Violation of Art. 2;Violation of Art. 3 in respect of applicant;Violation of Art. 5;Violation of Art. 8 and P1-1 in respect of applicant and brothers;Violation of Art. 8 in respect of applicant's son;Violation of Art. 13;Not necessary to examine Art. 14;Not necessary to examine Art. 18;Failure to comply with obligations under Art. 34;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The case mainly concerns events which took place in DATE at GPE hamlet of NORP village in the GPE district of the LOC province in south - east GPE . From ORG village the road goes to PERSON , to whose gendarme station NORP village and its hamlets are attached . ORG is on the main road between the towns of ORG .

The applicant alleges that on DATE the ORG 's security forces burned and evacuated the hamlet of GPE and that on CARDINAL DATE the same soldiers returned to GPE detaining the applicant 's brothers ( ORG and PERSON ) and his son ( PERSON ) , after which those CARDINAL relatives ( “ the NORP ” ) disappeared .

The facts being disputed by the parties , the Commission appointed Delegates who took evidence in GPE from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE .

They heard the following witnesses : the applicant ; PERSON ( son of PERSON ) ; PERSON ( the applicant 's cousin from the neighbouring hamlet of GPE of LOC ) ; PERSON Can ( son - in - law of PERSON who lived in PERSON at the relevant time ) ; PERSON ( Commander of PERSON station ) ; PERSON ( Commander of FAC ) ; PERSON ( Deputy Commander of FAC ) ; PERSON ( Commander of FAC ) ; PERSON ( Commander of FAC ) ; PERSON ( Commander of FAC ) ; PERSON ( succeeded PERSON ) ; PERSON ( prosecutor in the office of ORG ) ; and PERSON ( a ORG public prosecutor ) .

The transcripts of the oral evidence , together with the documentary evidence provided by the parties to the ORG , have been transmitted to the ORG . Additionally , the parties have provided further documents to the ORG which had been requested by the ORG .

The submissions by the parties on the facts ( Sections A and B ) , the material submitted by the parties in the present case ( Sections C and D ) , relevant material submitted by the Government in the LOC case ( NORP v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG DATE Section E below ) together with the oral evidence to the Delegates ( Section F ) are summarised below .

DATE a large number of disappearances and unexplained killings occurred in south - eastern GPE in the context of counter - insurgency measures against the ORG . The province of ORG and its districts of ORG and ORG were particularly affected .

The applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE . ORG and PERSON ( born in DATE ) and were his only brothers . His eldest son , PERSON , was born in DATE . At the relevant time , all lived in GPE , the applicant and his brothers each owning separate houses .

On DATE military forces of CARDINAL men with over CARDINAL vehicles pitched camp near GPE .

On DATE at TIME a number of the soldiers entered the village . The village imam announced that their Commander required the villagers to assemble in front of the mosque , which they did . The Commander then announced that ORG village ( including the LOC hamlet ) was to be burnt , but that he would allow the villagers to remove their possessions . The applicant returned to his house and started to remove his possessions . As he was doing so , the soldiers set fire to his and others ' houses . Having completed this task and given the villagers DATE to leave the village , the soldiers moved on .

The following day the applicant , together with other villagers , went to ORG to report the incident and to seek permission to stay in the area long enough to harvest the crops . PERSON , the commander of that station , told him that the soldiers had come from Bolu and that the villagers could remain until the harvest .

On DATE more soldiers were seen in the vicinity of the village . The NORP were repairing their houses and did not notice the soldiers arriving . Each of the CARDINAL men was taken into custody by the soldiers . CARDINAL of the soldiers explained that the Commander wanted to see them , that the soldiers did not know the way and that they could come back to the village afterwards . They left on foot up the hills . At TIME on DATE , the soldiers and the NORP were seen in the neighbouring hamlet of PERSON . They were smoking cigarettes and appeared to be in good health .

On DATE the applicant went to PERSON station and enquired about their whereabouts . PERSON told him that the ORG had been taken to GPE . He went to ORG and spoke to PERSON .

Having obtained no information as to the whereabouts of the NORP , the applicant made formal complaints to ORG , ORG , ORG Governor and to ORG .

Approximately DATE after the ORG ' disappearance the applicant was put in contact with PERSON . The latter had been detained in ORG with the NORP before being transferred to Lice prison . He had seen the NORP and he told the applicant that all CARDINAL NORP appeared to be “ in a bad way ” .

NORP The applicant received no further news about the NORP or any response to his complaints about the burning of GPE .

The Government did not dispute that there had been numerous counter insurgency military operations in the province of ORG at the relevant time .

NORP However , they disputed CARDINAL main questions of fact . In the first place , they maintained that there was no military operation on DATE in NORP village as alleged or at all and they referred in this respect to the operations ' record submitted to ORG in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Secondly , and consequently , the NORP had not been taken into custody . The NORP were not wanted for any offence . The military can not take any person they apprehend into custody . They must turn such persons over to the gendarmes and the records of all relevant gendarme stations show that they were not detained . Thirdly , full investigations were carried out by the appropriate authorities on foot of the applicant 's complaints , which authorities concluded that there were no facts requiring to be further pursued or offences requiring prosecution .

The Government considered therefore that it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that ORG village was burned , or that the NORP were detained , by the security forces . Accordingly , they submitted that it had not been demonstrated that any such destruction or disappearances were attributable to the ORG .

On DATE between CARDINAL soldiers with over CARDINAL vehicles arrived in GPE . The soldiers stayed near the hamlet . Along with other villagers , the applicant carried the soldiers ' tents , backpacks and other equipment . During this time , PERSON , FAC , and those under his command were bringing equipment to the soldiers . PERSON had earlier told the villagers that the soldiers were from ORG , that no news had been received from persons who had been taken into custody earlier by that unit and that the villagers were to try not to be taken into custody and to be cautious .

After staying DATE beside the village , the soldiers went to the Bingöl Muş region on operation . At TIME DATE , they returned to the hamlet and some of the soldiers gathered in front of the mosque . The village imam announced that the commander of the security forces required the villagers to assemble in front of the mosque . All villagers so assembled . The unit commander then told them to remove their belongings within TIME as the village would be burned . They went to their houses and began removing their belongings but , as they were doing so , the soldiers began burning the houses . After they burned the village , the soldiers gave them DATE to evacuate the village and left in the direction of GPE . After the soldiers left , the villagers managed to save a small part of their belongings , most of which were irreparably damaged by the fires .

On DATE they went to ORG and reported the incident . They were told that the soldiers had come from Bolu . They explained that they could live in tents until the harvest and were given permission to do so . They began to make preparations for the harvest and attempted to repair the houses which had not been completely destroyed . The soldiers were still on operations in the vicinity of the village and , on seeing them arrive , the villagers would hide outside the village .

On DATE soldiers were seen in the vicinity of the village and the men hid . However , the NORP were busy repairing the houses and did not see the soldiers . The women and children of the village saw the soldiers taking them away . The applicant hid from the soldiers that day but was told by the women and children of the village that the soldiers who took the NORP were those who had burned the village . Neither of the NORP had been in custody before and Selim was an honorary imam . At TIME the soldiers and the Orhans had reached GPE and people from that hamlet saw the NORP with the soldiers . The NORP were smoking cigarettes with the soldiers and were fine .

On DATE some villagers went to FAC and recounted the incident to PERSON who said that the ORG had been taken to GPE . They therefore went to ORG . However , the Commander in GPE told them that he had no information .

The applicant therefore filed , to no avail , applications with ORG , ORG at ORG , ORG and LAW in ORG .

DATE the applicant heard that a person called PERSON , who had previously been held in custody in ORG , had been transferred to FAC . The applicant went to see him there and PERSON told him that he had seen the ORG during his detention in ORG and that they were in very bad condition .

The NORP had been arrested in GPE during an operation by gendarmes on DATE and no news had been received since then from them despite applications made . The applicant requested information .

During a military operation in ORG , the security forces had taken the NORP with them , asking them to act as guides . The applicant had had no news since and he requested assistance in obtaining information .

The applicant also submitted :

He confirmed his intention to continue with the present application and the contents of his statement of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG police officers came to his house and told his wife that that a public prosecutor wanted to take his statement . Although he hesitated to do so , he eventually went to ORG office and made a detailed statement . The prosecutor asked in an angry voice why he had taken his case to a foreign country and who had so advised him . The applicant did not know what the prosecutor wrote down in the statement as it was not read back to him . He was asked to sign the statement and he did .

In DATE the witness was DATE . He attended ORG from DATE until DATE . Otherwise he lived at home with his father ( PERSON ) and family . ORG had CARDINAL main buildings : CARDINAL for teaching and administration , and CARDINAL for accommodation . The military building was QUANTITY away from the school accommodation buildings .

The witness saw many military vehicles coming to the military building . On CARDINAL occasion , he saw people in plain clothes in CARDINAL such vehicle and he and his friends believed that those people had been detained . He had also seen some soldiers with blue hats within the school compound .

Towards DATE the witness returned to GPE as he was unwell . There were many soldiers in the area and some of then had blue berets . DATE thereafter CARDINAL soldiers came and burned the village . CARDINAL or CARDINAL soldiers burned his father 's house with dry grass and some kind of powder .

DATE soldiers came back to the village on foot at TIME The witness was in a garden QUANTITY from his house . The soldiers asked his father ( Selim ) for his identity card and he gave it to them . When they asked if any other men were in the village , PERSON and PERSON came forward . They were asked for their identity cards and they produced them . When the soldiers asked the witness ' father to go with them , his father asked why and the witness then moved closer . The witness asked his father where he was going and his father said that the soldiers wanted a guide . The witness asked the commander where he was taking the NORP , and the latter replied that they would be released .

At that stage his mother , brothers and sisters had arrived and all followed the soldiers as they took the NORP away . They were crying . His uncle 's wife produced her Koran and begged them not to take the NORP . At that stage the witness heard the commander speak on his radio saying that the named persons were with him , but that the families were objecting to them being brought away and asking what to do . The voice on the radio said to bring the NORP anyhow . The group followed the NORP and the soldiers for a while until the commander said that , if they continued following , bad things would happen . That was the last time the witness saw his father .

In DATE the witness was living in GPE . DATE he returned home from work and his wife told him that PERSON had been burned . The following day he took his vehicle to GPE to help the villagers , including his relatives . On his way there he saw a large number of soldiers in the area , CARDINAL . The village was still burning when he arrived and he was told that the soldiers had burned the village . He helped CARDINAL families to remove their remaining possessions to ORG .

DATE his wife told him that her father ( Selim ) together with PERSON and PERSON had been taken into custody . He and his wife again then went to PERSON in his vehicle and were told when they arrived that the NORP had been taken away by soldiers .

In DATE the witness was living in GPE . DATE , he saw the NORP in the custody of some soldiers in GPE . TIME , the applicant came to GPE and asked if anyone had seen the NORP and he told the applicant what he had seen .

The next morning the witness went to FAC with an old man from GPE to ask what had happened to the NORP . He spoke to PERSON who said that the ORG had been taken to GPE . After leaving ORG station , he met the applicant and told him what PERSON had said .

These were submitted to the Delegates during the taking of evidence .

The sketch was completed by PERSON while giving evidence before the Delegates .

During a military operation conducted at GPE on DATE , the NORP were taken by soldiers who told them that they were needed as guides and that the soldiers ' commander wanted them anyway . Since DATE had passed without any news , the applicant requested reliable information about the NORP ' current circumstances .

The NORP had been taken away from GPE by soldiers on CARDINAL DATE . The soldiers asked them to act as guides and told them that , in any event , the soldiers ' commander wanted them . Since then , the applicant had not heard from the NORP and he requested an investigation into their fate .

The relatives of ORG had made an application about the NORP who were taken on DATE by soldiers and about whom no news had been received . The addressee was requested to “ investigate ” and to revert within DATE .

Reference was made to the applicant 's complaint about the ORG ' apprehension on DATE and their subsequent disappearance . It had been reported that the NORP were , at the time , detained by the military units billeted in ORG . The addressee was requested to investigate whether the NORP were detained by / in the company of the units billeted at the school and whether ORG had any current proceedings against the NORP .

Further to the ORG public prosecutor 's letter of DATE , an investigation and inquiry had been carried out . The ORG had not been detained by his command and his command did not participate in an operation on or around the date indicated . The search for the ORG would continue and further developments would be reported .

The addressee was requested to secure the presence of the applicant and of PERSON ( the muhtar of ORG ) at the office of ORG as soon as possible .

The NORP were apprehended by soldiers and were detained in GPE overnight and then in ORG for DATE . The applicant had no news . He had petitioned , to no avail , ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG . The soldiers had indicated that there was “ complaint ” against the NORP .

The addressee was to confirm whether the ORG had been referred to the addressee to be detained .

DATE previously ORG arrived in GPE on operation . He was told about the NORP being taken away by soldiers of that brigade DATE after it took place . He was told that the children of those taken away had followed the soldiers and the NORP for some time but were told by the commanding officer on the radio that the NORP would be released . He went to ORG station and was told that the soldiers had gone towards ORG on operation , accompanied by civilians .

He had already submitted a petition ( DATE ) and made a statement ( CARDINAL DATE ) to that office . He still had no news of the NORP and his search continued . He requested that the NORP be found and that those who detained them be punished .

The persons mentioned in the letter of CARDINAL DATE had moved .

The addressee was asked whether it had detained the ORG . Stamps on the letter , of ORG and of ORG , dated DATE , stated that the NORP were not wanted and did not have criminal records .

The addressees were asked to confirm , for the purposes of a preliminary investigation , whether the ORG had been referred to them to be detained or whether they were under arrest . A stamp on the former letter indicates that ORG of ORG did not find the ORG ' names in that office 's records .

Pursuant to the letter of DATE , a search through the computer records for DATE and DATE did not reveal the ORG ' names . The addressee was referred to ORG of ORG .

Pursuant to ORG letter of DATE , an inquiry had been carried out . The ORG had not been detained and were not wanted by ORG .

The NORP were not in that court 's records .

A response was requested to the unanswered letter of DATE .

The statement records that a letter of DATE from ORG , which was read to the applicant , had referred to the applicant 's GPE application and requested ORG to ensure the investigation of the matter by ORG and to take the applicant 's statement . The applicant was also to be asked whether the signature on the form of authority in favour of NORP lawyers was his . Consideration was to be given to the necessity of determining , as a matter of priority , whether or not an investigation was to be opened under Decree no . CARDINAL . ORG was to be kept informed . The applicant was then asked to make a statement .

Along with his CARDINAL brothers ( PERSON and PERSON ) , the applicant had a house in GPE . On DATE CARDINAL soldiers arrived in GPE . The applicant was in the fields . He heard , on the mosque loud - speaker , that the villagers were to gather at the mosque and ran back . At the mosque , the commander told them to remove their belongings from the houses and to evacuate the village in an hour . The houses were set on fire as persons attempted to remove their belongings . His and his brothers ' houses were burned . Prior to leaving , the soldiers ordered the evacuation of the village .

The following day they went to ORG and reported the incident . They asked to be allowed to stay to harvest the crops and the commander agreed . They pitched tents in the hamlet and tended their livestock and crops . They hid when the soldiers subsequently came ( twice or CARDINAL times ) by the village . When the soldiers came on DATE , the applicant was again in the fields . The NORP were repairing their houses . The soldiers told them that the commander wanted to see them and that they were to show the soldiers the way after which they would come back . The applicant did not see them being taken away but was told about the incident when he returned to the village .

DATE . The following day the village muhtar and some villagers went to PERSON station and enquired about the NORP . They were told that the ORG had been taken to GPE . DATE , the applicant went to FAC . He asked the Commander about the NORP who responded that there were CARDINAL operations in the area and that the ORG had not been taken into his station .

The applicant therefore applied to ORG and to ORG of ORG , the latter of whom had told the applicant that the NORP were not in custody . He then filed a petition with ORG , who referred the applicant to ORG , who referred him , in turn , to ORG . The latter telephoned “ Lice ” , but the response was that the NORP were not there . Telephone calls to “ GPE ” were not possible as the lines were down .

Approximately DATE the applicant was put in contact with PERSON who was in ORG prison and he went to see him . PERSON told him that he had been in custody in ORG with the NORP prior to being transferred to ORG . PERSON was by then ( DATE ) in GPE prison . ORG then told the applicant that the NORP were not “ there ” .

The applicant moved to ORG . On learning that some villagers had applied to the ORG , he applied and the ORG took his statement . He was shown his statement of CARDINAL DATE and identified that statement and his signature . When his letter of authorisation appointing NORP lawyers was shown to him , he said that he had not been told , as such , that the ORG would appoint NORP lawyers , that he was only asked to sign a piece of paper and that he did not know that it was a letter of authorisation . He was only told that his statement would be sent to GPE , but he was not told where in GPE . His aim was to find the NORP dead or alive , to be informed about their fate and to obtain compensation for the damage to his property . He had not commenced damage assessment proceedings in any court , although the village muhtar had informed the Regional Governor of the burning of the houses . The applicant therefore petitioned the Regional Governor for a house to replace the CARDINAL which was burned . He wanted his rights granted by the NORP authorities and did not want a case in LOC .

It is recorded that the statement was read out to the applicant , who confirmed the truth of it by signing it .

Referring to the letter of DATE from ORG , PERSON requested an investigation into the complaints of the applicant who had made a detailed statement and to revert with the results of that enquiry by DATE for forwarding to ORG .

An investigation had been commenced but the NORP were still missing . Copies of the relevant investigation documents were enclosed .

The applicant had claimed that the NORP had disappeared on DATE and had been detained by military units in ORG . The addressee was to investigate whether the ORG had been detained and to revert with the findings .

DATE . A claim about the NORP ' disappearance and their detention in the boarding school had already been received and investigated . However , and according to the records of that gendarme command , the ORG had not been detained and their names were not in those records .

Referring to ORG letter of CARDINAL DATE , that gendarme command had investigated . Since the ORG ' names were not in the records of that command , the conclusion was that that command had not detained them .

The addressee was requested to furnish information on the preliminary investigation on the applicant 's complaints .

On DATE ORG decided that he lacked jurisdiction to pursue the investigation and transferred the matter to the GPE Governor .

NORP The decision referred to the applicant 's complaint : the burning and evacuation of his village on DATE , the taking into custody of the NORP by soldiers on DATE , their later disappearance and the reports of their detention in ORG . Since the incident took place while the security forces were carrying out their administrative duties , it was ORG that had jurisdiction to investigate , to which organ the case was transferred .

On DATE commando soldiers arrived in ORG . He saw the soldiers take the ORG . Since then , no news of them had been received .

The applicant and the NORP were registered as living in Çağlayan .

The applicant had made an application to ORG claiming that the NORP had been detained by security forces on DATE , that they had subsequently disappeared and that their houses had been burned . The addressee was to confirm by CARDINAL DATE whether an investigation had been launched by ORG . If so , a copy of the file was to be forwarded .

ORG file and jurisdiction decision had been sent to ORG which had appointed PERSON as the Adjudicator in the investigation . He was appointed elsewhere and the file had been put on hold without further progress . The FAC had appointed a new Adjudicator , the investigation was ongoing and the addressee would be informed of the outcome .

PERSON was requested to investigate , as Adjudicator , the claims ( outlined in ORG file ) according to the law on the prosecution of civil servants and to report within DATE .

Deveboyu hamlet and ORG village were empty and the residents had gone to ORG as a result of ORG pressure in DATE . Since their addresses could not be established , more information about the NORP and their alleged detention and disappearances could not be gathered . The applicant was not at his address in ORG , so his statement could not be taken . A search of the records showed that the ORG had not been detained by ORG . In the absence of any perpetrators , there was no need to investigate further .

The investigation report was submitted .

NORP By letter of DATE , ORG required the file to be re - opened and an investigation conducted . This letter has not been furnished

An investigation was to be opened into the applicant 's claims pursuant to the law concerning the prosecution of civil servants and a report was to be submitted as soon as possible .

The muhtar of ORG was to be sent to the GPE for his statement to be taken and the gendarme command confirmed that he would so attend .

That gendarme command was requested to confirm before DATE whether any operations had been carried out in DATE and , if so , whether they covered ORG , whether gendarmes had taken part in the operation and who was in charge . The custody records from ORG gendarme station and from ORG for DATE were also requested .

NORP That gendarme command 's records had been examined and it was concluded that in DATE operations had taken place in the GPE region but no information , documentation or record had been found which indicated that such operations included NORP village . Extracts of the security and custody records of ORG gendarme station were enclosed . Those of ORG for DATE had been archived and could be obtained from the GPE archive department .

The addressee was to ensure the applicant 's attendance before LOC for his statement to be taken .

The applicant 's address was in ORG . ORG village had been evacuated and , therefore , the applicant could not be contacted .

ORG custody records for DATE were requested by DATE .

The Lice prison custody records for DATE were requested .

The applicant was to be summoned and sent to the GPE Governor for his statement to be taken .

The villagers from ORG had told him in DATE that military units belonging to ORG , accompanied by PERSON , had taken away the NORP . He had asked PERSON about their fate and he responded that the ORG were not in FAC and that he had no knowledge of them .

Given the applicant 's allegations of CARDINAL DATE that , inter alia , PERSON had seen the NORP in detention and that he was in GPE prison , the addressee was to see if he was still in that prison , to take his statement if he was and to report back by DATE .

PERSON name was not in the prison records .

Given the applicant 's allegations of CARDINAL DATE that , inter alia , PERSON had seen the NORP in detention and that he was in ORG prison , the addressee was to see if he was still in that prison , to take his statement if he was and to report back by DATE .

Reference was made to a letter of DATE from ORG , to ORG letter of DATE and to the GPE Governor 's letter of DATE . An investigation would be carried out to establish the applicant 's current address , and his statement would be taken and forwarded by DATE .

The applicant acknowledged that he had been informed that he had to appear before the GPE Governor urgently to make a statement .

ORG . PERSON had been imprisoned by ORG on DATE for aiding and abetting the ORG and he was transferred to ORG secure prison on DATE .

NORP The report repeated the information in the preceding paragraph and added that PERSON village had been evacuated due to terrorist incidents and that his current whereabouts were unknown . It was not possible therefore to take his statement .

DATE prior to DATE , military units said that the village was to evacuated in DATE . The villagers began immediately evacuating . After DATE they approached the ORG , PERSON , in order to get permission to stay in the village to harvest the crops . Permission was granted .

On DATE the applicant was told that the soldiers , who had been around the hamlet and acting on orders of their commander , had taken ORG . He saw the soldiers taking the NORP away as did other villagers . On DATE he learned that the soldiers had moved on to Gümüşsuyu hamlet of LOC . After dark , he went to GPE and asked ORG ( also known as PERSON and the applicant 's aunt ) ( his aunt ) and PERSON about the NORP . They said that they had seen the NORP .

On CARDINAL DATE PERSON ( ORG son and the applicant 's cousin ) and PERSON went to PERSON and spoke to PERSON who said that the ORG had been taken to ORG by the soldiers in TIME . On DATE the applicant , PERSON , PERSON and ORG asked PERSON about the fate of the NORP . PERSON said that there were CARDINAL operations in the area and that he did not know who had taken the NORP .

Later , the applicant petitioned ORG , ORG and ORG . DATE after the incident , the applicant was in ORG and he met PERSON from the GPE district who had a shop in GPE . He said that the ORG had been detained TIME with him in ORG . In TIME , they were taken in a military vehicle to ORG where the NORP and ORG were in custody together for DATE . ORG was released at DATE .

DATE after the NORP had been detained , PERSON of GPE , ORG sent a message to the applicant suggesting that they meet . The applicant went to ORG prison and met the Ramazan Ayçiçek . The latter said that , while he was being detained in ORG , he had spent DATE with the ORG . On DATE , and many times thereafter , the applicant went to ORG to ask about the fate of the Orhans . He was told that the NORP were not in ORG .

DATE after the ORG ' apprehension , he petitioned ORG . That petition was referred to ORG and , in turn , to ORG from where a sergeant major telephoned ORG . Their reply was that the NORP were not there .

A report on PERSON in ORG prison was enclosed .

Custody records of ORG for DATE were submitted .

ORG report on PERSON was enclosed . The ORG 's decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) later detailed this report : the village of PERSON had been evacuated as a result of terrorist incidents and his whereabouts were not known .

The Adjudicator 's report on his investigation was enclosed .

NORP The investigation had taken place DATE and DATE and the list of documents attached were dated DATE .

The Adjudicator concluded that it was unnecessary to prosecute and make a decision . In the first place , the NORP ' names did not appear in the custody records of ORG gendarme station or of GPE or ORG . Secondly , there were contradictions between the applicant 's statement of CARDINAL DATE and that of DATE regarding whether he had personally seen his brothers being taken away . Thirdly , the muhtar was not a direct witness ; he had been told by the villagers that the NORP had been taken away . Fourthly , the applicant had said in his statement of CARDINAL DATE that PERSON was in GPE prison but investigations indicated that he was not , his village had been evacuated due to terrorist activity and his whereabouts could not be established . There was a doubt whether the applicant had met PERSON . Fifthly , there existed no document , information or record in ORG as to any operation conducted in DATE .

The investigation file and the report were examined . In the absence of any information , documentation or witnesses indicating that the ORG had been detained by military units or by the ORG or ORG , the ORG decided unanimously not to prosecute pursuant to the law concerning the prosecution of civil servants .

PERSON had been arrested for possession of a weapon and for aiding and abetting the ORG . He had been referred to a public prosecutor on DATE . ORG had no gendarme personnel stationed there for detention purposes . It was not possible for PERSON , who was detained by ORG on DATE , to have seen the NORP as claimed as ORG was QUANTITY away from that command .

Entry No . CARDINAL refers to PERSON as having been detained on charges noted above . The fourth column notes that his detention was ordered by ORG and the fifth column notes his detention on DATE at CARDINAL . The entry spills over to a second line , noting that he departed from ORG on DATE at CARDINAL as he had been referred to a public prosecutor .

NORP The incident location establishment report dated DATE referred to a gendarme operation on DATE , to their finding a rifle on PERSON LOC and to his arrest DATE . In his statement of DATE he stated that he had assisted the ORG and inherited the rifle .

NORP In contrast , TIME of interrogation ” dated DATE noted that the applicant stated that he had been apprehended during a military operation around CARDINAL DATE and taken “ to GPE . It was there he had made the above - described statement which he denied , pointing out that he had been made to sign it without knowing what was in it . On DATE ORG decided that there was insufficient evidence of aiding and abetting the ORG and ordered his release . However , the illegal possession of firearms issue was retained for trial .

The ORG records are dated DATE , those of ORG are dated DATE and those of ORG are dated DATE . There is no reference to the NORP in those records .

This is a CARDINAL - page table - style document summarising CARDINAL military operations in the Diyarbakır province which took place from DATE . No operations are noted for DATE , but many are recorded for DATE before and after . ORG also took place on CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . No reference is made to ORG , ORG or to GPE , although CARDINAL operations are noted as having taken place both in the Kulp ( DATE ) and ORG ( CARDINAL and DATE ) districts .

Upon the request of the Delegates in the above - cited PERSON case , the Government furnished plans of ORG . These constituted CARDINAL pages , each page covering a floor in CARDINAL building .

The Delegates heard the testimony summarised below .

He was born in DATE . ORG and PERSON are his elder and only brothers and PERSON his eldest son . In DATE and DATE he was living in GPE . NORP PERSON lived with him and he and his brothers each owned a house in that hamlet .

On DATE CARDINAL troops arrived , passed the village and set up tents just above the village . The following day their provisions arrived by military vehicles . The villagers helped the soldiers take the provisions to their tents either on their backs or by using pack animals . The applicant first said that the force was made up of both gendarmes and regular infantry soldiers , he later affirmed that they were “ ordinary soldiers ” and then clarified that he could not distinguish between commandos and gendarmes . In any event , they were all dressed in military uniform . He did not know any of them . From time to time the village council and the muhtar visited PERSON gendarme station where PERSON said that the soldiers were from the Bolu regiment .

After DATE or CARDINAL , the soldiers went on operation towards the ORG - Muş border . In TIME CARDINAL DATE they returned and surrounded the village . Using the loudspeaker of the village mosque , they called to villagers to gather at the mosque . The villagers assembled quickly . The commander said that the villagers had TIME to take their belongings after which the village would be burned and evacuated .

The villagers returned to their houses immediately , but as they were going back , the soldiers began burning the houses . A commander and a platoon of soldiers was assigned to each neighbourhood in the village . The applicant managed to move some of his family 's possessions outside but soon after they started burning his house using hay he had stored . His house , those of his brothers , the majority of their possessions and most of the houses in LOC were burned .

The soldiers stayed in the village that night and left in TIME .

The following morning , CARDINAL or CARDINAL villagers ( including PERSON and the village muhtar ) went to PERSON gendarme station to ask permission to stay to harvest the crops . PERSON said that ORG had the authority to decide such things but he did not . At GPE , PERSON gave them permission . They therefore stayed in make - shift shelters in GPE until the harvest .

NORP Some villagers started to repair their houses in the hope that they would be allowed to return someday . Every three or four days , soldiers went by the hamlet and proceeded up into the hills .

On DATE , in the early morning , the soldiers came back to the village . The applicant had gone to a work in a field some distance away . Most of the men had already left for the city , but his brothers and his son remained and were working on the houses . When a group of soldiers came into the village , the remaining men hid in the fields . The soldiers asked about the NORP and took their identity cards . Everyone including the children were there , although it was a coincidence that PERSON was there as he had just come home DATE ( for a religious holiday ) from his work as a plasterer with a sub - contractor at ORG .

When they said that they would take the NORP , the women implored them not to , but they responded that the commander was farther up the hill waiting , that the NORP had to give a statement and that they were needed , in any event , as guides . They would be released later . A crowd gathered . The applicant saw , from where he was in the field , the soldiers accompanied by the NORP going up the hill towards GPE . The women and children followed them for QUANTITY imploring the soldiers not to take the NORP .

The hamlet of GPE is TIME away from GPE on foot on a rough tractor track . The villagers in GPE have fields in GPE and so the villagers of both hamlets knew each other . The applicant 's aunt , PERSON , lives in GPE . The soldiers arrived in GPE on foot with the NORP . TIME , the applicant went to GPE to see if he could get some news from the villagers . He met PERSON who told him that , when the soldiers initially came , they had left their vehicles in GPE and then walked from there to GPE . On the way back through GPE , they brought the NORP where they were seen taking a rest by numerous villagers who took water to them . The NORP appeared to be in good condition and were smoking cigarettes . PERSON and an old villager , PERSON , spoke to the ORG . PERSON also asked the soldiers what the ORG had done and the commander threatened to take him into custody instead . The NORP were put into military vehicles and taken away in the direction of ORG .

The next morning the applicant set out for PERSON station . On the way , he met PERSON and PERSON coming back from the station . They had seen PERSON who had told them that the ORG had passed through with soldiers the previous evening and had been taken to GPE . The applicant then went to ORG station with the village muhtar and other villagers , to ask what had become of the NORP . PERSON said that they had apparently been taken to ORG .

On DATE the applicant went to ORG where PERSON said that there were CARDINAL operations taking place , that he did not know which unit had taken the NORP , that he would make enquiries and that the applicant should return in DATE . The applicant went back many times , but obtained no news of the NORP .

He identified the petitions he then lodged with ORG , with ORG prosecutor in ORG and with ORG in DATE and DATE .

NORP Some time later the applicant was in GPE and bumped into “ Eşref ” . He said he had been detained with the NORP in ORG for TIME . The following TIME they were taken by military vehicle to ORG “ LOC ” station where all were detained for DATE . PERSON was released and the ORG remained . Subsequently , the applicant could not trace PERSON .

ORG DATE after the NORP were detained , PERSON sent word to the applicant to contact him . The applicant was allowed to see him in ORG prison as he told the prison officers that PERSON was a close acquaintance and that he was asking about his brothers and his son . PERSON told him that he and the ORG had been detained in ORG for DATE after which he was transferred to prison . The ORG remained in the school . The applicant confirmed that PERSON had said nothing about the ORG ' condition . The applicant understood that PERSON was transferred from ORG prison , served his DATE sentence and was released after which he and his family left home . The applicant had been unable to trace him . This was the last information received by the applicant about the NORP .

The applicant then returned to ORG , who said that no one by the name of PERSON was in custody in his command .

NORP The villagers stayed in GPE for the harvest and left in DATE . They spent DATE in make - shift shelters .

Having been summoned , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant made a statement to a prosecutor of ORG . The prosecutor , the applicant and a typist were in a room . The prosecutor got very angry and shouted , wondering how the ORG could kidnap people and make them disappear and saying that people get the punishment they deserve . The applicant said that he was upset , grieving and sad . He broke down , became confused and completed the statement in that state . He did not remember giving a statement in which he said that he did not wish to take proceedings before the Commission .

He submitted copy photographs of the Orhans to the Delegates . He had never been asked for photographs or for the names of those in GPE who had witnessed the NORP being taken away . He had never received any information from the authorities about their investigations into the destruction of GPE or the disappearance of the NORP .

The applicant explained the sorrow and hardship suffered by him and the ORG ' families : their continuing wish was to find the NORP , whether dead or alive .

NORP The witness was born in DATE . He is a nephew of the applicant and the eldest son of PERSON . He lives in PERSON with his family . He and his brothers and sisters were agricultural workers .

In DATE the witness was in DATE of junior high at ORG , situate on the outskirts of ORG TIME walk from the centre of town . He had joined the school DATE . There were CARDINAL classes with CARDINAL students in each class . There were CARDINAL buildings in the school complex each of CARDINAL stories . CARDINAL was the dormitory building , the second contained the classrooms and the third was the military housing . The complex was a large area surrounded by barbed wire with soldiers on guard duty and completing identity checks at the entrance . At the Delegates ' request , the witness roughly sketched the QUANTITY buildings in the complex .

The witness was shown the plans of the boarding school submitted by the Government in the above - cited LOC case . The plans covered the CARDINAL floors of the classroom building . The classrooms were in the upper part of the building and the refectory ( yemekhane ) was on the lower floor ( with a library and administrative offices ) . The plans did not therefore cover the military building .

The military building was not separated by any form of barrier or fencing from the other school buildings . While the witness could have gone to that building , he never had or wanted to . Soldiers were based permanently at the military building and soldiers also came and went frequently . Military vehicles ( tanks , panzers and the like ) would also come and go and were parked just next to the military housing . The witness did not recognise specific uniforms . All he knew was that they were soldiers . DATE before the witness left the school , he saw soldiers in blue berets for the first time . DATE when the witness was sitting with his friends , he saw military vehicles entering the military building . The witness had wondered about certain persons in those vehicles in civilian clothing . Since he was not used to seeing civilians among soldiers , he asked a friend who said that the civilians had probably been taken into custody .

NORP In DATE he was home from school in GPE as he was ill . DATE , CARDINAL soldiers arrived and went up the hill . They were dressed in the usual green uniforms . While he initially said they had blue berets , he confirmed later that he was not sure .

DATE after that , they returned to GPE . They came into the village , set the houses on fire , including his home , and there was smoke everywhere . He was in his father 's house when they set it on fire . The soldiers surrounded the houses and CARDINAL or CARDINAL went inside to start the fire although he was not sure precisely how they started it . His family managed to throw some belongings outside before the fire caught . Other houses also burned and , while the smoke made it difficult to see precisely how many burned , his own and the applicant 's houses burned . Having waited for the houses to burn , the soldiers left the village . Thereafter , he and his family lived in the garden under bits of nylon and plastic awaiting the harvest .

DATE , around sunrise , the soldiers came down the hill towards the tents of the applicant , PERSON and of PERSON , which tents were next to each other . The soldiers stopped at the witness ' family 's tent which was the first in their path . The commander saw the witness ' father ( PERSON ) , called him over ( not by name ) and asked for his identity card . The soldiers asked what other men were there and his father told them that his uncle ( PERSON ) and cousin ( PERSON ) were . As ordered , his father called them over and their identity cards were taken . The NORP were told that they were all needed as guides .

NORP The witness went for a moment behind his nylon tent and , when he came out , the soldiers had started taking the NORP up the hill . His brothers , his mother , his aunt and her children started to beg the soldiers not to take them away . His aunt even brought the LAW over and asked the soldiers , for the love of the Koran , not to take them away . But the soldiers did not pay any attention and said that they were not to be followed . The NORP would be released , whereas if the villagers followed bad things could happen . More pleading led to the commander calling a more superior officer on the radio . The former said that he had “ these people ” and queried whether he should bring them in . The superior commander ordered the soldiers to bring the NORP . The soldiers and the NORP went up the hill on foot in the direction of GPE and the villagers went back . The hill is so high that the group was visible from the village and , indeed , from some of the families ' fields where the applicant had gone that TIME .

The witness never saw his father again . He could not return to school , something he enormously regretted : since he was the oldest surviving male in his family and had become the head of the family , he had to work to support his family .

The witness was born in DATE in GPE . He is the son - in - law of PERSON . Since DATE he had been a migrant worker , never spending DATE in GPE . The witness ' father had a house in GPE . The applicant , PERSON and PERSON had houses close to each other in GPE . PERSON lived with the applicant .

In DATE PERSON and GPE villages were destroyed . His brother - in - law and sister - in - law had lived in PERSON and after its destruction they stayed with PERSON for a while . PERSON and PERSON stayed with his father for DATE after ORG had been destroyed . Those villagers said that the soldiers had burned the villages because they had been accused of assisting and harbouring terrorists . The witness had considered that it was just a matter of time before the same would happen in Çağlayan , so he and his wife moved to ORG . He lived in GPE at the relevant time .

One evening in DATE , when he returned home from work , his wife told him that their village had been destroyed by soldiers . TIME he got up early , hired a lorry and went to the village . He went through a military check point in front of PERSON gendarme station where he saw innumerable tanks , panzers and other military vehicles .

From there to the centre of ORG , the witness saw a large number of soldiers ( CARDINAL ) walking on the side of the road in the direction of ORG . They were QUANTITY apart from each other and streached all the way from PERSON to ORG . They were infantry soldiers and commandos . He did not remember seeing gendarmes among them . They were wearing the uniform of regular soldiers . The uniforms of the commandos are a lighter green , those of the infantry are a darker green and those of the gendarmes are the same as the infantry 's except that the gendarmes have insignia on the neck and shoulders which are different to the infantry . He did not recall seeing those insignia or any distinctive caps . They had the usual weapons , GCARDINALs , MGCARDINALs , regular bombs and so on . The witness was able to recognise uniforms and weapons as he had done his military service in the infantry in GPE near the NORP border .

When he arrived , the village , even the mosque , was in ruins . He could only stay TIME as he had to get back to work . Smoke was still coming out of some of the houses including his own father 's house .

The witness did not see PERSON or PERSON DATE as he was concentrating on his own family 's problems . He did not actually see the houses of the applicant , PERSON or PERSON that morning : their houses were TIME walk away and were surrounded by an orchard . However , he saw smoke coming from the area in which those houses were located .

The witness ' father , his uncle and cousins told him that DATE the soldiers had come , had gathered everyone in front of the mosque and had told them that they had TIME to vacate their houses and take their belongings , as they were going to burn the village . The villagers had gone back to their houses and saw smoke coming from the mosque before the soldiers began burning their houses . They had rescued whatever they could but most things had burned .

He loaded his lorry with as much of the rescued belongings of certain families as he could and took them to ORG .

DATE the witness returned to GPE . The houses were not habitable . The villagers had built shelters out of cloth , rags , trees and leaves in the LOC , gardens and orchards , on the road , by the river and outside the village on the hills . He also saw PERSON and PERSON and spoke to their families . They told him the same things as his own family about how the village had been burned . The witness tried to persuade PERSON to leave but he wanted to stay as they had permission to do so until the harvest . On DATE the witness went back to ORG .

DATE after the village had been burned , his wife told him that they had taken the NORP . TIME , he and his wife went to the village . They stayed DATE . His mother and father said that the soldiers had taken the NORP . His wife did not stop at his father 's house but went to PERSON house directly . PERSON wife and family said that the soldiers had come down the hill in the morning and had taken away the heads of their households , that they had gone after the soldiers all the way to the hill , that a soldier had even slapped a little girl who was following and that the soldiers did not let them follow any further .

During this stay in GPE , the witness met certain villagers from GPE : PERSON , an old man of DATE , PERSON and the latter 's mother , PERSON . They confirmed the following : Numerous villagers saw the soldiers arrive with the NORP to GPE . They gave them water , they rested TIME and the NORP were taken directly to ORG station . The villagers of GPE were informed that TIME . TIME , some villagers ( including PERSON and PERSON ) went to ORG gendarme station to enquire about the NORP and they were told by PERSON that the ORG had been taken to GPE . On their way back from ORG , they met the applicant and told him what they had learned .

No village had been burned west or north of ORG . But east and south countless villages burned within a short time including the hamlet of PERSON and the village to which it was attached , Elmalı . ORG was also burned as were the hamlets of ORG and PERSON ) .

NORP The witness was born in DATE . He is the applicant 's cousin . In DATE and DATE he lived in GPE a hamlet of CARDINAL houses . The applicant , PERSON and PERSON , whom he knew as he had fields in ORG , each had a house in GPE at that time .

NORP He initially appeared to be confused as to the order of events ( the destruction of ORG and the passage of the soldiers and the NORP through GPE ) . However , he later confirmed and re - affirmed that the burning of ORG took place DATE before he saw the NORP with the soldiers in GPE .

In DATE the witness saw smoke coming from houses in GPE . He asked certain military officers who were in the village at the time what was going on and if an operation was to be carried out in GPE so that they might leave beforehand . They said that they had come to protect the villagers . The villagers in GPE later said that soldiers had set their houses on fire .

DATE after PERSON was burned , GPE was also burned by soldiers . The soldiers initially checked identity cards and then gave the villagers TIME to remove their belongings before burning their houses . Lighter items were removed but the heavier items burned . The witness asked the soldiers why they were burning the village and was told that it was to prevent the ORG from coming to seek shelter , that they would all be re - located by the ORG and that anybody caught in the village would be killed . The villagers obtained permission , from their local gendarme station , to stay in the village until the harvest , until which time they lived in shelters . The witness thought that they were regular soldiers , as opposed to gendarmes , because of their uniforms . The muhtar of LOC village had told the witness that the soldiers were from Bolu , the witness presuming that the muhtar had obtained this information from the gendarme station .

DATE after GPE had been burned , soldiers arrived on foot with the NORP . Practically all of the village saw them . The party stopped to rest near the village cemetery . They gave water and cigarettes to the NORP and to the soldiers . The NORP were free to move around and were not handcuffed . The witness , PERSON and other villagers talked to them . The NORP were upset saying that the soldiers had taken them . They asked for help and for their families to be told . PERSON , an old man , enquired why the ORG had been taken . They responded that they would take him instead . Having rested for TIME approximately , the soldiers put the NORP into a military vehicle and left . TIME , the applicant came to GPE and they told him what they had seen . The following morning PERSON and the witness asked PERSON at ORG gendarme station what he knew . He told them that the NORP had been taken to GPE . On the way back from the station they met the applicant and filled him in .

NORP The villagers left GPE in the autumn . The ORG never re - located them as the soldiers had promised .

The witness , born in DATE , was Commander of PERSON gendarme station during the relevant period until DATE . His station was attached to ORG so PERSON was his commander .

Çağlayan was attached to his station , he went there from time to time and knew it well . ORG and GPE were TIME walk apart . He knew the muhtar of ORG personally , as he did almost all of the muhtars . He did not know PERSON , PERSON or PERSON personally . He did not recall that there had been a particular terrorist problem in ORG at that time .

The witness initially said that he did not remember receiving a complaint or hearing about ORG being burned by the security forces . He then accepted that the applicant had made this allegation to him in DATE when ORG requested him to secure the applicant 's attendance . However , since the prosecutor had already been seized of the matter , he had no power to investigate . He could not recall whether he had been to ORG after DATE . Nor could he recall ever seeing any village in the region burned .

He could not recall any complaint about the NORP , or about any other QUANTITY persons , being apprehended by the military and disappearing thereafter . He had no recollection of PERSON or PERSON from GPE or of any conversation with them .

From time to time operations were carried out in the region by units from outside the area , but the gendarmes did not know the identity of the units . When operations were to be carried out in an area under his station 's jurisdiction , ORG would give the co - ordinates to ORG ( PERSON ) who would inform the witness orally so that gendarmes from his station would avoid the operation area . He was not informed of the identity of the relevant military unit and did not know if the NORP Commander would have known . Since he was never informed of the identity of the units , he did not recall any operation on DATE of the Bolu unit and he could not therefore have given this information to the muhtar of ORG as alleged .

NORP If military units from outside the region apprehended someone on operations , they had to surrender that person to the gendarme station in whose jurisdiction they operated . Therefore , if someone was apprehended within the jurisdiction of PERSON gendarme station , the detainee would be handed over to ORG or directly to GPE from where the person would be transferred to a public prosecutor as necessary . There was a small custody room at ORG station ( a capacity of CARDINAL people for TIME only ) . Generally , a military unit would have contact with ORG rather than with his station . He did not recall any such contact even from units he saw passing his station and no detainees were ever handed over to him . If he had had any such contact , the witness said he would have remembered it .

Gendarme custody records would indicate by whom and on whose orders the person had been taken into custody . Accordingly , he confirmed that an examination of the ORG custody records of the relevant period would demonstrate whether anyone had been handed over by the military . All detainees , whether kept in the custody room or elsewhere in the station , were entered in the custody record . The witness identified the custody records for the relevant period from his station . The date noted in that record was the date and time the person had been first taken into custody . Detainees for whom there was no space in the custody room , in ORG would be detained in the cafeteria of the same building . The fact that that station 's facilities were full would not have been a concern of the military units .

He did not recall ever being asked any questions by a prosecutor about claims concerning the NORP ' disappearance or the destruction of ORG . He had no recollection of taking statements from those villagers .

NORP The witness was born in DATE . He was ORG from DATE . PERSON gendarme station was attached to his station . His command was attached to ORG .

The witness knew ORG : it was attached to ORG gendarme station . ORG was QUANTITY from GPE and was CARDINAL of the CARDINAL villages in the GPE region . At the relevant time there was a terrorist threat in the entire GPE area , in all its villages and hamlets without exception . The ORG would threaten the locals to obtain what they wanted . He agreed that the security forces did not have any problem with the local population , but rather with the ORG . He could not recall the applicant or how many houses were in ORG .

He confirmed that there was a commando regiment at Bolu at the time . ORG would let him know , generally orally , that an operation was to be carried out in a particular manner and place between certain dates . They were told not to go out on mission between those dates . No details , not even the name of the military unit , would be mentioned . Any gendarme records of those military operations would be retained by ORG . He did not recall if there had been any major troop movements in ORG or indeed in his area in DATE .

When informed that it was claimed that PERSON had told the muhtar that the relevant troops were from Bolu , he stated that he did not believe that PERSON would make such a statement and suggested a direct confrontation between him and the people making such an accusation , a suggestion of confrontation he repeated during his evidence .

He did not recall a visit from the muhtar on DATE . Nor did her recall any allegation that ORG had been burned or giving permission to stay until the harvest . He insisted that DATE innumerable incidents took place in GPE DATE and that it was not possible for him to recall each CARDINAL .

He did not recall any complaint , by the applicant or anyone , about the ORG ' apprehension on DATE or any complaint of the applicant to that effect . It was DATE and it was not possible for him to remember every complaint by every person to his station : during his DATE at ORG , he spoke to an average of CARDINAL people DATE . DATE was a period of intense terrorist activity , everyone believed himself to have been wronged by the terrorists and everyone asked for help .

He did not recall ever being contacted by any prosecutor asking about the disappearance of the NORP and he denied any knowledge of any investigation despite being shown the letter of CARDINAL DATE from LOC to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He did not recall PERSON , let alone an investigation conducted by that officer , even when it was pointed out to him that PERSON had been his deputy in ORG at the relevant time .

There were custody facilities in ORG . Those facilities accommodated CARDINAL persons . People who were taken into custody for any offence were first searched and were then referred to a doctor for a medical examination and report . When the medical report issued , the detainee was entered into the custody register of the custody room by the commander of the station himself . After the interrogation was completed they would be referred to the public prosecutor . A medical report for the public prosecutor would be obtained and the detainee 's valuables would be handed over to the gendarmes against a receipt . He considered his custody record to be sound . If the military apprehended someone requiring detention , they would contact ORG

He initially confirmed that a person is entered into the record when he or she is put into the custody room . On further questioning he clarified that , where there is no place in the custody room and the person is detained elsewhere in the building , the detainee will still be entered in the custody record . However , the witness had never come across such a situation during his career .

He agreed that , generally speaking , if he had heard a complaint that a village had been destroyed by security forces , he would have thought that the ORG were responsible and that the complaint was a propaganda exercise designed to blame the security forces . He cited CARDINAL example , from the innumerable similar incidents he recalled , of NORP in the GPE area which everyone knew had been burned down by the ORG in or DATE but which fire was attributed to the ORG . Was it not true that the ORG was asserting itself and its struggle ? Had the ORG not attained that goal by killing CARDINAL innocent people ? Had the ORG not intimidated the people ? The ORG , the witness asserted , had burned down CARDINAL of villages and killed CARDINAL of people .

This witness classed the applicant 's accusations as “ unfounded libels ” aimed solely at safeguarding his interests . He fixed at CARDINAL to CARDINAL the possibility of the ORG destroying a village . As to the security forces detaining citizens , killing those persons and then disposing of the bodies , the witness exclaimed that he would not even give that possibility a CARDINAL chance , as the military would never do such a thing .

The witness was born in DATE . He was temporarily assigned to ORG from DATE . During that period he deputised for his superior officer , PERSON , for DATE . Otherwise he was on operations .

The witness emphasised this peripheral connection to ORG to explain his small involvement in , and limited memory of , the PERSON investigation . He identified a letter from him to ORG dated DATE : this was the sum of his memory of the ORG ' complaint . He clarified that his confirmation therein , that the ORG had not been detained by “ our command ” , included the stations attached to ORG . Most of the investigation for that letter had been completed before he came to ORG or had been done by subordinate officers while he was there . Accordingly , he had no idea of the concrete steps that had been taken during the investigation to which his letter referred . Indeed the letter he signed on CARDINAL DATE would have been written by a subordinate officer and he may not even have looked at the letter of DATE to which his own letter referred . He was unable to say who decided on what was “ the necessary investigation ” or whether some guidance would or could be sought or received from the relevant prosecutor 's office . He could not describe the further investigative measures which his letter of CARDINAL DATE promised .

The witness pointed out that an operations ' unit does not normally apprehend people . They only do so when there has been a particular incident as , for example , someone found to be carrying a firearm without a licence . Once apprehended , a suspect is handed over to the relevant ORG and that station that takes the suspect into custody .

He initially stated that one could tell from the custody records whether the gendarme or military had initially apprehended someone . However , on examining those records before the Delegates , he concluded that the custody records would not , in fact , yield such information .

He did not recall ever encountering any military units from outside the region carrying out an operation in the area during his time in GPE . He too confirmed that ORG is notified orally for security reasons of the co - ordinates of the area where a military operation would take place and asked to stay away .

Contrary to PERSON , the witness would not even accept a CARDINAL to CARDINAL possibility of a military unit being responsible for a village being burned and for persons disappearing : in his view it was simply not possible . In DATE there was a great deal of ORG activity in the GPE and ORG area and the witness had seen burned villages when out on operations in that area . He was of the view that the ORG was responsible , relying on his personal experience of CARDINAL village raids by the ORG .

The witness was born in DATE . He was ORG Commander at the relevant time . Since his station was attached to ORG , PERSON was his superior officer .

NORP The GPE central and district gendarme stations were located in the same building . Therefore there was only one custody room in that building , with a capacity of CARDINAL or QUANTITY detainees , and that facility was attached to and under the authority of the central station . Any excess detainees were detained somewhere inside FAC building but would still be entered in the custody records . Ultimate responsibility for keeping the records lay with the witness as station commander but if he was not there his CARDINAL assistants would complete the record .

The witness knew ORG by name only and had never been there . He could not recall whether there had been an operation in DATE and DATE around ORG involving units from outside the region . There had been many operations in the region and he did not remember the precise dates or areas covered . Since they were never told of the identity of the units ( only the area of operation ) , he could not specifically say whether the Bolu unit had been there . His gendarmes did not carry out joint operations with units from outside the region . Operation units were generally based outside populated areas .

He did not know where troops were based in ORG . He knew that ORG had , like every district , a boarding school . He had never heard that military units from outside the region billeted in ORG . He had never heard any allegation about the burning of NORP village on DATE by soldiers . His only recollection of the claim that the NORP had been apprehended by a military unit and disappeared was a rather vague memory of correspondence with the prosecutor 's office in GPE . The witness also confirmed that , if someone had been apprehended by a military unit on operation , it would be obliged to hand over the detainee to the gendarmes : such units do not have custody facilities or power to detain .

Persons apprehended and sent by ORG station to ORG would not have come through his hands as the latter command would have passed on the detainee to the public prosecutor unless the suspect could only be brought DATE to the prosecutor , in which case the central gendarme station would detain the suspect in its custody room until DATE .

Having initially confirmed that the custody record would not indicate whether it had been the gendarme or the military who initially apprehended an individual , in cross - examination he confirmed that the latter information could be gleaned from the custody records in the “ reasons for arrest ” section . He then reverted to his initial position , adding that what is important is the reason for apprehension and not who apprehended the person . Therefore he agreed that some of the persons listed in his custody records could have been handed over to him by military units from outside the region without the custody record showing that . He also agreed that this meant that the custody record would not provide any documentary proof to an individual who later alleged that the arresting forces had ill - treated him before handing him over the gendarmes . While he suggested that a further investigation would allow the identification of the unit who had initially apprehended a person , the witness could not refer to any specific records which would assist any such investigation .

Having confirmed that he was required to fill in all the columns in a custody record , the witness accepted , when shown the records from his station for the relevant time , that no date of release had been entered for CARDINAL detainees . He accepted that it was not possible therefore to say with certainty from the custody records when those QUANTITY persons had been released . It could be possible to verify if someone had been sent to the public prosecutor by checking the investigation report completed by the gendarme , sent with an individual to the public prosecutor and retained in the public prosecutor 's records and , if someone had been released , by checking the hospital records as a detainee is medically examined on release .

The witness was ORG Commander from DATE , a station situated on the outskirts of town near ORG . Attached to his station was a central gendarme station ( which was in the same building and commanded by PERSON ) and CARDINAL outlying stations . There was CARDINAL set of custody facilities which was shared between the district and central stations and located in the central station .

He did not recall any allegations that soldiers were responsible for the burning of ORG or of the disappearance of the NORP . He did not know ORG . He did not remember ever being involved in any way in the investigation into the ORG ' alleged disappearance or any correspondence to or from ORG about any such investigation .

He confirmed that large - scale military operations were conducted , inter alia , by the Bolu regiment in the ORG , GPE and Şırnak districts many times in the course of DATE he served there . He could not recall any specific operation .

His command would be informed of the co - ordinates of a planned operation DATE before its execution by ORG . They would be advised not to enter the operation area . If the operation had been planned in advance , that information would have been passed on in writing on a pre - printed form called a preliminary report form ( whereas an emergency operation was notified orally only ) . A preliminary report form was not given to privates for confidentiality purposes : it would have been received by the person in charge of the information centre and brought to the witness . If alerting subordinate units was required , he would have done so by telephone .

He also confirmed that military units from outside the region were billeted at ORG and that he knew the school . The students , teachers , military units and other employees were housed in the same buildings inside the grounds of the school . There was a security check on entering the grounds of the regional boarding school . There were CARDINAL separate but almost identical buildings each with CARDINAL floors . The first building contained classrooms , the second had student dormitories , bathroom facilities and a refectory ( yemekhane ) .

The third building had been built with classrooms . He initially said that that building had been unused before the military units began to be billeted there . However , he later gave evidence that the third building had not been empty before it housed troops as its ground floor was used by school administrative staff and by students , with the second and third floor classrooms being used as dormitories by the military ( a battalion of CARDINAL people maximum ) . The third building was therefore jointly used by the military , students and teachers .

He initially testified that the sketch of the school submitted by the Government in the above - cited PERSON case represented either of the first CARDINAL buildings used by the students . He was subsequently unsure about that and then confirmed that those plans appeared to represent the shared third building .

NORP The soldiers had higher ranks so it would have been professional discourtesy to pry into what was going on in ORG . However , “ judicial duties ” were an exception to that rule . Accordingly , if a person was apprehended during an operation by a military unit ( if that unit encountered someone already suspected of an offence or someone caught committing a crime ) , that person had to be handed over to the gendarmes . A delivery record was prepared and placed on the investigation file compiled by the gendarmes and transferred to the public prosecutor . That record would include a note of where and when the detainee was originally apprehended .

It was not possible to determine from ORG custody records whether a person noted therein had been originally detained by the military or by the gendarmes unless – and it was not obligatory - a note was entered to that effect in the column entitled “ Comments ” . Therefore , the identity of the gendarme or military unit which has originally apprehended an individual could not be gleaned from the custody records as was the case , for example , for entry No . CARDINAL ( PERSON ) .

NORP In DATE the capacity of FAC custody room was CARDINAL persons . Any detainees in excess of this number would be put in a suitable place in the central building , a guard would be posted with them and they would be entered in the custody record if they were to be detained . However , certain persons who were not free to leave ( as they were being retained pending questioning ) would not necessarily be entered in the custody record unless and until a decision had been made to detain them .

The witness was born in DATE . He was ORG Commander DATE and DATE . His station was attached to , and in the same building as , ORG and PERSON was therefore his superior . The witness did not know ORG : it was not attached to his station .

He knew ORG as he had been there on several occasions . When reminded that his evidence in the above - mentioned NORP case suggested that there was only CARDINAL building , he confirmed that there were , in fact , CARDINAL large buildings .

NORP However his evidence as to the layout of each building changed many times throughout his evidence , the last version being as follows .

The first building contained the refectory ( yemekhane ) , the library and administration offices together with classrooms on the first and second floors . The second building contained only dormitories for the students .

The third had also been built as a teaching building with classrooms . He could not remember whether there was a library but confirmed that there was a refectory ( yemekhane ) on the ground floor from which soldiers could get hot meals . Students could use the canteen ( kantin ) ( or a cafeteria - kafeterya ) on the ground floor where they could buy things . Some administration offices from which teachers would work were also on the ground floor . The second and third floor classrooms were occasionally used as dormitories by the military , and could house a battalion of CARDINAL soldiers . He did not agree that it was impractical to have soldiers and students in the same house : some measures were taken but the students and soldiers were on good terms .

He was shown the sketch of the school which had been submitted by the Government in the LOC case . He initially said that those plans related to the first building , he then said he was not sure and later confirmed that , in any event , it was not the third building .

He had no authority over , or any function concerning , the military in the boarding school . No gendarmes were based there and no gendarme controls were carried out while the military were there . He agreed that it was possible that a military unit could detain someone in ORG without the gendarme knowing .

He confirmed that military units from outside the region ( including the Bolu regiment ) were on operation in his area . All gendarme officers at his level would know when an operation was taking place . They would not know all details , but would know generally from where the unit had come and where they would go on operation . Prior to such operations , military units were given a list of suspects and if suspects were apprehended during an operation , those persons could be held by the unit until it returned from operation when they would be handed over to the gendarmes .

The witness was clear in his evidence that it was not possible to determine from the custody record alone whether the detainee had been initially apprehended by gendarmes or by the military .

The witness was reminded that in the LOC case he was asked to explain why the names of certain persons , who had been noted in the GPE custody records as having been transferred from FAC , did not appear in that station 's custody records . The explanation given by him in that case was that sometimes the detention room was “ humid ” , the detainees would be kept under supervision outside the detention room and , in such circumstances , they would not be entered in the custody record . He added that persons detained for further investigation or those detained on military charges could be detained outside of the custody room without being entered in the custody records for TIME , while the relevant procedures were completed , before being handed over to the relevant prosecutor . This meant that the names of certain persons who were not free to leave the station may not have been in the custody record .

The witness was born in DATE . He succeeded PERSON as FAC in DATE , a post he held for DATE .

Prior to giving evidence , the witness had never heard of allegations about the burning of ORG or the disappearance of the NORP . He felt it was wrong to discuss such allegations as the armed forces were there for the people and it was inconceivable that any such thing could happen .

The witness confirmed that , while he was at ORG , military units from outside the region frequently carried out operations in his area . ORG Commander ( PERSON ) would inform him orally that operations would be conducted in certain areas , giving him the map co - ordinates of those areas , only sometimes identifying the units . Many units came on operation and sometimes the unit was from Bolu .

While he could not remember a specific incident , units were not authorised to detain persons and were required to bring persons apprehended from the operation area to their unit and from there to a gendarme station .

He identified his own signature on ORG custody records from in DATE . He agreed that the custody records would not indicate who ( the military or gendarmes ) had initially detained an individual but other gendarme records containing this information would be on the prosecutor 's file . If a person was not sent to the public prosecutor , those additional records were retained in the gendarme station .

He also confirmed that persons could be at the gendarme station , not free to go and yet not be formally “ taken into custody ” and entered in the custody record ( when , for example , the investigation documentation could be completed in the space of hours ) .

He further stated that military units were frequently based at ORG in vacant rooms . Since it was a period of intense NORP activity in the region , the school was rarely empty of military personnel . Once the military were there , the school was under their jurisdiction and control .

The witness had visited the boarding school and said he could therefore guess its approximate structure .

When asked why he would therefore visit the school , he initially said that the military occasionally called his district commander when they had apprehended someone during an operation and he would be asked to go to the school for that purpose . On being asked to clarify whether a military unit would therefore take a detainee to the school first before handing them over to the gendarmes , the witness said that he would meet the military on their way to the school and he later added that the military would generally come almost as far as his station to hand over detainees .

Indeed it was “ impossible ” for a military unit to detain persons at the school . When he was informed that his predecessor in FAC ( Hasan Çakır ) had said that it was possible , the witness responded that there was no point in taking detainees to the school and he had no idea what PERSON was talking about .

The witness remembered CARDINAL main buildings together with several small staff living quarters . CARDINAL of the buildings contained classrooms , the second contained the students ' refectory ( yemekhane ) and dormitories . The military were billeted in the third building , probably in the rooms originally designed as classrooms . Some of the school 's teachers used administrative offices on the ground floor . There was also a place in the basement where teachers , students and soldiers would play table tennis together . The library was also situated in the third building , and there was probably a further refectory ( yemekhane ) for the military in that building . He later confirmed that it was a canteen ( kantin ) that was in the third building where food and even clothes could be sold to both the students and the military .

He could not say to which building the sketch of the school submitted by the Government in the LOC case related .

The witness , born in DATE , was a public prosecutor in the office of ORG .

The only recollection he had of , and only involvement in , the allegations of the burning of ORG and of the ORG ' disappearance was a statement he took from the applicant on DATE in ORG and a follow - up letter dated CARDINAL DATE to ORG .

Given the location of ORG , the judicial investigation would have been carried out by ORG . He was not part of that investigation . He took the applicant 's statement because of the letter from ORG of DATE . He was therefore a channel through which the ORG would direct its requests to the subordinate and competent district prosecutors ' offices ( in this case , GPE ) . The reason he had interviewed the applicant personally was because he had been requested by ORG to establish the applicant 's wishes and whether the form of authority signed in favour of NORP lawyers was genuine , and , having done so , to determine what action had been taken in connection with his application . From the interview the prosecutor learned the district to which the complaint related , the scope and kind of complaint in question and what kind of documents were to be requested and from which district . Hence his letter of CARDINAL DATE to ORG .

The applicant 's statement was taken with a clerk in a busy secretariat room at the ORG courthouse and not in a separate interview room . The witness followed the standard procedure for such matters : the witness put questions , the applicant answered , the witness listened and dictated to the clerk , who recorded the applicant 's evidence as the applicant listened . The witness showed the applicant the form of authority and asked the applicant whether it was his signature , and whether or not he knew what it meant . The clerk typed the applicant 's answers dictated in a loud voice by the witness ; the witness made sure that the applicant had nothing to add , read the statement to the applicant and CARDINAL persons present signed it . The applicant told his story frankly , sincerely and without compulsion and it was accurately recorded in his statement . The witness could not understand why the applicant had later changed his mind .

The witness denied having been angry and pointed out that , had he wished to protect the ORG , he would have left out the applicant 's remarks which were critical of the ORG .

The witness , born in DATE , was CARDINAL of the CARDINAL prosecutors at ORG office ( DATE ) .

NORP The CARDINAL prosecutors in GPE divided the work between them . When the prosecutor dealing with the applicant 's complaint was on holiday , he reviewed the file and considered CARDINAL letters to be necessary : that of DATE ( to ORG ) because no response had been received to his office 's letter of DATE and that of CARDINAL DATE ( to ORG ) .

The witness had reviewed ORG file prior to giving evidence and was asked some general questions about the investigation .

He initially confirmed that a very detailed investigation had been carried out by both the military and civilian authorities . However , it was then pointed out to him that the report dated DATE noted several allegations that the NORP had been detained by the Bolu regiment and that there was no evidence of any enquiry of that regiment on the file and he was asked whether this was a satisfactory state of affairs . He responded that there was “ clearly a deficiency in the investigation ” . As to why there were CARDINAL investigation reports on file ( CARDINAL dated CARDINAL DATE signed by PERSON and CARDINAL dated DATE signed by PERSON ) , the witness pointed out that the President of ORG may have chosen , in his discretion , to re - launch the investigation with a second investigator if he found the first investigation inadequate .

He also confirmed that a visit to PERSON in Lice prison by someone not a relative would have required the competent public prosecutor 's permission .

Finally , the witness confirmed that it was a matter of discretion as to how much guidance a prosecutor would give to the gendarmes asked to conduct an investigation . Sometimes no guidance was given . He also confirmed that , as a matter of general practice , it would be normal to communicate to the complainant the prosecutor 's decision on lack of jurisdiction .

Since DATE serious disturbances have raged in the south - east of GPE between the security forces and the members of the ORG ( ORG of Kurdistan ) . This confrontation has , according to the ORG , claimed the lives of CARDINAL of civilians and members of the security forces . By DATE the violence had claimed the lives of CARDINAL civilians and CARDINAL members of the security forces . Since DATE CARDINAL of the CARDINAL provinces of south - eastern GPE have been the subject of emergency rule .

CARDINAL principal decrees relating to the south - eastern region have been made under the PERSON on ORG ( Law no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . Decree no . CARDINAL ( of CARDINAL DATE ) established a regional governorship of the state of emergency in CARDINAL of the CARDINAL provinces of south - eastern GPE . Under LAW b ) and ( d ) of the decree , all public security forces and ORG are at the disposal of the regional governor . Decree no . CARDINAL ( of DATE ) reinforced the powers of the regional governor .

The Turkish Criminal Code makes it a criminal offence , inter alia :

– to deprive someone unlawfully of his or her liberty ( LAW generally , LAW servants ) ;

– to subject someone to torture and ill - treatment ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) ;

– to commit unintentional homicide ( Articles CARDINAL ) , intentional homicide ( Article CARDINAL ) and murder ( Article CARDINAL ) ;

– to commit arson ( Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) , or aggravated arson if human life is endangered ( Article CARDINAL ) ;

– to commit arson unintentionally by carelessness , negligence or inexperience ( Article CARDINAL ) ; and

– to damage another 's property intentionally ( Articles CARDINAL et seq . ) .

The authorities ' obligations in respect of conducting a preliminary investigation into acts or omissions capable of constituting such offences that have been brought to their attention are governed by ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL of LAW . Offences may be reported to the authorities or the security forces as well as to public prosecutor 's offices . The complaint may be made in writing or orally . If it is made orally , the authority must make a record of it ( LAW .

If there is evidence to suggest that a death is not due to natural causes , members of the security forces who have been informed of that fact are required to advise the public prosecutor or a criminal court judge ( Article CARDINAL ) . By Article CARDINAL of LAW , any public official who fails to report to the police or a public prosecutor 's office an offence of which he has become aware in the exercise of his duty is liable to imprisonment . A public prosecutor who is informed by any means whatsoever of a situation that gives rise to the suspicion that an offence has been committed is obliged to investigate the facts in order to decide whether or not there should be a prosecution ( LAW ) . A complainant may appeal against the decision of the public prosecutor not to institute criminal proceedings .

In the case of alleged terrorist offences , the public prosecutor is deprived of jurisdiction in favour of a separate system of ORG prosecutors and courts established throughout GPE .

ORG If the suspected offender is a civil servant and if the offence was committed during the performance of his duties , the preliminary investigation of the case is governed by LAW on the prosecution of civil servants , which restricts the public prosecutor 's jurisdiction ratione personae at that stage of the proceedings . Thus , any prosecutor who receives a complaint alleging a criminal act by a member of the security forces must make a decision of non - jurisdiction and transfer the file to the relevant local administrative council ( for the district or province , depending on the suspect 's status ) . That council will appoint an Adjudicator to conduct the preliminary investigation , on the basis of which the council will decide whether to prosecute . These councils are made up of civil servants , chaired by the governor . If a decision to prosecute has been taken , it is for the public prosecutor to investigate the case . A decision not to prosecute is subject to an automatic appeal to ORG .

By virtue of DATE , paragraph ( i ) , of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL , the DATE PERSON on the prosecution of civil servants also applies to members of the security forces who come under the governor 's authority .

ORG If the suspect is a member of the armed forces , the applicable law is determined by the nature of the offence . Thus , if it is a “ military offence ” under LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) , the criminal proceedings are in principle conducted in accordance with PERSON no . CARDINAL on the establishment of courts martial and their rules of procedure . Where a member of the armed forces has been accused of an ordinary offence , it is normally the provisions of LAW which apply ( see LAW and sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL ) .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL on administrative procedure , anyone who sustains damage because of an act of the authorities may , within DATE after the alleged act was committed , claim compensation . If the claim is rejected in whole or in part or if no reply is received within DATE , the victim may bring administrative proceedings .

Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

“ All acts or decisions of the authorities are subject to judicial review ...

The authorities shall be liable to make reparation for all damage caused by their acts or measures . ”

That provision establishes the ORG 's strict liability , which comes into play if it is shown that in the circumstances of a particular case the ORG has failed in its obligation to maintain public order , ensure public safety or protect people 's lives or property , without it being necessary to show a tortious act attributable to the authorities . Under these rules , the authorities may therefore be held liable to compensate anyone who has sustained loss as a result of acts committed by unidentified persons .

NORP However , LAW no . CARDINAL ( of DATE ) provides :

“ No criminal , financial or legal liability may be asserted against ... the governor of a state of emergency region or by provincial governors in that region in respect of decisions taken , or acts performed , by them in the exercise of the powers conferred on them by this legislative decree , and no application shall be made to any judicial authority to that end . This is without prejudice to the rights of individuals to claim reparation from the ORG for damage which they have been caused without justification . ”

Under LAW , anyone who suffers damage as a result of an illegal or tortious act may bring an action for damages ( Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) and non - pecuniary loss ( Article CARDINAL ) . The civil courts are not bound by either the findings or the verdict of the criminal court on the issue of the defendant 's guilt ( Article CARDINAL ) .

NORP However , under LAW no . CARDINAL on ORG employees , anyone who has sustained loss as a result of an act done in the performance of duties governed by public law may , in principle , only bring an action against the authority by whom the civil servant concerned is employed and not directly against the civil servant ( see LAW ) . That is not , however , an absolute rule . When an act is found to be illegal or tortious and , consequently , is no longer an “ administrative act ” or deed , the civil courts may allow a claim for damages to be made against the official concerned , without prejudice to the victim 's right to bring an action against the authority on the basis of its joint liability as the official 's employer ( LAW ) .