Sub-sub-series 46 - Azize Menteş and others

1 file

Materials pertaining to the case filed by four women, Azize Menteş, Mahile Turhallı, Sulhiye Turhallı, and Sariye Uvat, on 20 December 1993 against the Republic of Turkey with the European Commission of Human Rights (application number 23186/94, late given case number 58/1996/677/867, referred to internally within the Kurdish Litigation Project as Cases 70 through 73 and assigned to Kevin Boyle as lead) regarding the destruction of their houses in the village of Sağgöze (Riz), Genç District, Bingöl Province on 25 June 1993. Supplementary materials pertaining to this case are located at A44/43/6/62.
The Commission ‘was satisfied that Sulhiye and Mahile Turhallı were still living in their houses in the lower neighbourhood of the village of Sağgöze in the summer of 1993 and were present on 25 June 1993. However, as appeared to be a not uncommon pattern of life in this region, these two applicants left the village in the winter for Diyarbakır and returned in the summer to tend to their gardens and crops. As regards Azize Menteş, while she probably did not own a house herself, she lived in the house of her father in-law when she returned in the summer months to the village. The Commission found that on the balance of the evidence, she was also living in the lower neighbourhood on 25 June 1993.
As regards the events in Sağgöze the Commission accepted in its principal elements the oral evidence of Azize Menteş, Mahile Turhallı and Sulhiye Turhallı. Considering that their oral evidence was more consistent, more credible and more convincing than the evidence given by the four villagers, it found as follows.
On the evening of 24 June 1993, a large force of gendarmes had arrived in the vicinity of Sağgöze village. On 25 June 1993, the gendarmes had entered both upper and lower neighbourhoods and carried out searches. At some point, the villagers in the upper neighbourhood (with the exception of the younger men who were out working) had been gathered in front of the school, probably to be questioned about the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) in the area. In the lower neighbourhood, the women, including the applicants, had been required by the soldiers to leave their houses and their houses had been set on fire, with all their belongings and property inside, including the clothing and footwear of children. The burning had been restricted to the lower neighbourhood. Around midday, a helicopter had arrived in the village in the upper neighbourhood, probably bringing a senior officer, a colonel, and his arrival had been associated by the applicants and some of the other villagers with an order to cease the burning. The gendarmes left that day. Shortly afterwards, the three applicants, with their children or other members of their family, had to walk for up to ten hours to the Lice-Diyarbakır road from where they were given rides in vehicles into Diyarbakır.
As to the alleged operation by security forces in which the house of the fourth applicant, Sariye Uvat, was burned along with others in the hamlet of Piroz, no facts have been established in relation to this applicant’s complaints. Due to ill-health she did not appear at the hearings before the Commission delegates, unlike the first three applicants.’
On 28 November 1997, the European Court of Human Rights dismissed by 15 votes to 6 the preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies; held by 16 votes to 5 that there had been a violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights with respect to the first three applicants; held unanimously that there had been no violation of Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention with respect to the first three applicants; and held unanimously that there had been no violation of Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention with regard to Sariye Uvat. The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-58120.
On 24 July 1998, the Court ruled 15 votes to 4 that the Turkish Government was to pay £18,000 sterling to Azize Menteş, £26,000 sterling to Mahile Turhallı, and £24,000 sterling to Sulhiye Turhallı in pecuniary damages, plus £8,000 each to the three in non-pecuniary damages. This full judgment made under Article 50 of the Convention is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58206.

The files in this sub-sub-series are equivalent to Tabs 1 through 10 in the Essex legal team's filing system.