Materials pertaining to the case filed by Beşir Taş on 7 June 1994 against the Republic of Turkey with the European Commission of Human Rights (application number 24396/94, referred to internally within the Kurdish Litigation Project as Case 116 and assigned to Françoise Hampson as lead) regarding the disappearance of his son, Muhsin Taş, after being apprehended by the security forces in Cizre on 14 October 1993.
In October-November 1993, the Cizre region in Turkey faced intensified terrorist activities, particularly due to the presence of PKK camps in the nearby Gabar mountains. Gendarme Captain Temizöz led operations in Cizre, where the provincial command and a border brigade were situated. An interrogation centre operated under the provincial command, with interrogators Kemal Kılıçlı, Adem Akyüz, and Dursun Öztürk present. Muhsin Taş was captured on 14 October 1993, during a police and gendarmerie operation. He suffered a knee injury and was apprehended with weapons. According to Captain Temizöz, he admitted to being a PKK commander code-named “Hanemir.” Post-capture, Taş was taken to Cizre State Hospital for treatment and recommended transfer to Mardin due to inadequate facilities. His transfer to Şırnak was later ordered by the 23rd Gendarme Border Brigade because of his potential information about PKK locations in the Gabar mountains.
Evidence regarding Taş's detention remains unclear. No records showed his whereabouts in Cizre after his hospital treatment prior to his transfer to the Şırnak convoy. Though Captain Temizöz stated he would have been recorded in the gendarme's records, no entries concerning him were found. Upon arrival in Şırnak, Taş had a record in the local military hospital; however, both the officer in charge of his transfer and the treating doctor lacked memory of the specifics of his arrival or treatment. Dr. Can, who allegedly treated him, implied Taş might not have needed extensive hospitalization for his knee injury.
The interrogation of Muhsin Taş involved the three identified officers, though only Akyüz remembered his interaction with Taş. Log records of the interrogation were unavailable and denied by government sources, leaving reliance on Akyüz's oral testimony. He recounted one session without forthcoming details regarding any collaboration offered by Taş to elicit information about PKK activities. The Commission expressed scepticism regarding the reliability of the gendarme’s records compared to medical documentation, which generally bore more accuracy. Critically, the interrogation process seemed inadequate as both custodial extensions were sought but not reflective of the records surrounding Taş's detention. Akyüz did not clarify why only a single interrogation occurred, considering expected protocols for continuous oversight of interrogated suspects. Ultimately, no substantive evidence indicating where or how Taş was held post-treatment was provided, nor was there any follow-up medical care after October 14, despite the requirement for regular dressing and observation. The prosecutor approved a 15-day custody limit, with another extension granted shortly thereafter, yet the details around Taş’s care and potential interrogation remain unresolved.
According to a handwritten incident report dated 9 November 1993 signed by a gendarme captain group commander and two first lieutenants, both of whom were team commanders, Muhsin Taş escaped from the security forces while assisting them on an operation in the Gabar mountains to find PKK shelters. In the absence of medical notes, the Commission was unable to reach any firm conclusions as to what state of fitness Muhsin Taş would have been in on 9 November 1993. It found it highly unlikely however that he was fully fit or able to walk or run normally at this date. The Commission found that the incident report of 9 November 1993 was an unreliable document. The investigation documents concerning the enquiries by the Şırnak public prosecutor and Major Doğan, the gendarme officer appointed by the Şırnak Provincial Administrative Council were submitted to the Commission by the Government on 11 August 1998, after the Commission had closed the taking of evidence and invited the parties to submit their oral observations. The Commission found that in failing to provide it with this information during the taking of evidence, the Government had fallen short of its obligations under former Article 28 § 1 (a) of the Convention to furnish all the necessary facilities to the Commission in its task of establishing the facts of the case.
On 14 November 2000, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Turkish Government was liable for the death of Muhsin Taş (6 votes to 1), The Court held: that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the failure of the authorities of the respondent State to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of the death of Muhsin Taş (unanimous); that there had been no violation of Article 3 in respect of Muhsin Taş (unanimous); that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Beşir Taş (unanimous); that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and 5 (6 votes to 1); and that there had been a violation of Article 13 (6 votes to 1). The Turkish Government was ordered to pay Muhsin Taş’s heirs £20,000 sterling in non-pecuniary damages and to pay Beşir Taş £10,000 sterling in non-pecuniary damages and £14,795 sterling in legal fees and expenses (less 9,700 French francs awarded in legal aid). The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-58976.
