Sub-sub-series 32 - Mehmet Gül

11 files

Materials pertaining to the case filed by Mehmet Gül on 25 August 1993 against the Republic of Turkey with the European Commission of Human Rights (application number 22676/93, referred to internally within the Kurdish Litigation Project as Case 54 and assigned to Kevin Boyle as lead) regarding an incident on 8 March 1993 when the applicant’s son, also named Mehmet Gül, was shot dead by police officers firing through the door of his apartment during a search operation in Bozova.
Bozova was close to the Atatürk Dam which was perceived as a possible target for the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party). A company of commandos was stationed there. There was no evidence that PKK activity was particularly prevalent in Bozova itself or that there were any significant security problems. Although Major Güder, the provincial gendarme commander, had received a tip about terrorists in Bozova on 7 March 1993, PKK activity there hadn't been a concern prior to this incident. The informant specifically identified potential terrorists but did not name Mehmet Gül, the applicant’s son, who was merely an operator at a local gas station.
Later that evening, Major Güder briefed provincial governor Ziyaeddin Akbulut about the possible presence of these terrorists, leading to the authorization of a search operation. A meeting at the district gendarme headquarters was convened to discuss the planned operation, although the specifics regarding why certain addresses were chosen, including that of Mehmet Gül, were unclear. No intelligence implicated him in any terrorist activities.
Shortly after, a special operations team from Şanlıurfa, including twelve officers under team leader Fahrettin İlgun, was dispatched to Bozova. They were informed of potential terrorists without clear instructions on operational tactics or the verified presence of other residents in the building. It raised questions about the operation's planning due to the absence of written records. Before the arrival of this special operations team, local police had begun searching various locations, including the home of the applicant’s nephew, Mustafa Gül, which was carried out without aggression or incident. However, they found no evidence supporting the informant’s claims. Following that search, around 1:00 AM, the special unit approached the Gül apartment complex. The building layout included commercial premises on the ground floor, with flats occupied by the Gül family on the first and second floors. The flat of Mehmet Gül was secured with a locked iron door, further complicated by a chaotic staircase arrangement. As the operation commenced, certain officers maintained positions outside while others ascended to the first floor, but their visibility was limited.
Discrepancies arose concerning the events outside Muhammad's door. Police officers claimed he first fired at them and then reclosed the door, prompting them to return fire, ultimately wounding him. However, the Commission found their accounts unreliable and contradictory, suggesting negligence or intent to cover for their actions. The testimonies of family members, including Filiz and Mustafa Gül, who witnessed the events, were deemed more credible, contrasting sharply with the officers' narratives and suggesting a lack of justification for the operation's violent escalation. The Commission determined that there was a lack of prolonged knocking or verbal warnings before police initiated firing at Mehmet Gül, who was responding to light knocking. As he was unlocking the door, gunfire commenced, likely triggered by the sound of the key. The bullets severely injured his right hand and fatally struck him in the back. As he fell, he left blood traces along the corridor, eventually collapsing in a bedroom where his wife, Filiz Gül, encountered him. A neighbour, Mustafa Gül, heard the shots and found himself controlled by armed officers upon exiting his apartment. The applicant witnessed this and turned the lights back on before assisting in forcing the jammed door open. Upon entering, they discovered Mehmet Gül severely injured.
The family took Mehmet Gül in their car to the local health centre, where he was later transferred to the hospital but died before arrival. Meanwhile, a search of his flat uncovered two firearms and an empty cartridge, though the manner of discovery and collection of evidence was poorly documented and contradictory among police testimonies. The officers involved were not required to submit their firearms for examination after the incident. Mehmet Gül's body underwent a cursory examination by a doctor in the presence of the public prosecutor, who deemed a detailed autopsy unnecessary, citing apparent cause of death. The medical report notably lacked detail, failing to describe the full extent of his wounds. Furthermore, no photos or sketches were made, which impeded the assessment of the force applied by the police.
Evidence collection deficiencies extended to the apparent mismatch between bullet holes in the door and the cartridges found. Despite claims of Gül having fired, no tests were conducted to confirm this. It was argued that potential traces would have been difficult to gather post-incident, but this reasoning didn’t align with standard practices. The lack of forensic investigation, including not examining gunpowder traces on Gül’s hands or the context of the shooting, raised questions. Moreover, witness statements were taken promptly from the applicants and their neighbours, asserting that no warnings were given and that Gül didn’t fire, while police statements were delayed for months, undermining the integrity of the investigation process and raising concerns about accountability regarding police actions.
The public prosecutor in Bozova quickly gathered statements from the applicant, family members, and neighbours regarding the shooting incident involving Mehmet Gül, who allegedly did not fire a weapon and received no warnings before police intervention. However, it wasn't until 8 May 1993 that police officers rendered their statements, and no inquiry was conducted into the special operations team's actions or the weaponry used during the operation. On 17 March 1993, the prosecutor characterized the incident as "unintentional homicide" and declared a lack of jurisdiction, forwarding the case to the Provincial Governor. Following this, an inspector was appointed to investigate; he took statements from involved parties, including the special operations team, between 8 and 10 May 1993.
On 3 September 1993, the inspector's report suggested an absence of intent to kill but noted a lack of care, recommending a 16-month suspension for the officers involved. Nevertheless, the provincial administrative council decided against prosecution, stating the officers acted in self-defence after the deceased fired a warning shot. Sixteen months later, the Supreme Administrative Court intervened, leading to the trial of three officers. The court, from July 1995 to September 1996, heard no additional witnesses aside from the officers, who reiterated prior statements. An expert report submitted by a gendarme lieutenant in February 1996 stated that officers had issued warnings, heard a shot, and fired at the door's lock to enter the residence. The expert concluded that the officers acted reasonably given the circumstances and attributed no fault to them. Further expert analysis on 16 July 1996 indicated that the security forces had fired in response to the deceased's actions and noted that the bullets' trajectory suggested no intent to harm. Ultimately, on 9 December 1996, the court acquitted the three officers based on the expert findings, neglecting to assess the family's account or inform the applicant of the proceedings, raising concerns about whether the family's version was adequately considered compared to the security forces' account.
On 14 December 2000, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously ruled that there had been violations of Articles 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and ruled 6 votes to 1 that there had been a violation of Article 13. The Government were ordered to pay Mehmet Gül’s widow and children £35,000 sterling in pecuniary damages and £20,000 sterling in non-pecuniary damages, and were ordered to pay Mehmet Gül the elder £10,000 sterling in non-pecuniary damages and £21,000 sterling in costs and expenses. The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-59081.

The files in this sub-sub-series are equivalent to Tabs 1 through 10 in the legal team’s filing system, plus documents originally placed in sleeves at the front of the casefile binder.