Showing 49448 results

Archival description
708 results with digital objects Show results with digital objects
UGA A/A44/43/1/7/11/2 · Item · 2000/07/24-2000/08/09
Part of Academic

Applicants' claims for just satisfaction in the Altun case submitted to the European Court of Human Rights. Attached are schedules of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages sought for the applicant, and a schedule of legal fees and costs sought on behalf of the applicant's legal team. The claims are enclosed by two letters from Michael O'Boyle, Section Registrar, European Court of Human Rights: a letter of 2 August 2000 acknowledging receipt of the claims; and a letter of 9 August 2000 acknowledging receipt of a schedule of costs for the Kurdish Human Rights Project.

Abdullah Menteşe and others
UGA A/A44/43/6/63 · File · 1994-1997
Part of Academic

Materials pertaining to the case filed by Mr Abdullah Menteşe, Ms Zühra Bozkuş, Ms Hatun Demirhan, Mr Mustafa Demirhan, Ms Ayşe Harman and Mr Süleyman Moçu against the Republic of Turkey with the European Commission of Human Rights (application number 36217/97, referred to internally within the Kurdish Litigation Project as Case 165 and assigned to Kevin Boyle and Tim Otty as leads) regarding the death of the first, second, fourth and sixth applicants’ relatives and the forced eviction and destruction of the family homes and possessions of all of the applicants. The applicants also applied on their own behalf where they alleged to have suffered destruction of property and on behalf of their deceased relatives who were killed during the incidents that took place in Yolçatı village between 13 and 18 May 1994. On 18 January 2005, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the failure of the authorities of the respondent State to conduct an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of the first, second, fourth and sixth applicants’ relatives, and that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the first, second, fourth and sixth applicants’ complaints concerning the death of their relatives. The Turkish Government were ordered to pay the first, second, fourth and sixth applicants €15,000 each in non-pecuniary damages and €10,000 globally in legal costs and expenses. The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-67984.
Materials in the file include the initial application of 12 November 1994 including witness statements and appendices, supplementary documents on military operations in Lice, and a 4 April 1997 resubmission of the application with further appendices.

Abdülsamet Yaman
UGA A/A44/43/6/95 · File · 1992-1996
Part of Academic

Materials pertaining to the case filed on 3 January 1996 by Abdülsamet Yaman against the Republic of Turkey with the European Commission of Human Rights (application no. 32446/96, referred to internally within the Kurdish Litigation Project as Case 209 and assigned to Jon Rud as lead). Yaman, formerly the Adana provincial leader of HADEP (People's Democracy Party), alleged that on 3 July 1995 he was taken into custody by police officers from the Adana Security Directorate. He alleges that he was blindfolded, put in a car, beaten and threatened. After being driven around for some time, still blindfolded, he was taken to the Adana Security Directorate, where he was interrogated about his association with the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) and tortured. On 2 November 2004, the European Court of Human Rights found that numerous violations of the European Convention on Human Rights had occurred. The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-67228
Materials available for access in the file include the application of 24 April 1996 including appendices (letter of authorisation, statements of the applicant and witnesses, and reports and article on state torture with focuses on Turkey) and correspondence from Kurdish Litigation Project members pertaining to the case.

UGA A/A44/43/1/2 · Sub-sub-series · 1986-1998
Part of Academic

Materials pertaining to the case filed by 8 Kurdish citizens of Turkey ('Akdivar and others', referred to early in the case as 'Akduvar and others', which became a point of contention during the proceedings; the lead applicant and family used the latter spelling in their daily life but their legal identification used the former) against the Republic of Turkey with the European Commission of Human Rights (application number 21893/93, later given case number 99/1995/605/693, referred to internally within the Kurdish Litigation Project as Case 25) over the destruction of 9 houses and their contents in the village of Kelekçi (Kelkom), Dicle District, Diyarbakır Province on 10 November 1992. Following this destruction, the residents of Kelekçi fled the village, and more than 90 percent of the village's houses were subsequently destroyed. The destruction of the village was held by the applicants to be in response for refusing to take part in the Village Guard system as part of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. Applicants included Abdurrahman Akdivar, Ahmet Akdivar, Ali Akdivar, Zülfükar Çiçek, Ahmet Çiçek, Abdurrahman Aktaş, and Mehmet Karabulut. Hüseyin Akdivar, elected mayor of Kelekçi, was also introduced as an applicant but the Commission decided not to proceed with this application following his oral testimony in which he stated that his signature on a power of attorney form was not his and that he did not wish to make an application. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of the applicants on 16 September 1996 with regard to compensation for costs and expenses, and ruled that the destruction of the houses constituted a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, but ruled against the applicants on other points with regard to violations of Articles 14 and 18. The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-58062. Also included are materials pertaining to later judgment on the case with regards to Article 50 of the Convention (just satisfaction) made on 1 April 1998; this judgment is also available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-58152
Further materials pertaining to procedures under Article 25 (Plenary Court) and Article 50 are located at A44/43/62.

UGA A/A44/43/6/2 · File · 1993-1998
Part of Academic

Materials pertaining to procedures under Article 25 (Plenary Court) and Article 50 (Expenditure on the Court/claims for just satisfaction) in the Akdivar and others case. Materials from the main casefile in Akdivar and others are located at A44/43/12.

UGA A/A44/43/1/21/7/2 · Item · 2000/03/01
Part of Academic

Final observations of the applicant on the merits of the Abdurrahman Çelikbilek application against Turkey submitted to the European Court of Human Rights, including the applicant's claims for just satisfaction. The observations submit that the Government's failure to provide the documents pertaining to the Çelikbilek requested by the Court in July 1999 provide a compelling reason for the Court to hold an on-the-spot investigation in Turkey. Appended are schedules of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and legal and professional fees and costs.

UGA A/A44/43/1/21/7/1 · Item · 1999/10/08
Part of Academic

Observations on the merits of the Abdurrahman Çelikbilek application against Turkey submitted by the applicant to the European Court of Human Rights on 8 October 1999, including the applicant's claims for just satisfaction. The observations submit that the Government's failure to provide the documents pertaining to the Çelikbilek case requested by the Court in July 1999 provide a compelling reason for the Court to hold an on-the-spot investigation in Turkey. Appended is a schedule of professional fees and costs for all work performed in the case by the applicant's legal team.

UGA A/A44/43/1/21/9/1 · Item · [1999/07]
Part of Academic

Summary/working notes (presumably written by Bill Bowring) following the 22 June 1999 admission of the application of Abdurrahman Çelikbilek by the European Court of Human Rights, followed by the author's questions raised in light of the admission. The author notes that the Court joined to the merits of the application the question concerning the effectiveness of the Turkish criminal investigation, and that Turkey has been asked to submit the full investigation casefile. The author asks the Kurdish Human Rights Project for essential details on the case, such as obtaining a further statement from Abdurrahman Çelikbilek regarding the incident and potential witnesses, and a statement from the deceased's widow if possible (it was noted in later observations submitted by the applicant that the widow was not able to be located). (2 copies)

Abdurrahman Çelikbilek 
UGA A/A44/43/1/21 · Sub-sub-series · 1994-2000
Part of Academic

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

Abdurrahman Çelikbilek 
UGA A/A44/43/6/23 · File · 1994-2000
Part of Academic

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