Supplementary materials pertaining to the case filed by Abdurrahman Çelikbilek on 13 June 1995 against the Republic of Turkey with the European Commission of Human Rights (application number 27683/95, referred to internally within the Kurdish Litigation Project as Case 200 and assigned to Bill Bowring as lead) regarding the December 1994 killing of his brother, Abdulkadir Çelikbilek, whose body was found on 21 December 1994 on top of a rubbish heap near the Mardinkapı cemetery in Diyarbakır with his hands tied behind his back. Materials from the main casefile in this case are located at A44/43/1/21.
On 9 June 1994, Abdulkadir Çelikbilek gave a statement to the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court. He stated that he had heard that a certain Ms Amber Yılmaz had fallen from the roof of a three-storey house in the course of a military operation conducted at about 9.30 p.m. on 8 June 1994. He had further heard that Ms Yılmaz’ husband, Fethi Yaşar, had been a PKK member and that Mr Yaşar was currently serving a 36-year prison sentence for PKK membership. He finally stated that he was not aware of any links between Ms Yılmaz and the PKK.
After having given this statement, Abdulkadir was followed on a number of occasions. At about 11.00 a.m. on 14 December 1994, Abdulkadir went to the Esnaflar Café in the centre of Diyarbakır. About ten minutes after his arrival, a white Renault car with four plain-clothes policemen stopped in front of the café. It is common knowledge in south-east Turkey that this kind of car is used by plain-clothes police officers. Two policemen stayed in the car while the other two entered the café. The latter two policemen were the same as the ones who had previously questioned Aynur Çelikbilek about her husband’s whereabouts. It was obvious that the two persons were policemen, as they were armed. When the applicant’s brother was leaving the café, the two policemen also left the café. Outside the café the two policemen took Abdulkadir by the arms and forced him into the waiting white Renault.
On 21 December 1994, three police officers came to Abdurrahman Çelikbilek’s home and told him that his brother had been wounded and admitted to the hospital. When the police officers took the applicant to their car, they told him that Abdulkadir’s body had been found outside the Mardinkapı cemetery in Diyarbakır. The applicant went with the police officers to the place where his brother’s body had been found. There, the police searched him. They took his petition which was addressed to the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court from the pocket of his jacket. Despite his request, the police officers refused to give it back to him. The applicant is of the opinion that the police refused to return his petition in order to weaken any case he might bring against the Turkish authorities. Marks of torture could be seen all over Abdulkadir’s body. It looked as if the skin on the soles of his feet had been pulled off with pincers. His arms, legs and head looked as if they had been skewered on a thick skewer. His whole body was black and blue and there were marks on his throat. The police later recorded the location of the body and subsequently took the body to the State Hospital morgue. Abdurrahman was also taken to the morgue in a police car. On the way to the morgue, a police officer in the car told the applicant that all the villagers of Tepecik would die on the streets in the same manner. In the morgue, some other police officers told the applicant that village guards had burned the village of Tepecik and that these same village guards had probably killed his brother. The applicant replied that he did not believe that village guards had killed his brother and added that, if village guards had killed his brother, they must have been helped by the police. The police officers replied that Leyla, Abdulkadir’s daughter, was of the opinion that the police had killed her father. When the applicant was asked whether he shared Leyla’s opinion, he said that he did.
Sometime before the events at issue, Abdurrahman’s oldest son Fesih had joined the PKK. The applicant had managed to keep this a secret. However, ten days after the death of his brother, a person, who introduced himself as Cevat from the anti-terrorism branch of the police, came to the applicant’s home. Cevat told the applicant that his son had joined the PKK and asked the applicant to inform the security forces when his son came home. Abdurrahman thus became convinced that his brother must have told the security forces about Fesih while he was under torture.
In June 1996, Abdurrahman was himself abducted by State agents while walking in the street in Diyarbakır. He was put in a car and prevented from seeing and speaking. He was taken into the countryside where State agents wanted to shoot him, but they then changed their minds and took the applicant to the rapid response force building in Diyarbakır where he was detained for a period of 31 days before being jailed for 14 months. While in detention he was threatened a number of times. These threats made the applicant all the more convinced that the Government were directly responsible for the abduction and killing of his brother.
Kevin Boyle, Françoise Hampson, and Bill Bowring were the original legal representatives before the Court in this case. In 2000, they stood down in favour of Anke Stock of the Kurdish Human Rights Project.
On 31 May 2005, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously ruled that the Government were liable for the death of the applicant’s brother in violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, were in violation of Article 13, and were not in violation of Article 3. The Government were ordered to pay Abdurrahman Çelikbilek €60,000 in pecuniary damages to be held for the widow and children of Abdulkadir Çelikbilek, plus €20,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €8,000 in costs and expenses. Abdurrahman himself was awarded €3,500 in non-pecuniary damages. The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-69202
Materials pertaining to the case filed by Abdurrahman Çelikbilek on 13 June 1995 against the Republic of Turkey with the European Commission of Human Rights (application number 27683/95, referred to internally within the Kurdish Litigation Project as Case 200 and assigned to Bill Bowring as lead) regarding the December 1994 killing of his brother, Abdulkadir Çelikbilek, whose body was found on 21 December 1994 on top of a rubbish heap near the Mardinkapı cemetery in Diyarbakır with his hands tied behind his back. Supplementary materials pertaining to this case are located at A44/43/6/23.
On 9 June 1994, Abdulkadir Çelikbilek gave a statement to the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court. He stated that he had heard that a certain Ms Amber Yılmaz had fallen from the roof of a three-storey house in the course of a military operation conducted at about 9.30 p.m. on 8 June 1994. He had further heard that Ms Yılmaz’ husband, Fethi Yaşar, had been a PKK member and that Mr Yaşar was currently serving a 36-year prison sentence for PKK membership. He finally stated that he was not aware of any links between Ms Yılmaz and the PKK.
After having given this statement, Abdulkadir was followed on a number of occasions. At about 11.00 a.m. on 14 December 1994, Abdulkadir went to the Esnaflar Café in the centre of Diyarbakır. About ten minutes after his arrival, a white Renault car with four plain-clothes policemen stopped in front of the café. It is common knowledge in south-east Turkey that this kind of car is used by plain-clothes police officers. Two policemen stayed in the car while the other two entered the café. The latter two policemen were the same as the ones who had previously questioned Aynur Çelikbilek about her husband’s whereabouts. It was obvious that the two persons were policemen, as they were armed. When the applicant’s brother was leaving the café, the two policemen also left the café. Outside the café the two policemen took Abdulkadir by the arms and forced him into the waiting white Renault.
On 21 December 1994, three police officers came to Abdurrahman Çelikbilek’s home and told him that his brother had been wounded and admitted to the hospital. When the police officers took the applicant to their car, they told him that Abdulkadir’s body had been found outside the Mardinkapı cemetery in Diyarbakır. The applicant went with the police officers to the place where his brother’s body had been found. There, the police searched him. They took his petition which was addressed to the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court from the pocket of his jacket. Despite his request, the police officers refused to give it back to him. The applicant is of the opinion that the police refused to return his petition in order to weaken any case he might bring against the Turkish authorities. Marks of torture could be seen all over Abdulkadir’s body. It looked as if the skin on the soles of his feet had been pulled off with pincers. His arms, legs and head looked as if they had been skewered on a thick skewer. His whole body was black and blue and there were marks on his throat. The police later recorded the location of the body and subsequently took the body to the State Hospital morgue. Abdurrahman was also taken to the morgue in a police car. On the way to the morgue, a police officer in the car told the applicant that all the villagers of Tepecik would die on the streets in the same manner. In the morgue, some other police officers told the applicant that village guards had burned the village of Tepecik and that these same village guards had probably killed his brother. The applicant replied that he did not believe that village guards had killed his brother and added that, if village guards had killed his brother, they must have been helped by the police. The police officers replied that Leyla, Abdulkadir’s daughter, was of the opinion that the police had killed her father. When the applicant was asked whether he shared Leyla’s opinion, he said that he did.
Sometime before the events at issue, Abdurrahman’s oldest son Fesih had joined the PKK. The applicant had managed to keep this a secret. However, ten days after the death of his brother, a person, who introduced himself as Cevat from the anti-terrorism branch of the police, came to the applicant’s home. Cevat told the applicant that his son had joined the PKK and asked the applicant to inform the security forces when his son came home. Abdurrahman thus became convinced that his brother must have told the security forces about Fesih while he was under torture.
In June 1996, Abdurrahman was himself abducted by State agents while walking in the street in Diyarbakır. He was put in a car and prevented from seeing and speaking. He was taken into the countryside where State agents wanted to shoot him, but they then changed their minds and took the applicant to the rapid response force building in Diyarbakır where he was detained for a period of 31 days before being jailed for 14 months. While in detention he was threatened a number of times. These threats made the applicant all the more convinced that the Government were directly responsible for the abduction and killing of his brother.
Kevin Boyle, Françoise Hampson, and Bill Bowring were the original legal representatives before the Court in this case. In 2000, they stood down in favour of Anke Stock of the Kurdish Human Rights Project.
On 31 May 2005, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously ruled that the Government were liable for the death of the applicant’s brother in violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, were in violation of Article 13, and were not in violation of Article 3. The Government were ordered to pay Abdurrahman Çelikbilek €60,000 in pecuniary damages to be held for the widow and children of Abdulkadir Çelikbilek, plus €20,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €8,000 in costs and expenses. Abdurrahman himself was awarded €3,500 in non-pecuniary damages. The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-69202
Supplementary materials pertaining to the case filed by Abdurrazak İkincisoy and his son Halil İkincisoy on 19 May 1995 against the Republic of Turkey with the European Commission of Human Rights (application number 26144/95, referred to internally within the Kurdish Litigation Project as Case 87 and assigned to Kevin Boyle as lead) regarding the death of Abdurrazak’s son Mehmet Şah İkincisoy following his arrest on 22 November 1993. Materials available for viewing from this file include the statements of Abdurrazak İkincisoy and Halil İkincisoy; supplementary information about the İkincisoy family provided by the Diyarbakır Branch of the Human Rights Association; letters of legal authorisation provided by the İkincisoys; and an internal information dossier and statement of case facts compiled by the Kurdish Litigation Projects. Domestic investigation documents submitted by the Turkish Government are closed for access until 1 November 2073. Materials from the main casefile are located at A44/43/1/36.
On 22 November 1993 at 1 a.m., plain-clothes police officers arrived at Abdurrazak İkincisoy's apartment in Diyarbakır seeking his son, Mehmet Şah İkincisoy. Abdurrazak informed them that Mehmet Şah was at his uncle Abdülkadir's apartment. They left Halil İkincisoy with Abdurrazak and took Halil to find Mehmet. Upon reaching Abdülkadir's apartment, police conducted a search and identified several family members present, including Mehmet Şah and his friends. During an interrogation, a gunshot was heard from the room and an armed clash broke out between the police officers and the two men. The police officer who was interrogating the two men was shot dead. When the shooting started, the second police officer grabbed Mehmet Şah by his arm and dragged him downstairs. Halil and the others saw the two men try to escape. They heard further gunshots from downstairs. The group subsequently learnt that one of the men had died, the other had escaped, and the officer who was waiting outside the building had been wounded. About ten minutes later, police teams arrived, arresting Halil and other İkincisoy family members, taking them to Çarşı Police Station. There, Halil saw his brother's body on the floor. The rest of the family was also arrested and taken to the station. They were instructed to cover their heads, but Abdurrazak glimpsed his son. Later, they were moved to the Rapid Intervention Headquarters, where they heard Mehmet Şah's cries. The Government claimed that the police sought Mehmet Şah based on information of his involvement with the PKK. They reported armed struggles that resulted in police being shot, linking retrieved firearms to the earlier incident. An autopsy eventually confirmed the identity of a deceased individual as Mehmet Şah.
Abdurrazak was held until 25 November 1995 and pressured to state his son had fled. Halil was released on 3 December 1993. Abdurrazak went to the prosecutor on 6 December reporting his concerns for Mehmet Şah’s fate. He identified his son’s body in photographs and learned he died on 25 November 1993 during a police clash. Abdurrazak was denied permission to open the grave for an autopsy, and subsequent petitions for investigation were hindered, with government denial of Mehmet's custody. After his application to the Commission, Abdurrazak was questioned by prosecutors on 6 June 1995 and compelled to retract his statement. Thereafter, he went to the Diyarbakır Branch of the Human Rights Association and informed them about this incident.
On 27 July 2004, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously ruled: that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding Mehmet Şah İkincisoy's death the failure to conduct an effective investigations into its circumstances; that there had been violations of Articles 5 § 3, 5 § 4, 5 § 5 with regards to Halil İkincisoy; that there had been a violation of Article 13, and that Turkey failed to comply with its obligations under former Article 25 § 1. The Court unanimously ruled: that there had not been violations of Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention with regard to Abdurrazak İkincisoy; no violations of Article 5 §§ 1 with regard to Halil İkincisoy; and no violations of Article 3, 8, 9, and 14. The Turkish Government was ordered to pay Mehmet Şah İkincisoy’s heirs €25,000 in pecuniary damages, €3,500 to Abdurrazak İkincisoy in non-pecuniary damages, €7,500 to Halil İkincisoy in non-pecuniary damages, and €15,000 in legal costs and expenses. The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-61940
Throughout much of the material, including the original version of the judgment, Abdurrazak İkincisoy is referred to as ‘Abdülrezzak İkincisoy’.
Materials pertaining to the case filed by Abdurrazak İkincisoy and his son Halil İkincisoy on 19 May 1994 against the Republic of Turkey with the European Commission of Human Rights (application number 26144/95, referred to internally within the Kurdish Litigation Project as Case 87 and assigned to Kevin Boyle as lead) regarding the death of Abdurrazak’s son Mehmet Şah İkincisoy following his arrest on 22 November 1993. Supplementary materials pertaining to this case are located at A44/43/6/44.
On 22 November 1993 at 1 a.m., plain-clothes police officers arrived at Abdurrazak İkincisoy's apartment in Diyarbakır seeking his son, Mehmet Şah İkincisoy. Abdurrazak informed them that Mehmet Şah was at his uncle Abdülkadir's apartment. They left Halil İkincisoy with Abdurrazak and took Halil to find Mehmet. Upon reaching Abdülkadir's apartment, police conducted a search and identified several family members present, including Mehmet Şah and his friends. During an interrogation, a gunshot was heard from the room and an armed clash broke out between the police officers and the two men. The police officer who was interrogating the two men was shot dead. When the shooting started, the second police officer grabbed Mehmet Şah by his arm and dragged him downstairs. Halil and the others saw the two men try to escape. They heard further gunshots from downstairs. The group subsequently learnt that one of the men had died, the other had escaped, and the officer who was waiting outside the building had been wounded. About ten minutes later, police teams arrived, arresting Halil and other İkincisoy family members, taking them to Çarşı Police Station. There, Halil saw his brother's body on the floor. The rest of the family was also arrested and taken to the station. They were instructed to cover their heads, but Abdurrazak glimpsed his son. Later, they were moved to the Rapid Intervention Headquarters, where they heard Mehmet Şah's cries. The Government claimed that the police sought Mehmet Şah based on information of his involvement with the PKK. They reported armed struggles that resulted in police being shot, linking retrieved firearms to the earlier incident. An autopsy eventually confirmed the identity of a deceased individual as Mehmet Şah.
Abdurrazak was held until 25 November 1995 and pressured to state his son had fled. Halil was released on 3 December 1993. Abdurrazak went to the prosecutor on 6 December reporting his concerns for Mehmet Şah’s fate. He identified his son’s body in photographs and learned he died on 25 November 1993 during a police clash. Abdurrazak was denied permission to open the grave for an autopsy, and subsequent petitions for investigation were hindered, with government denial of Mehmet's custody. After his application to the Commission, Abdurrazak was questioned by prosecutors on 6 June 1995 and compelled to retract his statement. Thereafter, he went to the Diyarbakır Branch of the Human Rights Association and informed them about this incident.
On 27 July 2004, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously ruled: that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding Mehmet Şah İkincisoy's death the failure to conduct an effective investigations into its circumstances; that there had been violations of Articles 5 § 3, 5 § 4, 5 § 5 with regards to Halil İkincisoy; that there had been a violation of Article 13, and that Turkey failed to comply with its obligations under former Article 25 § 1. The Court unanimously ruled: that there had not been violations of Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention with regard to Abdurrazak İkincisoy; no violations of Article 5 §§ 1 with regard to Halil İkincisoy; and no violations of Article 3, 8, 9, and 14. The Turkish Government was ordered to pay Mehmet Şah İkincisoy’s heirs €25,000 in pecuniary damages, €3,500 to Abdurrazak İkincisoy in non-pecuniary damages, €7,500 to Halil İkincisoy in non-pecuniary damages, and €15,000 in legal costs and expenses. The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-61940.
Throughout much of the material, including the original version of the judgment, Abdurrazak İkincisoy is referred to as ‘Abdülrezzak İkincisoy’.
Correspondence sent to Kevin Boyle and Bill Bowring from the European Court of Human Rights during 1999 pertaining to questions to be examined in the case of Abdurrezak İpek against the Republic of Turkey (application number 25760/94, referred to internally within the Kurdish Litigation Project as Case 164 and assigned to Bill Bowring as lead). The full case file is available at A44/43/1/39.
Materials pertaining to the case filed by Abdurrezak İpek on 18 November 1994 against the Republic of Turkey with the European Commission of Human Rights (application number 25760/94, referred to internally within the Kurdish Litigation Project as Case 164 and assigned to Bill Bowring as lead) regarding the alleged unacknowledged detention and subsequent disappearance of the applicant's two sons, Servet and İkram İpek, in the course of an operation conducted by security forces in his village of Türeli, Lice District, Diyarbakır Province, on 18 May 1994. It further pertains to the alleged destruction of his family home and property by the security forces during the same operation.
On 17 May 1994, Abdurrezak İpek and his son, İkram İpek, were tending sheep near Türeli village when soldiers asked for identification. Following this interaction, on 18 May, while returning to their hamlet, they encountered approximately 100 soldiers who raided Türeli. Armed and accompanied by a helicopter, the soldiers herded the villagers, including the applicant and İkram, to a school outside the hamlet while young girls were instructed to stay behind. The soldiers threatened the gathered villagers and began setting homes ablaze, leading to the destruction of both the applicant's and his brother's houses.
As flames engulfed the hamlet, the soldiers intimidated the villagers into silence. After most homes were burned, villagers were released, but İkram and his brother Servet, along with other men, were taken to help the soldiers carry their gear. Upon returning, the applicant discovered that many homes had been set on fire by soldiers using a white powder. When some homes remained unburned, the soldiers returned around 3:30 p.m., intent on finishing the destruction, and did so despite the villagers' defences.
Inquiring about her sons, İkram and Servet, the applicant's wife was met with incomprehension by the soldiers when she spoke Kurdish; they claimed the sons were in Lice and would be released soon. Following the soldiers' departure that evening, the applicant's family, having lost everything, took refuge in an evacuated house in the nearby hamlet of Kalenderesi. They survived in extreme poverty without any government assistance for four months before moving to Diyarbakır.
After the incident, Abdurrezak İpek sought information about his missing sons through various state authorities but received no substantial answers. A letter from a senior colonel denied any operation took place, while another petition revealed the authorities did not have the boys in custody. Moreover, the applicant's efforts to contact the Lice public prosecutor remained fruitless. His son Hakim attempted to get answers from the Governor’s office but was met with denials that led to frustration and anger.
On 23 December 1999, Abdurrezak İpek was called to the Kulp Gendarmerie where he was accused of lying about his sons’ disappearances, Under duress, the applicant was obliged to apply his thumbprint to documents prepared by the gendarmes, the contents of which were not made known to him, in which it was deposed that he had not applied to the “European Human Rights Diyarbakır branch”, nor had he given any statement to the latter body or signed any document in respect of his allegations.
In contrast, the Government claimed no operation occurred in Türeli, asserting that the applicant failed to follow the proper reporting channels regarding his sons' disappearance, denying any involvement by security forces. They noted an investigation was inconclusive and ultimately stated the absence of evidence corroborating the applicant's claims, concluding with a decision not to prosecute security personnel involved.
The Court found that the applicant's sons were taken away from their hamlet and held in unacknowledged detention at a military establishment in Lice by the security forces, that no record of their detention has been produced by the authorities and that they can be presumed to be dead. It also established that the distress and anguish suffered by the applicant on account of the disappearance of his sons and the manner in which the authorities dealt with his complaint constituted inhuman treatment.
On 17 February 2004, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously ruled that there had been violation of Articles 2, 3, 5, 13, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Turkish Government was ordered to pay €7,000 in pecuniary damages for the heirs of each of Abdurrezak İpek, €24,900 in pecuniary damages and €15,000 in non-pecuniary damages to İpek, and to pay İpek €13,130 in legal costs and expenses (less €1,050 granted in legal aid). The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-61636.
The applicant was initially represented before the Court by Kevin Boyle and Françoise Hampson. On 13 March 2000, they stood down in favour of Bill Bowring. On the same date the applicant appointed as his representatives Philip Leach of the Kurdish Human Rights Project and Osman Baydemir, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. On 16 August 2002, Leach stood down in favour of Anke Stock of the KHRP.
Abegg Trio. Concert held at the Aula Maxima, University College Galway. Includes printed concert programme with details of works produced from Beethoven, Ravel and Brahms. Also includes information on the Trio.
Typed copy of the script for 'Abeyance' written by Abbie Spallen.
Typed copy of the script for 'Abeyance' written by Abbie Spallen, Nov 2001. Cover page bears Druid Theatre Company logo.
'Abeyance' - Written by Abbie Spallen and directed by Kirsten Sheridan. Produced at Druid Lane Theatre, Galway as part of the 'Druid Debut' series, supporting new writing and playwrights. Typed playbill listing cast and production crew members and brief information on the series. 6 copies. Printed flyer detailing dates and booking information for the play. The reverse of the flyer features information for another Druid production, 'My Brilliant Divorce' written by Geraldine Aron. 6 copies.