File 74 - Behiye Salman 

3 items

Supplementary materials pertaining to the case filed by Behiye Salman on 20 May 1993 against the Republic of Turkey with the European Commission of Human Rights (application number 21986/93, referred to internally within the Kurdish Litigation Project as Case 5 and assigned to Kevin Boyle as lead) regarding the 28-29 April 1992 detainment and death of her husband, Agit Salman. Materials from the main casefile are located at A44/43/1/51.
Agit Salman worked as a taxi driver in Adana. At the time of events in this case he was 45 years old. He had no history of ill-health or heart problems. On 26 February 1992 Agit Salman was taken into custody by police officers from the anti-terrorism branch of the Adana Security Directorate. Agit Salman was released at 5.30 p.m. on 27 February 1992. He told the applicant and their son Mehmet that he had been beaten and immersed in cold water during the night of his detention. He remained off work for two days with a chill. During an operation conducted to apprehend a number of persons suspected of involvement with the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party), police officers came to the applicant's house in the early hours of 28 April 1992 looking for Agit Salman. He was on a wanted list for activities which included attending the Newroz (Kurdish New Year) celebrations on 23 March 1992 and involvement in starting a fire and in an attack on the security forces in which one person died and four were injured. However, Agit Salman was out working in his taxi. Police officers located Agit Salman at a taxi rank at Yeşilova at about 1 a.m. on 28 April 1992. Assistant Superintendent Ahmet Dinçer and officers Şevki Taşçı and Ali Şarı took him into custody. The apprehension report of the officers made no mention of any struggle or the necessity to use force to place Agit Salman in the police car. Agit Salman was not taken to a doctor before being placed in a cell in the custody area. The Commission found that it was not established that he had suffered any injury on arrest or that he showed any signs of ill-health or respiratory difficulties.
In the early hours of 29 April 1992, the officers brought Agit Salman to the Adana State Hospital. Dr Ali Tansı examined him immediately. His heartbeat, breathing and other vital functions had stopped, cyanosis had developed on the face and ears and the pupils were dilated. He declared that Agit Salman was dead on arrival and concluded that he had died fifteen to twenty minutes previously.
According to a statement signed by the police officers who had said they had brought Agit Salman to hospital at 2 a.m. on 29 April 1992, the custody officer had informed them at 1.15 a.m. that Agit Salman was ill. The suspect told them that his heart was giving him trouble and they took him without delay to the State Hospital emergency ward. On 29 April 1992 Dr Fatih Şen examined the body in the presence of the public prosecutor. The examination record noted that there were two dried 1 cm by 3 cm graze wounds at the front of the right armpit, a fresh 1 cm by 1 cm graze on the front of the left ankle and an old traumatic ecchymosis measuring 5 cm by 10 cm on the front of the chest. There were no injuries from a pointed instrument or firearm. He concluded that an autopsy was necessary to discover the cause of death. The documents indicate that the autopsy was carried out the same day. Samples of organs were sent for analysis. At about 1 p.m. on 29 April 1992 Mehmet Salman was brought by the police to the Security Directorate, where the public prosecutor informed him that his father had died of a heart attack. İbrahim Salman went to the forensic department on 30 April 1992 to identify the body. The body was released to the family who undertook to bury it the day before May Day. The family washed the body at the cemetery. İbrahim Salman saw bruises and visible marks in the armpits. There were marks in the back resembling holes. There were marks on one foot, which was swollen. Four colour photographs of the body were taken on behalf of the family.
On 21 May 1992, Dr Fatih Şen issued the autopsy report. It repeated the physical findings of the examination record, this time describing the ecchymosis on the front of the chest as purple. The sternum was fractured and the surrounding soft tissues revealed fresh haemorrhage which could have been caused by attempted resuscitation. On 15 July 1992 the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute issued its opinion, which was signed by seven members of the First Specialist Committee, including Dr Bilge Kirangil. This report recalled that Agit Salman had been pushed and shoved during his arrest, that he had become unwell before his interrogation or, as was claimed, that he had died during interrogation. It deduced from the witness statements that he had been in his cell until he complained that his heart was giving him trouble, at which point he was taken immediately to hospital.
On 24 January 1996, Behiye Salman was summoned to the anti-terrorism branch of the Adana Security Directorate. A statement was taken by officers, on which her thumbprint was placed. It was headed “Concerning her application for help to the European Human Rights [institutions]” and began, “The witness was asked: You are asked to explain whether you applied to the European Human Rights Association, if you asked for help and whether you filled in the application form. Who mediated in your application?” The statement purported to set out her explanations as to how she came to submit her application to the Commission. She confirmed that the legal aid documents had been filled in by her. In her oral evidence, which the Commission found credible and substantiated, the applicant claimed that she had been blindfolded, kicked and struck at the Directorate and that the officers had told her to drop the case.
On 27 June 2000, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights with respected to Agit Salman’s death in custody (16 votes to 1), that there had been violations of Article 2 with regards to the failure to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into the death and of Article 3 (unanimous), that there had been a violation of Article 13 (16 votes to 1), and that Turkey failed to comply with its obligations under former Article 25 § 1 (unanimous). The Turkish Government was ordered to pay Behiye Salman £39,320.64 sterling in pecuniary damages, £35,000 sterling in non-pecuniary damages, and £21,544.58 sterling in legal fees and expenses (less 11,195 French francs awarded in legal aid). The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-58735

• English