Reply of the applicant to the observations of the Turkish Government on the Koçeri Kurt application. The reply asserts that the bulk of the points made in the Government's observations 'are irrelevant to the allegations made by the applicant… …none address the specific complaints being made concerning Üzeyir Kurt's detention, maltreatment, and subsequent disappearance at the hands of the State.' The reply also notes that 'in claiming that its action was justified as a reasonable response to terrorism, the Government contradicts the essence of its own case, which is that it never did take Üzeyir Kurt into custody in the first place.' The reply notes that the supposed refutation of the application by Mrs Kurt will be addressed in separate correspondence (see A44/43/1/44/1 and A44/43/1/44/8).
Response of the applicants to the supplementary observations of the Turkish Government on the application of Elçi and others to the European Commission of Human Rights. The reply notes that the Government has ignored the evidence submitted in the complaints of four of the applicants, and that the delays in bringing the detained lawyers before an examining judge (which ranged from 6 to 26 days) in itself discloses a violation of the Convention. Attached (in Turkish with English translation) is a document (Appendix I) of 14 February 1994 from the Ministry of Justice Penal Works General Directorate to the Chief State Prosecution informing that adherence to the special 'lawyer's procedure' is mandatory in all circumstances, which thus means that the Government cannot claim that non-observance of the domestic procedure governing detention of lawyers was 'strictly required'.
Materials pertaining to the reply of the applicant to the Turkish Government's observations in the Sabuktekin case, including the reply submitted 31 March 1997, the appended statements (in Turkish with English translations) of Sultan and Halil Sabuktekin, correspondence between the Essex team and the Kurdish Human Rights Project regarding the statements and their translations, and the 12 May 1998 decision (in French) of the European Commission of Human Rights declaring the application admissible (CLOSED UNTIL 2073/11/01).
Reply of the applicant to the Turkish Government's initial observations on the Salih Tekin application. The applicant states that despite his detailed complaint recorded by the Derik public prosecutor, no security forces have been prosecuted to date and the Government has not actually acted on any of the applicant's complaints of ill-treatment, showing the ineffectiveness of domestic remedies.
Reply of the applicant to the observations of the Turkish Government on the Toğcu application. The applicant notes that the Government does not address any observations or arguments made by the applicant, instead making a number of assertions without proper investigation, many of which are irrelevant to the case. The applicant asks the Commission to declare the application admissible. (2 copies)
Response of the applicant in the Buldan case to the observations of the Turkish Government, as well as drafts of the response and translation of appended witness statements.
Response of the applicant in the Bilgin case to the previous observations of the Turkish Government.
1) Reply of the applicant to the observations of the Turkish Government on the Hasan İlhan application. The reply states that 'The government does not address the merits at all but relies on its objection to the representation of the applicant by his legal representatives. Nothing in the government's observations calls into question any relevant fact or argument in the applicant's original submission'. Attached are two reports on the ineffectiveness of remedies before regional administrative councils in Turkey.
2) Decision published 17 October 1994 by the European Commission of Human Rights unanimously deeming the application of Hasan İlhan against Turkey admissible. The back page is embossed with the Commission's seal. (CLOSED UNTIL 2073/11/01)
Reply of the applicant in the Asker case to the further observations of the Turkish Government submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights. In the enclosing letter, Françoise Hampson reiterates concern over intimidation over continuing harassment and intimidation of the applicant by the Government due to his application. The reply highlights this interference with the individual right of petition. The reply also notes that the Government had not addressed the specific concerns of the applicant in its observations; it merely asserted that there is no policy of forced evacuation and village destruction in southeast Turkey.
Reply of the applicant to the Turkish Government's initial observations on the Beşir Taş application. The applicant states that the Government does not deal with the details of the applicant's claims beyond the general assertion that they are baseless. The applicant submits that the Government's explanation for Muhsin Taş's disappearance is implausible. The applicant also notes that 'The Government does not dispute any of the applicant's claims... ...with regard to the unlawfulness of the prolonged period of detention.'