Item 3 - Replies of the Applicant to the Government Observations, Çelikbilek v Turkey, Application No. 27693/95

10pp

Response of the applicant in the Çelikbilek case to the observations of the Turkish Government. Among various points contradicting the observations, the reply notes that even though Abdurrahman Çelikbilek was a second-hand witness, the Government offers no evidence that it has tried to obtain eyewitness testimony regarding the events of 14 December 1994. The reply also notes that Abdurrahman would naturally be shy about providing names of witnesses in light of that he suspects that one of the reasons for his brother killing was the fact that he has accused the security forces of killing Amber Yılmaz. The reply also points out that the autopsy report indicates that Abdulkadir Çelikbilek's death was slow and tortuous, making the inadequate nature of the investigation even more serious. The applicant reiterates his pleading with regard to violations of Articles 2,3, 6, and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and now submits that Article 13 has also been violated due to the inadequacies of the investigation. Attached is an appendix ('Appendix A: Reports of the car crash which links the State with criminals and political killings'). regarding the Susurluk car crash of 3 November 1996. The peculiar associations of the crash victims and their links with Interior Minister Mehmet Ağar led to a number of investigations, including a parliamentary investigation, of what became known as the Susurluk scandal. The scandal exposed a close relationship between the Turkish government, the ultra-nationalist paramilitary Grey Wolves organisation, and the Turkish mafia.

• English