Sub-sub-series 57 - Mehmet Timurtaş

3 files

Materials pertaining to the case filed by Mehmet Timurtaş on 9 February 1994 against the Republic of Turkey with the European Commission of Human Rights (application number 23531/94, referred to internally within the Kurdish Litigation Project as Case 88 and assigned to Françoise Hampson as lead) regarding the 14 August 1993 disappearance of his son, Abdulvahap Timurtaş. Supplementary materials pertaining to this case are located at A44/43/6/90.
On 14 August 1993, the applicant was informed via an anonymous call that his son, Abdulvahap, had been arrested by soldiers near Yeniköy, Silopi, Şırnak province. Abdulvahap was seized along with a Syrian friend, as well as the village muhtar and his son in front of local villagers. The muhtar was released shortly after, while later reports indicated that Abdulvahap and his companion were paraded in different villages for potential identification. The applicant was especially concerned, having lost another son, Tevfik, in custody in 1991. He tried to locate Abdulvahap by submitting petitions to the Silopi prosecutor's office, which went unregistered initially. The gendarmerie chief dismissed his concerns, suggesting Abdulvahap had joined the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party). The applicant contacted Bahattin Aktuğ, the mayor of Güçlükonak, who revealed that detained individuals had said Abdulvahap was in Şırnak and refusing to make a statement. After 45 days, during a visit to Güçlükonak, the applicant learned from two detainees that Abdulvahap was still alive when they left custody. Efforts to inquire further were rebuffed, as authorities advised Aktuğ to cease inquiries about Abdulvahap. The applicant returned to the prosecutor's office, identifying potential witnesses, which led to an official statement being taken and multiple subsequent inquiries in Şırnak. In spring 1995, the applicant learned from Sadık Erdoğan that his report in court about seeing Abdulvahap had angered interrogators, causing him to later deny recognition. The government claimed that the applicant had admitted Abdulvahap had left home two years earlier, and investigations yielded no corroborating evidence for the applicant’s claims of detention by security forces. At the hearing before the Commission's delegates, the applicant's representatives produced a document said to be a photocopy of an operation report drawn up and signed by Hüsam Durmuş, the commander of Silopi district gendarmerie headquarters. The report, dated 14 August 1993 and bearing a reference number, describes how on that date Abdulvahap Timurtaş and a man with Syrian nationality had been apprehended near the village of Yeniköy. The initial interrogation of the apprehended persons had established that they were the leaders of the PKK's Silopi lowlands section. According to the applicant's representatives, this document had been copied in 1993 from an original report at the public prosecutor's office in Cizre but that original had subsequently been removed from the files. The applicant had invited the Commission to make a finding with regard to the fact that Hüsam Durmuş had lied on oath to the delegates when he (Hüsam Durmuş) stated that the applicant's son had not been apprehended. Although the Commission qualified Hüsam Durmuş's conduct as reprehensible, it found that it did not entail a failure on the part of the respondent State to comply with its obligations under former Article 28 § 1.
On 13 June 2000, the European Court of Human Rights ruled: that Turkey was liable for the death of Abdulvahap Timurtaş in violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (6 votes to 1); that there had been violations of Article 3 and 13 (6 votes to 1); that there had been a violation of Article 5 (unanimous); and that Turkey not failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 in fine of the Convention (unanimous). The Turkish Government was ordered to pay Mehmet Timurtaş £20,000 sterling in non-pecuniary damages with respect to his son, £10,000 sterling in non-pecuniary damages with respect to himself, and £20,000 sterling in legal fees and expenses (less 10,245.06 French francs received in legal aid). The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-58901