Sub-sub-series 58 - Hüseyin Toğcu

11 files

Materials pertaining to the case filed by Hüseyin Toğcu on 25 May 1995 against the Republic of Turkey with the European Commission of Human Rights (application number 27601/95, referred to internally within the Kurdish Litigation Project as Case 213 and assigned to Bill Bowring as lead) regarding the disappearance of his son, Ender Toğcu, who had allegedly been taken into the custody of the security forces in the city of Diyarbakır on 29 November 1994. Supplementary materials pertaining to this case are located at A44/43/6/91.
The applicant claimed his son, Ender Toğcu, was taken into custody by security forces on 29 November 1994, but the Government denied involvement, asserting that alleged disappearances in the southeast often involved individuals affiliated with the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party). The Court noted that the Government presented no evidence of individuals initially thought to be missing later being confirmed as PKK members, leading the Court to accept that Ender Toğcu did disappear. The applicant argued that his son was taken by the security forces, citing testimonies, including that of his other son, Ali, who allegedly heard Ender screaming while in custody. The applicant also referenced police statements made to his wife regarding a firearm related to Ender. However, the Court noted inconsistencies in the applicant's submissions. He initially claimed Ender left to visit his wife in the hospital. Yet, as the case evolved, various accounts emerged regarding the circumstances of his disappearance, including differing narratives about Ender’s actions and whereabouts on that day.
In an earlier statement, the applicant reported that Ender had gone to the hospital for his wife’s childbirth, but later corrected this by indicating that the woman giving birth was Ender's brother’s wife. Further complications arose when the applicant claimed to have also been detained alongside Ender but was released after a week, with Ender missing since then. Contrarily, he later contended that there were no eyewitnesses to Ender's abduction, including himself. The applicant provided additional conflicting statements — one indicating that his wife had gone to the hospital with Ender to assist her daughter-in-law Güler, another asserting Güler returned home while Ender remained at the café he owned. The timelines of these events and the actions of multiple family members resulted in a chaotic account surrounding Ender’s disappearance. The varying statements led to confusion, challenging the credibility of the applicant’s narrative. The Court observed that the applicant had not reconciled these significant discrepancies, which complicated the establishment of a reliable account of the events surrounding the disappearance. Consequently, the Court could not ascertain whether Ender was taken into custody by security forces due to the lack of clarity and coherent details about the incident.
On 31 May 2005 the European Court of Human Rights found that it was unable to reach a conclusion as to who might have been responsible for the disappearance of Ender Toğcu. The Court ruled unanimously that the Turkish Government failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 38 of the European Convention on Human Rights to furnish all necessary facilities to the Court in its task of establishing the facts and that there had been a violation of Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention on account of the failure of Turkish authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of the disappearance of Ender Toğcu, but that there had been no violations of Articles 3, 5, or 34. The Turkish Government was ordered to pay Hüseyin Toğcu €3,500 in non-pecuniary damages, €10,000 in non-pecuniary damages to Ender Toğcu’s widow and children, €10,000 in legal fees and expenses (less €758 received in legal aid). The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-69214.
The files in this subsubseries are equivalent to Tabs 1 through 10 in the Essex team's filing system, plus the applicant's power of attorney and declaration of means which were placed in sleeves at the front of the casefile binder.