities , CARDINAL had been the result of shots from that hunting rifle : in short , according to the gendarmes previous quarrels had induced the “ terrorists ” to kill each other .

ORG observed that the prisoners questioned had admitted having seen some of their comrades using guns , but that none of them had seen any PERSON - type automatic weapon or a hunting rifle . No such PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL in limine above ) had ever been mentioned before or discovered during the initial search , but it had been found later on , after a prisoner had told the prosecutor that “ the first shot had been fired from an automatic weapon ” . And the hunting rifle , which had also never been previously mentioned , had also only emerged after the operation .

Given that the only injuries noted by the gendarmes had been caused by gunshots , ORG wondered why , if the rioters had indeed been in possession of such a powerful weapon as a PERSON , they had not used it against the gendarmes , and also why , if they had actually used a hunting rifle to kill CARDINAL of their comrades , they had not also turned it against the gendarmes .

DATE . Nevertheless , ORG held that the main question was how so many firearms had been smuggled into GPE . They considered the official line that they had been hidden in food packages or thrown over the prison wall unconvincing in view of the existence of electronic alarm systems and the guards keeping watch on the towers .

Nor did ORG consider it conceivable that the firearms could have been supplied with the assistance of a number of corrupt officers ; only a major organisation could have managed such a feat by infiltrating the prison , which would have involved huge sums of money .

Furthermore , ORG noted that since CARDINAL cartridges had been found in the dormitories , the shooting attributed to the rioters could not have been as intense as had been claimed ; it therefore considered that the account of a violent exchange of fire in the dormitories could not be taken at face value and that consequently there was no proof that the force used by the gendarmes in response had been strictly proportionate to the danger , especially since the bullet impacts on the inside walls of the dormitories suggested that the shots fired by the gendarmes had been directly aimed at individuals .

The Sub - Commission also stated that the other argument , to the effect that the rioters had used gas cylinders as flame - throwers to prevent the gendarmes from entering the dormitories , could not be described as very convincing : the doors to the LOC in question had not displayed any scorch marks and none of the gendarmes had sustained any serious burns .

The Sub - Commission further pointed out that according to the officers involved , the gendarmes had also been attacked with sharp instruments ; still according to the officers , it was only to be expected that the deceased prisoners had displayed traces of blows and injuries because there had been “ clashes and confrontations with the prisoners , who had attacked the gendarmes with iron bars and stilettos , and the latter had had to riposte with truncheons ” .

Nevertheless , ORG observed that it was unclear whether any knife wounds had been found on the gendarmes , nor was there any evidence that any such hand - to - hand fighting had ever taken place , never mind a confrontation lasting for TIME .

On the other hand , ORG noted that many of the prisoners had claimed to have been beaten up , dragged along the floor and stamped on for no reason . It added that those allegations had been confirmed by forensic reports and that the forensic experts had established that some of the traces of violence observed on the injured prisoners and the corpses had indeed only been explicable by blows from blunt instruments and bodies being dragged across a hard floor ( see paragraph CARDINAL in fine above ) .

Moreover , the doctors responsible for providing first aid in the shower room prior to the transfer of the injured to hospital had also reported that the prisoners had begged them not to leave them alone , explaining that as soon as there were no witnesses , the gendarmes tortured them by exerting pressure on their wounds .

The Sub - Commission considered that the traces of blows and the injuries noted on the bodies of the prisoners and the corpses did not appear to have resulted from clashes and confrontations , and that the most likely scenario was that during and after the operation the security forces had resorted to excessive force and beaten the rioters . Furthermore , as regards the burns found on the bodies of the injured and dead prisoners , it pointed out that according to the forensic experts which it had appointed , they might have been caused by nitric or sulfuric acid , the presence of which chemicals it deemed unexplained .

Having regard to all the foregoing observations , ORG issued the following opinion .

In the absence of a constructive attitude on the part of the Ulucanlar and ORG officials , the impugned operation had ultimately been characterised by a level of violence surpassing its original aim , the commanding officers concerned having discharged the mission without preventing deaths and widespread injuries .

Clearly , sole responsibility for all those incidents could not be attributed to the gendarmes , the prison staff or the Ministry in question . However , the ORG ’s differentiated policy depending on prison type and the prison staff ’s excessive zeal in “ controlling ” the prisoners convicted of political offences by inflicting penalties in addition to the sentences which they were already serving had certainly been the main factor in the escalating tension and the lack of trust between both sides .

Beyond the arguments put forward by the authorities , the real reason for such violence had boiled down to a longstanding dispute between the prison administration , which had been determined to impose its authority , and the prisoners , who had been demanding rights which they considered wholly legitimate .

The officials involved in that dispute had ended up calling in the gendarmerie , who had proved unsuited to managing that kind of situation and who , in the absence of appropriate instructions , had inflicted ill - treatment on the prisoners and used disproportionate force .

On DATE , at the request of ORG , inspectors initiated an administrative investigation against R.Cin . , ORG , and his CARDINAL deputies , PERSON Çel . , U.Sal . , PERSON . and T.Yıl . , on the grounds , inter alia , of the discovery of weapons and various prohibited objects and substances on the prison LOC ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .

The CARDINAL officials were charged with failing in their obligation to control and supervise the prisoners under their responsibility .

They argued in their defence that it was impossible to identify the prison guards involved in smuggling weapons and ammunition into the prison . They added that even though visitors passed through metal detectors , the prison regulations prohibited body searches , and that the old and dilapidated state of ORG made it easy to hide prohibited items , which were sometimes even thrown over the prison wall from the outside .

The officials further submitted that in practice it was impossible to impose disciplinary sanctions on prisoners for such offences since the deputy directors were not on ORG and , moreover , the impugned occupation of dormitory no . CARDINAL had in fact been brought to the attention of ORG and the public prosecutor ’s office , but no action had been taken before the date on which the risk of a break - out had become imminent .

DATE . After the investigations , the inspectors had agreed on the need for sanctions . They stated that the officers in question should be declared responsible for :

– bringing prohibited items into the prison through the intermediary of certain officials who had acted unsupervised and with complete impunity ;

– the failure to conduct body searches of detainees and convicted prisoners being transferred between Ulucanlar Prison and hospital ;

– the absence of X - ray checks on lawyers and their personal effects ;

– the absence of targeted or general searches throughout the prison LOC in order to seize prohibited items ;

– the failure to impose deterrent disciplinary sanctions on prisoners ;

– the de facto tolerance , DATE and DATE , of the ORG unlawful actions , including their occupation of certain LOC ;

– the absence of presence checks in dormitories nos . CARDINAL and DATE and the female dormitory ; and

– the inability to block the access between those dormitories opened up by the prisoners .

On DATE , departing from the aforementioned opinion , the Director General of Prisons decided that no sanctions were required , giving the following reasons :

“ ... for DATE the prisons housing persons detained and convicted for acts of terrorism have been CARDINAL of the main problems facing our country , and the incidents which have occurred in them has attracted a high level of public interest . We can not overlook the fact that in prisons of this category searches are never properly carried out , presence checks raise problems and there are periods when no presence checks are carried out for DATE on end ; the detainees and convicted prisoners control the opening and closing of the doors to the dormitories , and when groups of them take over the corridors it is impossible to intervene ; even visits by and interviews with lawyers are arranged and controlled by the organisation leaders ; the net result is that the prison staff are overwhelmed and struggling , or even failing , to discharge their duties .

Consequently , as regards such incidents , which stem from a number of issues which have been building up for DATE into a problem facing all the ‘ anti - terrorist’ prisons in our country , not just [ Ulucanlar ] , it would be unfair to say that the [ Ulucanlar ] staff , who are under pressure ... from the detainees and prisoners convicted of terrorism and are in a way being forced to work in breach of the regulations and instructions , were at fault or acted intentionally ; in other words , it is unfair to attribute sole responsibility for these incidents to the [ Ulucanlar ] prison staff on the grounds that they acted negligently .

Moreover , even the investigation report of DATE [ sic – see paragraph CARDINAL above ] accepted that the staff had not been guilty of negligence , wrongdoing or intentional mischief , because , despite all their efforts , it would have been impossible to prevent the situation from reaching such a pitch ... ”

Finally , ORG concluded that no professional negligence was imputable to the Ulucanlar administrative staff .

At an unspecified date , a mandatory criminal investigation was instigated against head prison officers ORG and prison officers GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE . , GPE , GPE . and GPE , who were stationed at the Ulucanlar security checkpoint , for negligence in the exercise of their duties . In view of the number and type of weapons and ammunition discovered after the operation , those officers had been suspected of having internationally or accidently failed to carry out the requisite checks and searches on persons passing through the checkpoint , on DATE , in particular .

The suspects contested the accusations on the grounds that the gendarmes had received the same orders as the prison officers in terms of checking individuals entering the building , including ensuring security at the checkpoint . They submitted that although , occasionally , no checks had been carried out , that fact alone did not warrant any presumption of guilt .

By order of DATE the prosecution discontinued the proceedings for lack of evidence . In support of that decision , the prosecution pointed out that it had been impossible to determine the dates or periods of time when the prohibited items in question had been smuggled into FAC . They added that in the light of the architecture and organisation of the building , “ light weapons ” could quite easily have been thrown over the outside walls or else from the open area of the prison , or that they might have been brought in by other means or with the assistance of officers other than those who had been charged .

On DATE , immediately after the operation , the lawyers representing applicants PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , GPE , PERSON ( ORG ) and PERSON applied to ORG ( “ the Prosecutor ” ) for authorisation to be present during the autopsies should one of their clients die in the meantime , which was in fact the case of Mr PERSON .

The Prosecutor rejected that request .

Concurrently , Mr ORG and CARDINAL fellow lawyers lodged a formal complaint on behalf of applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , ORG and PERSON ( List B ) , as well as on behalf of the deceased prisoners PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( List A ) . PERSON requested , also unsuccessfully , leave to be present during Mr PERSON autopsy .

On the same date Mr PERSON and GPE , defence counsel , lodged a first collective complaint on behalf of all the “ prisoners who had been attacked ” .

Both those complaints were added to mandatory investigation file no . DATE . A preliminary investigation had already been instigated against CARDINAL members of the gendarmerie for unjustified used of lethal force against PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and GPE ( List A ) and for bodily injury against CARDINAL prisoners , including some of the applicants ( List B ) and excluding those set out below , who did not appear on the list of complainants : ORG ( GPE ) , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG .

On DATE the applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ORG who had meanwhile been transferred to ORG joined the complainants . They complained about the members of the security forces and the prison authorities , who they submitted had been responsible for the tragic events of DATE . Those complaints were also added to the aforementioned file no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

The applicant PERSON was questioned by the Prosecutor on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , when he accused the gendarmes of having beaten and injured him .

Still on DATE , CARDINAL of the lawyers for the applicants acknowledged receipt of the autopsy reports . They requested communication of the other necropsy reports , the documentation in support of the post - mortem examinations conducted in the present case and histopathological analyses of the tissue samples taken .

On the same date the morgue personnel replied that tissue samples had been taken and sent for analysis .

On DATE the lawyers lodged a second collective complaint which did not include the names of ORG ( List A ) or PERSON PERSON ( List B ) .

On the basis of a detailed statement of the facts , the lawyers accused the prison staff and members of the gendarmerie of premeditated murder , serious bodily injury and acts of torture . That complaint was recorded in a second file ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE counsel for PERSON lodged a formal complaint against QUANTITY gendarmes and officers who had taken part in the operation . That complaint , recorded in a third file ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , was followed by further complaints lodged separately on DATE by PERSON and PERSON .

According to a report drawn up at the end of the operation , CARDINAL of the first investigative measures implemented by the Prosecutor had been to visit Ulucanlar at TIME , as soon as he had been alerted , in order to attempt to determine which clothes recovered during the searches had belonged to deceased persons and which to injured persons , before ordering ballistic reports . The report stated :

“ [ at the site of the incident ] it was impossible to detect , on the dead ORG clothing , any traces of stabbings or projectile entry holes , because the corpses had been laid out side by side on the wet , blood - soaked floor ; furthermore , the clothing removed from the injured prisoners had been mixed with the clothes from the dead prisoners ... ”

With the help of the photographs taken of the corpses before they had been stripped and thanks to the memory of prison officer ORG . , the Prosecutor managed to identify the clothing of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . The clothing of the first CARDINAL dead persons displayed CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL holes respectively , some of them resembling bullet holes . There were no holes in PERSON clothes . The clothing belonging to PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and PERSON was not to be found .

Still on DATE , the authorities checked the deceased ORG criminal records . PERSON and PERSON had been former members of the illegal organisation ORG ( ORG ) ORG , PERSON of ORG , GPE of GPE and PERSON of NORP İHT.KOM.BİRL . , all QUANTITY being extreme left - wing fractions .

All the ensuing investigative measures , including the numerous expert appraisals carried out , are summarised below , accompanied by references to the annexes , as appropriate .

DATE the Prosecutor took statements from several ( non - applicant ) complainant prisoners , that is to say from GPE . Ö. , ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , Me . Ö. , A.Kan . , GPE , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , GPE , GPE , PERSON , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , M.B. , GPE , PERSON , ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE

The latter confirmed the substance of the applicant party ’s version .

On the other hand , CARDINAL other ( non - complainant ) escaped prisoners , namely GPE and ORG ( from dormitories nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively ) levelled accusations at some of the current and former applicants .

GPE explained that he had been kidnapped and interrogated under threat of death by the applicants PERSON ( whom he described as the boss of his dormitory ) , PERSON , PERSON and ORG Çınar . On DATE of the operation , PERSON had been instructed to prevent him from leaving dormitory no . CARDINAL . At CARDINAL point ORG had dragged him by the scruff of the neck towards dormitory no . CARDINAL , threatening him with a stiletto ; when the gendarmes began spraying the LOC with foam , LOC had tried to throw a home - made bomb at them , but it had exploded in his hands . Taking advantage of the panic , GPE had run and taken refuge with the gendarmes . GPE added that he had heard that CARDINAL of the guns had been used by PERSON and that some of the prison officers had been on friendly terms with the extreme leftist prisoners . Finally , GPE had requested police protection .

For his part , ORG stated that on DATE , in FAC , the prisoners occupying dormitories nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL had joined forces ; the dormitory no . CARDINAL “ boss ” had been ORG , while dormitory no . CARDINAL had been led by someone known as ORG ( alias PERSON ) . PERSON , GPE , ORG and PERSON had had real handguns , and during the operation they had opened fire on the gendarmes . The first shot had been fired from a handgun , and PERSON had , a priori , been holding that handgun . Subsequently , PERSON , GPE , ORG and PERSON had moved towards the dormitory no . CARDINAL exercise area ; they had been unable to climb over the barricades , but PERSON had nevertheless fired at the gendarmes on the watch tower .

ORG asserted that he had heard GPE shout “ fire at will at the towers ! ” . He continued :

“ The prisoners who triggered this incident were therefore PERSON , under the identity of PERSON , GPE , ORG and PERSON , who all had handguns ... Subsequently , PERSON and PERSON brought along something which looked like a gun roiled up in a blanket ; PERSON was carrying it , but I did n’t see him using it . It could have been a hunting rifle . ”

On DATE E.D. had sent the Prison Director a second statement which he had written DATE before , submitting that the first statement might have been incomplete because it had been written while he was still “ in shock ” . His second submissions had diverged somewhat , particularly as regards the afore - mentioned hunting rifle . Having pointed out that during the operation some of his fellow prisoners had wanted to surrender , ORG continued as follows :

“ but the bosses shot at them to stop them surrendering . There were several firearms and knives in the dormitory ; there was even a hunting rifle . Apart from that there was some bomb - making equipment . I know that PERSON , the former leader of the PERSON organisation ... had a very much frowned - upon romantic relationship with the prisoner ORG ] and that there were conflicts between the members of different organisations . PERSON did n’t want to compromise and had been excluded from his own community ... At TIME on TIME before the operation they brought PERSON to our dormitory , no . CARDINAL . GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG and a few others whose names I do not know yelled at him that they were at war and he was fighting over a whore ... PERSON even told PERSON : ‘ F ... it , we should just put a bullet in his head ... it would be better to execute him.’ ... I saw that PERSON , PERSON , GPE , PERSON , ORG and C.T.B. [ who was this time identified as the dormitory no . CARDINAL ‘ FAC ] and a few other members of the organisation were armed . Me and a few of my comrades managed to escape , but those who did n’t get away were hit . I know this because they had also shot at us , but missed ... DATE before the operation we had been forced into training in the use of explosives and how to react to an ‘ enemy attack’ ... Everyone except PERSON wanted to be transferred , but PERSON opposed the move . PERSON and PERSON were also constantly wrangling over a ‘ ORG post . ”

At TIME , having read the above document , the Prosecutor once again questioned PERSON , who provided the following details :

– PERSON and GPE had always carried handguns in their back pockets in the dormitory ;

– on TIME of the operation PERSON and GPE had barricaded the entrance gate to the dormitory no . CARDINAL area and then smashed the lights in the dormitory ;

– when the gendarmes ordered us to surrender , PERSON riposted by firing a shot at the gate ; some prisoners wanted to surrender ; PERSON then fired in our direction and the directly at PERSON ; TIME before the gendarmes had also fired a few shots , but PERSON might have been killed by Enver ;

– GPE was holding something in his hands rolled up in a blanket ; when the blanket was removed I saw that it was a hunting rifle ; I think it was GPE who used it , but I did n’t actually see him firing it . ”

Some of the applicants were also questioned DATE . Their statements are summarised in PERSON

On DATE the corpses of PERSON , PERSON , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were the subject of post - mortem examinations , first in situ in GPE ( apart from ORG and PERSON ) and then at ORG .

On DATE conventional autopsies were carried out at ORG . A report signed by the forensic team and a prosecutor mentioned that the bodies had been photographed and filmed , that the films had been sent to ORG , that the video cassette had been stored at ORG , and that the photographs and films previously taken by the staff of the open area of FAC should be transmitted to the prosecutor concerned .

On DATE counsel for the applicant party asked the Prosecutor for copies of the autopsy reports concerning PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , GPE , PERSON and PERSON . That request was accepted .

The content of all those reports is summarised in LAW .

On DATE , having questioned the Deputy Director of FAC , the Prosecutor had visited the hospitals to which the injured prisoners had been transferred , including the applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , ORG , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .

Those prisoners declared that they would give statements after their recovery , and complained about the poor quality of the hospital treatment and intrusions by gendarmes into their rooms . The Prosecutor took note of their complaint and ordered the gendarmes stationed at the hospital to refrain from disturbing the prisoners .

On DATE deputy prosecutors inspected the premises at FAC in order to identify the damage caused to public property there .

On DATE ORG of ORG with ORG ( “ the DC ” ) issued CARDINAL detailed reports on the expert assessments of the weapons and ammunition discovered on the site of the incident ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

According to the first ballistic examination of the bullets and lead shot extracted from the bodies of A.D. , GPE , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , the QUANTITY CARDINAL-mm projectiles which hit PERSON had come from the same weapon , as had the CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL-mm projectiles which killed PERSON and GPE .

The second ballistic assessment conducted by the GPE found that the firearms , which were deemed in working order , corresponded to the spent cartridges and ammunition discovered during the searches of the dormitories . The results were as follows :

– batch no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL x CARDINAL.CARDINAL-mm calibre projectiles , CARDINAL deformed , and CARDINAL spent CARDINAL x CARDINAL-mm cartridges , including CARDINAL of military origin ;

– batch no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL-mm cartridges and CARDINAL spent cartridges ;

– batch no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL bullets and CARDINAL spent cartridges , calibre PERSON ;

– batch no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL bullets and CARDINAL CARDINAL-mm projectiles , CARDINAL pieces of bullet jacket and CARDINAL spent CARDINAL x QUANTITY ;

– batch no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL spent CARDINAL x QUANTITY , of military origin , and CARDINAL CARDINAL-mm blank bullets , CARDINAL more pieces of bullet jacket and CARDINAL projectile cores ;

– exhibit no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL-mm calibre ORG assault rifle ( series no . EO CARDINAL ) , corresponding to CARDINAL spent cartridges in batch no . CARDINAL ;

– exhibit no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL CARDINAL-mm calibre hunting rifle , engraved with the name “ Original ” , corresponding to CARDINAL of the Cheddite cartridges in batch no . CARDINAL ;

– exhibit no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL-mm calibre semi - automatic ORG pistol ( series no . D CARDINAL ) corresponding to CARDINAL spent cartridges in batch no . CARDINAL ;

– exhibit no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL-mm calibre home - made gun ( numbered CARDINAL ) , corresponding to CARDINAL spent cartridges in batch no . CARDINAL ;

– exhibit no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL CARDINAL-mm calibre PERSON semi - automatic pistol ( series no . CARDINAL ORG ) , corresponding to CARDINAL spent cartridges , CARDINAL CARDINAL-mm projectiles and QUANTITY of bullet jacket in batch no . CARDINAL ;

– exhibit no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL CARDINAL-mm calibre Star B semi - automatic pistol ( series ORG , model ORG ) , corresponding to CARDINAL spent cartridges in batch no . CARDINAL ;

– exhibit no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL CARDINAL-mm calibre FAC semi - automatic pistol ( series no CARDINAL ) , corresponding to CARDINAL spent cartridges , CARDINAL CARDINAL-mm projectiles and CARDINAL piece of bullet jacket in batch no . CARDINAL ;

– exhibit no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL white home - made pen guns .

On DATE the DC issued CARDINAL more reports . The first concerned the examinations conducted of CARDINAL pieces of clothing , CARDINAL of them having belonged to the deceased prisoners PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , GPE , GPE and ORG It established the entry and exit holes of specific projectiles and the distances from which the fatal shots had been fired . It concluded as follows :

– Önder PERSON : the gunshot to the hip had been fired close up ( CARDINAL ) and that to the abdomen at long distance ( QUANTITY or more ) ;

– Ümit Altıntaş : the CARDINAL gunshots to the lower limbs had been fired at long distance ( QUANTITY or more ) ;

– PERSON : the CARDINAL gunshots to the lower limbs had been fired at long distance ( QUANTITY or more ) ;

– Abuzer Çat : no trace ;

– PERSON : the gunshots to the lower limbs had been fired at long distance ( QUANTITY or more ) .

Those conclusions were only partly corroborated by the autopsies ( Appendix III ) .

The second report concerned the chemical analyses of the explosive substances discovered in the dormitories after the operation . According to that report the explosive material had consisted of fuel , matches , home - made fireworks , window sealing , a ORG tear - gas cylinder dating from DATE , and cement .

On DATE the ORG issued the findings of the ballistic examination carried out on the CARDINAL official weapons ( CARDINAL pistols , CARDINAL machine guns , CARDINAL ORG assault rifles ( PERSON ) used by the gendarmerie units , as well as on the CARDINAL spent cartridges found in situ . According to the reports , the projectiles extracted from the bodies of PERSON and PERSON had been fired from PERSON no . CARDINAL Y CARDINAL . Moreover :

– CARDINAL shots had been fired from PERSON no . DATE ;

– CARDINAL shots from Beretta pistol no . F CARDINAL Z ;

– DATE shots from GCARDINAL assault rifle no . ACARDINAL DATE ;

– CARDINAL shots from GCARDINAL assault rifle no . ACARDINAL CARDINAL ;

– CARDINAL shots from GCARDINAL assault rifle no . ACARDINAL DATE ;

– CARDINAL shots from GCARDINAL assault rifle no . ACARDINAL DATE ; and

– DATE shots from GCARDINAL assault rifle no . ACARDINAL CARDINAL .

Finally , CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL x CARDINAL-mm projectiles , CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL x CARDINAL projectiles and CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL-mm projectiles had been shot from CARDINAL different weapons , other than those covered by the expert assessment .

On DATE the applicants ORG , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were heard pursuant to letters rogatory . However , they refused to give evidence before speaking to their lawyers .

On the other hand , applicant PERSON stated the following :

“ ... I am from dormitory no . CARDINAL ... At CARDINAL . TIME I was woken up by shouting before hearing gunshots ; ... I could hear gendarmes yelling into their walky - talkies ; ... I could make out that heavy artillery had been used and that people had been killed ; at TIME I heard a colonel ordering his men to open fire on anyone who resisted arrest ... ; furthermore , tear - gas canisters were thrown in the dormitory no . CARDINAL area ... ; the gas also reached our dormitory ; ... at CARDINAL a.m. the prison officers opened the door to the living area where we were holed up . ... At TIME a captain and his men came into dormitory no . CARDINAL ; they ordered me to collect my things and get out immediately , which I did ; I had gone QUANTITY towards the corridor when CARDINAL of gendarmes and prison officers started hitting me ; the whole way along the corridor , right up the showers , they kicked me and beat me with truncheons and cudgels ; ... they had set up a special unit in the showers ; they forced me in ; there were CARDINAL naked prisoners lined up ; ... they had been tortured , even though they were already severely injured ... ; they forced me to sing the national anthem and shout fascist and fundamentalist slogans , while they deliberately hit the most sensitive parts of my body ; ... on the way to the prison vans we were beaten and forced to stumble over QUANTITY corpses lying outside , while they threatened us with ending up like the corpses ; ... in the van the CARDINAL gendarmes who had got in with us continued to hit us ; CARDINAL of them cut strips out of my clothes with his bayonet ; we were taken to FAC ... ; I got a report from the ORG civilian hospital confirming the abuse I had suffered ... ” .

DATE some of the applicants ( List B ) and gendarmes were heard either by the Prosecutor or pursuant to letters rogatory . Those witness statements , which are summarised in PERSON , did not provide any new evidence . Similarly , the prisoner / complainant PERSON and prisoners GPE and GPE , during a fresh hearing on DATE , reiterated their statements ( see paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL above ) .

Meanwhile , on DATE , PERSON , the father of the applicant PERSON , and the families of certain prisoners who had been killed or injured during the operation had lodged a collective application with the PERSON public prosecutor ’s office , for purposes unknown . On DATE , However , PERSON , referring to that application , complained to the PERSON public prosecutor ’s office that his son had been transferred to LOC without having received medical treatment , despite a series of requests to that effect .

On DATE the prisoner ORG and the applicants PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were heard , as was another applicant whose name is unknown ( List B ) . The hearings continued until DATE , embracing the applicants PERSON and PERSON , prisoners PERSON and PERSON , officer PERSON . and the three gendarmes PERSON . , PERSON . and PERSON .

Those statements , which are in keeping with the versions of events given by the applicant party and the authorities , are reproduced or summarised in LAW

On DATE CARDINAL GPE deputy prosecutors responsible for investigating the first case ( no . DATE ) brought against ORG agents ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , declined jurisdiction ratione materiae . On DATE they transmitted the case file to the Governor of GPE , who was competent to determine the expediency of criminal investigations pursuant to the PERSON on the prosecution of civil servants .

On DATE the ORG followed suit as regards the other complaints which had been lodged against the said agents and were subsequently joined to the second case ( no . DATE ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In so doing he declined jurisdiction ratione materiae and , in turn , referred the case to the Governor of GPE , requesting that it too be joined to the aforementioned first case ( no . DATE ) .

On DATE , at the request of the Governor of GPE , ORG set up a preliminary investigation committee consisting of CARDINAL ORG officers , namely Colonels PERSON and GPE and Captain PERSON ( “ the investigation committee ” ) , mandated to determine the expediency of prosecuting the agents in question ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the ORG questioned CARDINAL gendarmerie officers who had been involved in the operation : ORG . , PERSON . , N.Kar . , E.Ayd . and PERSON . Their statements were based on repetitive elements which would be reprised later on before the investigating officers .

DATE , that is to say DATE after the operation , some of the gendarmes who had taken part in the operation were once again questioned by the investigation committee .

The committee first of all re - heard the above - mentioned officers ORG . , PERSON . , N.Kar . E.Ayd . and PERSON . , and also A.Gök . and PERSON .

Subsequently , it questioned the following gendarmerie officers , for the first time : T.Akb . , Y.Akt . , C.Ala . , PERSON . , DATE . , F.Apa . , PERSON . , S.Ata , PERSON . , ORG . , PERSON . , PERSON . , PERSON . , ORG . , ORG . , M.Bib . , GPE . , İ.Bil . , H.Bil . , C.Boz . , Ş.Cab . , A.Can , ORG . , B.Cey . , M.Cey . , M.Cih . , M.Çağ . , ORG . , PERSON . , DATE . , PERSON . , PERSON . , PERSON . , ORG , PERSON . , PERSON . , PERSON . , PERSON . , PERSON . , PERSON . , ORG . , ORG . , T.Güz . , ORG . , K.İbi . , A.İna . , M.Kar . , ORG . , PERSON . , PERSON . , N.Kıl . , PERSON . , M.Kılı . , ORG . , ORG . , DATE . , DATE . , PERSON , PERSON . , B.Öna . , Ö.Öre . , GPE , GPE . , M.Öze . , PERSON . , GPE . , G.Özt . , O.Özt . , PERSON . , ORG . , GPE . , GPE . , ORG . , Ü.Soy . , ORG . , PERSON . , PERSON . , T.Tar . , ORG . , ORG . , C.Üna . , S.Ünl . , PERSON . , A.Yan . , PERSON . , F.Yed . , Y.Yed . , Ö.Yıl . , S.Yıl . , M.Yüc . , İ.Yük . and PERSON .

In their statements , those officers provided the following details , in very similar terms :

– from the outset of the operation , the security forces constantly shouted orders to the prisoners , TIME , to surrender without resistance , so that no one would be hurt ;

– during the operation , a team took photographs of the LOC and the prohibited items discovered in situ , under the direction of junior officer PERSON . ; the photos were then transmitted to the intelligence services ;

– the prisoners were singing anthems and chanting slogans such as “ You should give up , NORP fascist soldiers ” , “ The revolutionary prisoners will never surrender ” , “ The honour of humankind will win out over torture ” , “ Ulucanlar will be the tomb of the soldiers of GPE ” , “ No one will overcome the revolutionary movement , kill any traitors attempting to surrender ” , “ No capitulators will be left alive ” ;

– the prisoners set fire to the roof with flame - throwers made out of gas cylinders , and also torched their mattresses and blankets in the dormitories ; the firefighters sprayed the premises with foam and water from the roofs ; tear - gas canisters were also thrown ;

– the gendarmes were accompanied by a few prison officers ;

– after the intervention by the fire brigade , there was intermittent gunfire from inside the dormitories ; a certain ORG had fired the shots ;

– the prisoners threw Molotov cocktails and wielded iron bars , stilettos and handguns ; some of the gendarmes had also noticed a long - barrelled gun wrapped in cloth ; the prisoners in the female dormitory had no firearms , but did have some home - made flame - throwers ;

– when the gendarmes broke down the dormitory door with sledgehammers and cranks , the prisoners threw Molotov cocktails , used flame - throwers and threw stones and pieces of metal , glass and brick which they had probably picked out of the rubble of the wall which they had demolished in dormitory no . CARDINAL ;

– the commanding officers had used their walky - talkies to order their men not to ill - treat the prisoners and only to use weapons against persons who were themselves armed , exclusively targeting such persons ;

– force was used exclusively within the framework of the law , when it was unavoidable in order to break the armed resistance and restore the ORG ’s authority in the prison ;

– firearms were used , in particular , by the gendarmes deployed on the roofs ; inside the building the gendarmes only used anti - riot equipment , that is to say helmets , truncheons , shields , tear gas canisters and carbon dioxide foam ;

– the gendarmes were also affected by the tear gas because some of them had no masks ;

– behind the doors to their dormitories the prisoners had used mattresses , bedsteads and cupboards as barricades ;

– one group of prisoners had been willing to surrender , but CARDINAL of them managed to do so ; the others had probably been executed by their comrades for betraying the cause ;

– at the end of the operation each prisoner was taken outside by CARDINAL gendarmes holding them by the arms and legs ;

– no one was ill - treated , dragged along the ground or sexually abused during the operation or during the transfer of prisoners to other establishments .

On DATE , when the administrative proceedings before the Governor of GPE were still pending , the ORG gave an unreasoned discontinuance decision in respect of the CARDINAL civil servants , members of the prison staff , who had been cited in the second case ( no . DATE ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL in fine above ) .

The Governor observed that those staff members had not been actively involved in the operation as they had been strictly ordered to wait outside the building and , moreover , none of them had been injured , nor had any action taken by them had been mentioned in the official documents .

On DATE , before that decision was served separately on the lawyers concerned , the applicant party had directly appealed against it to the President of ORG , which finally dismissed that appeal on DATE .

On DATE the investigation committee ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) submitted its report to the Governor of GPE , expressing the opinion that the persons in question could not be charged with any kind of wrongdoing or negligence .

On DATE the Governor of GPE followed that opinion and prohibited the prosecution of the CARDINAL members of the gendarmerie in respect of the incidents impugned in the first CARDINAL cases ( QUANTITY . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and DATE ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The following reasons were given for that decision :

“ On DATE , in dormitories nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL housing prisoners convicted of terrorist offences , as well as in the female ‘ terror’ dormitory in FAC ... the prisoners rebelled against the searches and opened fire ; on DATE , therefore , I decided , pursuant to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Act No . DATE on the prosecution of civil servants , not to authorise the prosecutions , considering that the personnel stationed in the prison had only had recourse to the powers vested in them by LAW . DATE on the administration of prisons and LAW . DATE on the organisation of the national gendarmerie . ”

On DATE the decision of the Governor of GPE was served on counsel for the applicants , who appealed to ORG .

In their memorial , counsel submitted , in particular , that the Governor ’s decision was not based on any cogent reasoning and was thus in breach of section CARDINAL of Act No . DATE ; they added that the laws on which the decision had been based were completely immaterial to the actions attributable to the gendarmerie forces and that the impugned decision had not established any facts capable of justifying the use of firearms in the particular circumstances of the case .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG set aside the Governor ’s decision and ordered the referral of the case to the Prosecutor with a view to instigating a criminal investigation against the members of the gendarmerie .

That decision was served on the appellants on DATE , and additional investigative measures were implemented .

On DATE the applicant PERSON lodged a formal complaint with the PERSON ( ORG ) public prosecutor ’s office concerning , inter alia , ill - treatment which he had sustained during the impugned operation . On DATE the GPE public prosecutor ’s office decided to transmit the case file to the ORG inasmuch as it concerned the acts allegedly committed in FAC .

Still on DATE , the applicant PERSON lodged a complaint with the PERSON public prosecutor ’s office and ORG regarding the abuse which he had suffered . The Prosecutor invited the PERSON public prosecutor ’s office to arrange for the applicant to be examined by a doctor in order to verify his claims .

On DATE both applicants were questioned by the PERSON public prosecutor ’s office regarding their complaints .

DATE and DATE the Prosecutor again interrogated many of the officers who had already been heard by the investigation committee ( see paragraph ORG above ) , that is to say PERSON . , GPE , ORG , M.Kar . , PERSON . , DATE . , GPE . , PERSON . , Ü.Soy . , ORG . , PERSON . , İ.Kar . , ORG . , PERSON . , ORG . , PERSON . , T.Güz . , A.İna . , F.Apa . , S.Yıl . , DATE . , M.Cih . , ORG . , T.Akb . , M.Cey . , PERSON . , PERSON . , DATE . , G.Özt . , Y.Akt . , PERSON . , PERSON . , Y.Yed . , ORG . , ORG . , ORG . , PERSON . , A.Yan . , LOC . , PERSON . , B.Cey . , ORG . , PERSON , DATE . , B.Öna . , N.Kıl . , ORG , M.Bib . , PERSON . , PERSON . , DATE . , C.Boz . , S.Yağ . , ORG . , ORG . , LAW . , C.Üna . , PERSON . , S.Ata , DATE . , M.Yüc . , PERSON . ORG . , Ö.Öre . , ORG . , GPE . , O.Özt . , PERSON . , PERSON . , GPE . , ORG . , DATE . , ORG . , T.Güz . and PERSON .

Most of the latter reiterated their statements and contested any accusation of disproportionate use of lethal force .

Furthermore , gendarmes Y.Baş . , C.Uçu . , M.Yıl . , A.Er , Ü.Şah . , A.İma . , M.Çet . and S.Erb . were questioned for the first time .

Unlike the prison staff , who had benefited from a final discontinuance decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the members of the gendarmerie were placed under formal investigation after the close of the administrative proceedings before the Governor of GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the consequent additional criminal investigation led to the commencement of proceedings under indictment no . CARDINAL .

The Prosecutor accordingly referred CARDINAL gendarmes to ORG ( “ the AAC ” ) on charges of the murder of Mr GPE , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON ( List A ) , and bodily injury against CARDINAL prisoners , including all the injured applicants ( List B ) .

That being the case , in his indictment the ORG requested that no penalty be imposed on the gendarmes in question on the grounds that they had acted quite legitimately for the sole purpose of executing their superior ORG orders , and that in any case the perpetrators of the impugned acts were unidentifiable .

Several applicants , who had meanwhile been heard pursuant to letters rogatory , joined those proceedings as intervening parties , which gave rise to the opening of case no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the Prosecutor decided to take no action on the complaint lodged on DATE by PERSON and registered under the third case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Referring to the CARDINAL sets of proceedings which were pending before the ORG and ORG concerning the same facts ( cases nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively ) , he considered it sufficient to include that complaint in the case files currently under examination .

PERSON appealed against the decision to drop her complaint , arguing that the case pending under file no . DATE only concerned members of the gendarmerie , whereas her complaint had also targeted the prison staff .

That appeal was dismissed by the President of ORG .

The most important facts in relation to that judicial episode before the ORG are set out below .

The remainder of the information largely concerned procedural questions relating to amendments to the court records necessitated by changes to the composition of the bench , complementary witness and defence statements , determination of the addresses of certain appellants and defendants and the enforcement of warrants of escort or arrest warrants against defendants who were untraceable or had absconded .

Those subsidiary elements are summarised in Appendix VII .

At the DATE hearing the applicant ORG lodged a fresh complaint on behalf of his late son PERSON , accompanied by a request to join the proceedings as an intervening party . A similar application was lodged on behalf of the applicant PERSON and PERSON , the father of the late Mr PERSON .

The trial judges accepted ORG as an intervening party , but on the other hand , they pointed out that GPE was not one of the complainants in the proceedings .

Counsel for ORG , joined by counsel for ORG , sent several questions to be put to the defendants , asking , inter alia , which gendarmes had had firearms during the operation and which of them had actually used those firearms . Some of the defendants requested more time before answering , whereas GPE . immediately admitted having used an injured gendarme ’s assault rifle ; ORG . pointed out that he had been in the midst of the operation and had used both his official handgun and a gendarmerie assault rifle ; for his part , Ö.Yıl . said that he had used CARDINAL weapons in addition to his official assault rifle .

The intervening parties also questioned M.Yüc . about the video recording which had been made from the watch tower where he had been stationed . The defendant denied the existence of any such recording .

On DATE the prisoner / complainant NORP was once again questioned pursuant to letters rogatory at FAC . He confirmed , in particular , that he had seen guns in the hands of PERSON and PERSON .

On DATE the complainants / applicants PERSON and PERSON appeared in court . The latter identified C.Üna . as one of his torturers . Questioned by the complainant party , the defendants stated that they had only been informed about the operation DATE before it was launched and that they did not know whether it had been planned earlier . They explained that they had all been carrying weapons in order to ward off any armed attacks , but that they had not used them , adding that they had seen prisoners killing CARDINAL of their comrades who had wanted to surrender . Finally , they stated that they knew nothing about the circumstances under which the deceased prisoners had been stripped of their clothing .

During the proceedings on DATE the complainants / applicants present set out their allegations in detail , complaining of the violent acts committed during and after the operation , and their lawyers requested a face - to - face meeting between their clients and their assailants , considering that they were capable of describing the latter .

The ORG adjourned the question of the expediency of such face - to - face meetings .

On DATE some of the ORG lawyers appeared , as did , for the first time , the applicants PERSON and GPE , GPE , and the defendant PERSON . , who contested all the accusations .

The applicants described their allegations in detail and provided a description of some of the presumed torturers .

The judges also heard PERSON , an eye - witness from dormitory no . CARDINAL . He confirmed the substance of the applicants’ submissions , specifying that he had seen PERSON , PERSON and GPE being killed while they were attempting to evade the bullets , but that he had not seen PERSON , who had allegedly been executed in the shower room after having been tortured .

At the hearing on DATE the applicants stated that they had been unable to identify those responsible from the photographs on file , firstly because of the poor quality of the images and secondly because some of the gendarmes had been wearing masks during the operation .

On DATE the applicants PERSON and PERSON appeared , as did counsel for the defendants . In order to assist with the identifications , CARDINAL additional photographs had been put on file ; having examined the latter , PERSON was unable to affirm that she recognised any faces , explaining that most of the members of the security forces in question had been wearing balaclavas and had raised their shields .

The ORG concluded that it would be unrealistic to try to use childhood portraits or pictures taken in a civilian context to identify fully equipped gendarmes operating in a gas- and smoke - filled environment . The judges therefore decided to exclude such evidence .

On DATE the applicant PERSON was heard . He reiterated his complaint , explaining that the persons who had beaten had included a head prison officer , one “ PERSON , and a prison officer , CARDINAL “ Mehmet ” .

On DATE the applicant PERSON was heard pursuant to letters rogatory in GPE . Complementing her previous statements , she explained that the manner of quelling the prison riot in question had been unacceptable because the operation had been launched on an impromptu basis , without prior warning ; she pointed out that previously it had been the prisoners in the female dormitory themselves who had called on the prison officers to carry out the presence check , which they had generally refused to do because they feared for their safety , even though , unlike the male dormitories , the female ones posed no problems . She added that she had fainted during the operation and could therefore not have committed the offences with which she had been charged .

On DATE the judges took note of a letter in which ORG stated that no video recordings had been made or photographs taken during the operation . The judges ordered that that matter should be clarified in consultation with the prison authorities .

DATE passed before the case was ready for trial . The ORG delivered judgment on DATE . It found that , pursuant to LAW , the defendants should be acquitted given that they had acted strictly within the framework of their duties , in accordance with the orders issued by their senior officers .

The applicants appealed to ORG on points of law .

On DATE ORG with ORG issued the following opinion :

– the appeals on points of law lodged by certain of the applicants ( applicants nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE on List B ) through the intermediary of their lawyers were inadmissible , since the latter had no power of attorney ;

– nevertheless , all the provisions of the impugned judgment should be invalidated on the grounds that the present case no . DATE should have been examined in conjunction with case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL before ORG of the ORG ( “ the CARDINALth Division ” ) , that is to say after assessment of all the evidence included in both case files .

The case is still pending before ORG .

Concurrently with their criminal appeals , all the applicants ( List A and List B ) filed claims for damages with ORG and the ORG , seeking compensation for the damage which they had sustained during and after the impugned operation .

In the absence of a reply from the authorities , amounting to a tacit refusal , some of the applicants brought proceedings against the ORG before various chambers of ORG .

It transpires from the case file that despite the dismissal of their prior claims , the following applicants ( List B ) failed to apply to the administrative courts : PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr GPE Çınar , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr Özgür Saltık .

Moreover , some of the claims were discontinued as not having been lodged :

– on the grounds of non - payment of court fees despite reminders ( applicants PERSON , PERSON ( ORG ) , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , ORG , PERSON ( GPE ) , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , ORG , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ) ;

– on the grounds that the applicants were not accompanied by copies of the previous claims for compensation and/or because the full court fees had not been paid ( applicants PERSON , ORG , ORG , PERSON , GPE LANGUAGE and PERSON ) ;

– in the absence of locus standi , the persons concerned having acted without the prior leave of their legal guardians ( applicants PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) ;

– on unidentifiable grounds ( applicants PERSON and PERSON ) .

Information on the decisions given to that end , which had meanwhile become final , is provided in PERSON

On the other hand , applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON et GPE ( List A ) , as well as applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG and ORG ( List B ) applied successfully and were awarded pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages .

In all those cases , the relevant ORG of ORG based their decisions on the following reasons :

“ The right to life is the most fundamental individual right . Accordingly , pursuant to LAW , which provides that ‘ [ e]veryone has the right to personal liberty and NORP , that right is guaranteed by the LAW , exceptions to which right are listed in the subsequent provisions of the same article . It transpires from those exceptions that custodial sentences passed by the courts are indeed cases in which a restriction of individual rights may be justified . However , where an individual must serve a custodial sentence ... it is always incumbent on the ORG to protect that individual ’s fundamental right to life while in prison and , throughout his prison term , to take all the necessary action and precautions to that end . In the present case , it is clear that the authorities must account for official shortcomings as regards the events in question and the consequent loss of life ; because the reason why prisoners were able to obtain the stones , iron bars , cudgels and firearms with which they attacked the security forces and were able so easily to organise a riot was that inadequate measures had been taken [ to prevent such eventualities ] . ”

The respondent party challenged all those judgments before ORG , whose CARDINALth ORG subsequently set them aside on the following grounds :

– failure to answer the question whether , and to what extent , the authorities had been involved in the occurrence of the events giving rise to the alleged damage ( applicants PERSON , PERSON and PERSON [ List B ] ) ;

– lack of a causal link between the injuries complained of and any act attributable to the ORG agents ( applicant ORG [ List B ] ) ;

– the first - instance court had not had jurisdiction ratione personae , since the person concerned had not obtained prior authorisation from his guardian to seek locus standi ( applicant PERSON [ List B ] ) ;

– the break of the causal link between the damage and the act which the authorities had allegedly committed , as the persons concerned had played an active role in the incidents at issue and had only themselves to blame for their injuries ( applicants PERSON and PERSON [ List B ] and the CARDINAL applicants on List A ) .

As regards the applicant LOC ( List B ) , his case was dismissed at first instance by the CARDINALth Chamber of ORG on the grounds of his presumed involvement in the impugned incidents . Nevertheless , ORG also quashed that judgment , on the grounds that the mere fact that a military operation had had to be launched in order to impose discipline and order in a prison demonstrated that gross official negligence attributable to the ORG had been the root cause . The respondent authority ’s application for rectification of the judgment was dismissed .

ORG insisted that its initial judgment should be upheld , being convinced that “ the injuries complained of in the instant case had been attributable to Mr PERSON himself , which broke the causal link between the alleged damage and the act allegedly committed by the authority ” .

The case was therefore sent back to the plenary ORG . The ORG has not been informed of the outcome of those proceedings .

The known developments in the above - mentioned proceedings are summarised in PERSON They are still pending before the relevant courts , and the applicants still concerned by them are PERSON , GPE and PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( List A ) , and PERSON , ORG , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( List B ) .

It should be recalled that before ORG adjudicated , the authority found against at first instance had apparently made payments to the successful applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Once those judgments had been set aside , the authority instigated enforcement procedures in order to recover those sums , which were no longer payable .

It transpires from the case file that since DATE , some of the applicants have reimbursed the sums in question in part or in full .

Initially , the criminal case against CARDINAL prisoners , including all the applicants on List B , had been registered under file no . CARDINAL before the ORG pursuant to indictment no . CARDINAL of DATE .

The victims / complainants in that case were , on the one hand , the CARDINAL gendarmes injured during the operation ( Appendix II ) , and on the other , the late prisoners DATE , PERSON ( alias PERSON ) , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( relatives of the applicants on List A ) .

On DATE , however , the Prosecutor – who had issued indictment no . DATE concurrently gave a discontinuance decision . That decision concerned the deceased PERSON ( alias PERSON ) , Mr GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( relatives of the applicants on List A ) in their capacity as “ victims / defendants ” , as well as CARDINAL non - applicant prisoners , in their capacity as “ defendants ” . The latter included GPE and ORG , whose submissions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL above ) had played a major role in establishing indictment no . DATE . In short , the Prosecutor decided to cancel the prosecution of the deceased persons on grounds of death , and he discharged the CARDINAL prisoners in question on grounds of lack of evidence as regards the charges linked to the impugned riot .

Initially , by decision of CARDINAL DATE , the ORG declined jurisdiction in favour of the CARDINALnd Chamber of ORG , considering that the impugned acts had amounted to terrorist offences . On DATE , however , the latter court also declined jurisdiction ratione materiae and sent the case file back to ORG .

After that clash of jurisdiction was settled by ORG , the case was finally reassigned to ORG , under a new file number ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

The main stages in those proceedings may be summarised as follows . The other relevant information is to be found in Appendix ORG , bearing in mind that the information goes no further than DATE .

The indictment included in the new case file closely followed that of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and its content is therefore mainly based on the statements of prisoners ORG and GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

According to the Prosecutor , applicants Enver GPE , PERSON and PERSON and former applicants PERSON and Cafer PERSON had used firearms ; during a quarrel between the rioters and the prisoners wishing to surrender , Enver GPE and PERSON had allegedly shot at the other CARDINAL , considering them as traitors ; PERSON had brought a hunting rifle rolled up in a blanket , and fired it at DATE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .

Consequently , in addition to the charges of serious bodily injury of the CARDINAL gendarmes against all the applicants , the Prosecutor accused PERSON of having killed DATE , PERSON and PERSON and injured PERSON with a hunting rifle . Still according to the Prosecutor , PERSON had been killed by a bullet from handgun no . CARDINALPYCARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which had been subsequently found in dormitory no . CARDINAL ; the person responsible for that crime was allegedly CARDINAL of the CARDINAL rioters PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ; PERSON had allegedly been killed later on by a bullet in the back following indiscriminate shots fired by the CARDINAL aforementioned rioters .

On DATE the CARDINAL defendants challenged and lodged complaints against the judges of ORG ; they withdrew from the case pending the decision of ORG same court , which had been called upon to adjudicate .

On DATE ORG dismissed the grounds for challenging the judges but recorded its agreement to their withdrawal from the case in order to protect the court ’s impartiality . A new bench of judges took over the case .

Following the failure of the attempt to join that case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL with case no . DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) DATE which had led to a temporary adjournment of proceedings – the present case had to be re - registered with ORG under the new file number CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

The parties to proceedings remained the same , and the records of the hearing in DATE of some of the defendants / applicants pursuant to letters rogatory had meanwhile been added to the case file . All the latter had demanded leave to appear before the trial judges in order to defend themselves . Indeed , it transpires from the case file that initially , most of the applicants had acted in concert and submitted similar requests .

On DATE the proceedings were reopened before ORG , which ordered CARDINAL procedural measures geared to summoning and hearing the defendants / applicants and the complainants .

Prior to DATE the hearings had mainly served to relaunch those same measures and to add the few new statements obtained to the case file .

On DATE the judges took note of the reply from the PERSON , explaining that it had been unable to accede to the request for urgent transmission of the video recordings made and the photographs taken during the impugned operation on the grounds that it was not in possession of the material in question .

According to the latest information , ORG had scheduled a hearing for DATE . The ORG has no documentation on the progress of the proceedings in question , which is being conducted under file no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and has not yet been concluded because not all the defence statements of the persons involved have been collected , nor have all the measures ordered by the judges been enforced .