Reply of the applicants to the supplementary observations of the Government of Turkey submitted on 30 May 1995 in the Aslan cases (A44/43/1/8/8/1). The reply notes that the Government must have had other sources for its information in March and April 1994 when it confirmed that gendarme operations took place in Çınarönü on 13-14 February 1993, only to provide new statements that predate both Government observations stating that no operations took place, and that the Government-submitted statements of all five villagers taken by state prosecutors stated that soldiers came to the village. The reply also objects to the inference that lawyer Sedat Aslantaş manipulated the applicant's statements, stating that this 'represents a direct threat to the security of lawyers working on cases before the European Commission. It is stark evidence of the policy of the Turkish authorities to condemn as a member of the PKK anyone who makes allegations of human rights abuses against the state.' The reply concludes by asking the Commission to request that Turkish authorities refrain from having contact with the applicants now that the state authorities have concluded their investigation.
Published report of the European Commission of Human Rights on the Kılıç case (A44/43/1/42), which concluded that there had been violations of Articles 2 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (unanimously). (2 copies)
The full report is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-46137
Observations (in English) submitted by the Turkish Government to the European Commission of Human Rights on the admissibility of the Berktay application. The Government asks the Commission to adjourn its examination until the preliminary domestic investigation into the events of 3 February 1993 is concluded.
Supplementary observations submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights on behalf of applicants Hüseyin and Devrim Berktay. The observations state that it was at the hands of the police that Devrim Berktay fell from the balcony and it was the same police who prevented his father from taking him to receive treatment, and that the Government has failed to respond effectively to these events in the 22 months since the accident. The observations also state that the police used the medical condition of Devrim to force Hüseyin Berktay to sign a statement that he had not made nor believed to be true, and that the search of the Berktay who performed without a valid search warrant or the applicants' permission.
Final observations prepared by Kevin Boyle and Tony Fisher on behalf of the applicants on the merits of the application in the Berktay case submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights. The applicants restate their previous claims and state that whether or not he jumped or was pushed, 'the implication is irresistible that the responsibility for his falling from the balcony was that of the anti-terror police.'
Published report of the European Commission of Human Rights on the Eşref Yaşa case (A44/43/1/60), which concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (30 votes to 2), that there had been no violations of Article 3, 14, and 18 of the Convention (unanimously), and that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention (31 votes to 1).
The full report is available for viewing https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-45867
Published report of the European Commission of Human Rights on the Tekin case (A44/43/1/56), which concluded that there had been a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (31 votes to 1), and that there had been no violations of Articles 2, 10, 14, and 18 of the Convention.
The full report is available for viewing https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-45868
Published report of the European Commission of Human Rights on the Mahmut Kaya case (A44/43/1/40), which concluded that: there had been a violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (unanimously), that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s brother (26 votes to 2) and none in respect of the applicant (unanimously), and that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention (27 votes to 1).
The full report is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-46142
Published report (3 copies) of the European Commission of Human Rights on the Mehmet Gül case (A44/43/1/32), which unanimously concluded that there had been violations of Articles 2 and 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The full report is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-46227
Published report of the European Commission of Human Rights on the Mehmet Kaya case (A44/43/1/41), which concluded that there had been violations of Articles 2 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (27 votes to 3), and that there had been no violations of Article 3 and 14 of the Convention (unanimously).
The full report is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-45852