THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF TÜRKOĞLU v.
(Application no. 34506/97)
JUDGMENT
FINAL
This judgment will become final in the circumstances
set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to
editorial revision.
In the case of Türkoğlu v.
The European Court of Human Rights (Third
Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Mr B.M. Zupančič,
President,
Mr J. Hedigan,
Mr V. Zagrebelsky,
Mr E. Myjer,
Mr David Thór Björgvinsson,
Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
judges,
Mr F. Gölcüklü,
ad hoc judge,
and Mr V. Berger,
Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on
Delivers the following judgment, which was
adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an
application (no. 34506/97) against the
2. The applicant was
represented by Ms G. Tuncer, a lawyer practising in
3. The applicant alleged, in
particular, that her husband had been abducted and killed by agents of the
State. She invoked Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention.
4. The application was
transmitted to the Court on
5. The application was
allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules
of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case
(Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1. Mr
R. Türmen, the judge elected in respect of
6. By a decision of
7. The applicant and the
Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). The Chamber decided,
after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule
59 § 3 in fine). The parties replied
in writing to each other's observations.
8. On
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE
A. The facts
9. The facts surrounding the disappearance of the applicant's husband are disputed between the parties.
1. Facts as presented by the applicant
10. The applicant's husband, Talat Türkoğlu, had been arrested and tried on several occasions in the past for political offences. Plain-clothes policemen used to keep him under surveillance.
11. On
12. On
13. The applicant filed
petitions with several administrative and judicial bodies inquiring about her
husband's whereabouts. On
14. On
15. In her letters of
16. The applicant claims that
Kasım Açık was a State agent who had infiltrated the MLKP (Marksist Leninist Komünist Parti
a prohibited left-wing organisation) in order to gather information about
their activities. Prior to that, he had participated in counter-guerrilla
activities and had been involved in the killing of a number of persons. He was
strangled to death in prison on
17. According to this
statement, which was taped and later transcribed, Talat Türkoğlu was
questioned in Çadırkent by a gang, whose members included police officers,
soldiers and itirafçılar[1].
He was subsequently killed by Murat Demir and Murat İpek and his body was
thrown into the river Meriç, which forms part of the border between
18. The applicant claims that she did not receive any reaction from the administrative and judicial bodies she petitioned other than one invitation for her and her husband's mother to give a statement and one invitation for Talat Türkoğlu's brother to identify a corpse found in the area where Talat Türkoğlu had disappeared. In this respect, the applicant pointed out that, although she and her relatives had already applied to the domestic authorities in April 1996 after Talat Türkoğlu's disappearance, the documents submitted by the Government are dated May 1998.
2. Facts as presented by the Government
19. Following the receipt of
the petition of
20. Further investigations
were opened by the
21. On
22. On
23. Following the receipt of the
applicant's petition of
24. An investigation was conducted concerning the statements given by Kasım Açık. In this connection, it was revealed that he had been killed in the Gebze prison by his co-activists in the TDP (Türkiye Devrim Partisi a prohibited left-wing organisation). According to a press release issued by the TDP, Kasım Açık had acted as a spy and had betrayed the organisation's confidential strategy. According to this press release, Kasım Açık had been tried under the rules of the TDP and had been sentenced to death. The statement referred to by the applicant had been taken by TDP members in the context of this trial. According to the Government, Kasım Açık was not a State agent and had no associations with the State and affiliated agencies.
25. In fact, it was established in the criminal proceedings brought against the suspected perpetrators of the killing of Kasım Açık that he had been killed accidentally by another prisoner, Ayhan Güneş, following a fight provoked by Kasım Açık.
26. It appeared from
Kasım Açık's statement that the gang which killed the applicant's
husband had also kidnapped and killed persons in the Silvan and Lice districts
of
B. Documents submitted by the parties
1. Petitions made by or on behalf of
the applicant and her relatives
27. On 15 April 1996 Zeyneti Türkoğlu, the mother of Talat Türkoğlu, filed a petition with the Edirne public prosecutor in which she stated that her son had come from Istanbul to visit her, that he had left her house on 1 April 1996 and that since then he was missing. She asked the public prosecutor to search for him.
28. On
29. On
30. On the same day the
Turkish Human Rights Association addressed a letter to the President of the
31. By letter of
32. On
33. On
34. On
35. On
36. On
37. On the same day, the
applicant's lawyer sent a similar letter to the Edirne Governor. On
2. The investigation into the disappearance of Talat Türkoğlu and the allegations contained in Kasım Açık's statement
38. On
39. On
40. On the same day, Zeyneti
Türkoğlu gave a statement at the Ayşekadın police station in
41. On
42. On
43. On
44. On
45. On the same day, the
46. On
47. On
48. On
49. On
50. On
51. In his letters of 9
August and
52. On 17 January 1997, in reply to a request of 14 January 1997 for information about the stage reached in the investigation into the disappearance of Talat Türkoğlu, the Edirne public prosecutor informed the Edirne chief public prosecutor that the investigation was still ongoing.
53. On
54. On
55. In a report dated
56. On
57. By letter of 12 September
1997 the Edirne public prosecutor asked the Uzunköprü public prosecutor whether
any unidentified bodies had been found in his jurisdiction and, if so, to
provide him with details thereof. On the same day, the
58. On
59. On
60. On
61. On
62. On
63. On 11 November 1997 the
International Law and Foreign Relations Department of the Ministry of Justice
requested the Edirne public prosecutor to be informed of the actions undertaken
so far in respect of the applicant's account of the disappearance of her
husband and related incidents involving herself (the repeated intrusion of
unknown persons in her apartment, and her being followed and insulted by plain-clothes
policemen) as set out in her application form submitted to the European
Commission of Human Rights. The
64. On
65. On 20 November 1997, after having examined the autopsy reports and photographs that had been sent to the Edirne public prosecutor, Hasan Türkoğlu - the brother of Talat Türkoğlu - gave a statement at the public prosecutor;s office in Edirne that he had not recognised his brother on the photographs and that the descriptions of the bodies found in the autopsy reports did not correspond to his brother's physical appearance.
66. On
67. On
68. On
69. On
70. On 10 February 1998 the Edirne Security Directorate informed the Ministry of the Interior in Ankara that the search for Talat Türkoğlu was ongoing and that it was established that the allegations made in the applicant's letter sent to the Edirne Security Directorate were unfounded since his body had not been found in or near the river Meriç and since no unidentified bodies had been found in this river in 1996 and 1997. The letter finally states that the investigation is being pursued.
71. On
72. None of the documents
submitted contain a reference to a petition filed by seventeen persons detained
in
3. The statement and the sketch-map by Kasım Açık
73. The statement consists of
five typed pages. At the bottom of each page the name Kasım Açık is
written by hand and is followed by an illegible signature. In this statement,
Kasım Açık declares that he was born in 1979 in Çayırköy, in
Ağrı and that in November 1994 he moved to Çorlu, a town close to
74. Kasım Açık
admitted in the statement that he had participated in the killing of a number
of persons in the
75. Kasım Açık acknowledged that, after his return to Çorlu, he had infiltrated the MLKP and passed on information about the activities of this party to the police commissioner Mustafa Karagöz.
76. The statement also contains a detailed description of the killing of Talat Türkoğlu. The statement, insofar as relevant reads:
We then went to Çadırkent in two cars
and took Talat Türkoğlu there with us. Murat Demir and also a commander were
with us. Talat was in the car in front of our car and we drove him to a place
near River Meriç. There,
77. In this statement, Kasım Açık admitted having been involved, around the time of the killing of Talat Türkoğlu, in the killing of a number of other persons, including Faruk Coşkun and Tarık Ümit.
78. The sketch map drawn and
signed by Kasım Açık indicates two cars, one parked behind the other,
in an area with trees and what appear to be buildings. The cars are parked at a
distance indicated as being about 100 metres from the river Meriç. Three
persons are indicated at the left side of the car parked in front. The manner
in which these three persons are drawn appears that two persons are aiming a
firearm at the third person. Two further persons are indicated as standing in
front of the first car watching the scene. The sketch map contains the text sketch
map of the place where we killed Talat Türkoğlu.
4. The investigation conducted in relation to the statement given by Kasım Açık
79. On
80. On
81. In a letter of
82. On
83. On
84. On
85. On
86. By a letter of
87. On
88. On
89. In 2001 an examination was carried out into the authenticity of the documents allegedly signed by Kasım Açık. In this connection, the arrest and body search protocols and the documents containing Kasım Açık's confession statements were examined at the Criminal Laboratory of the General Security Directorate. Graphological comparison test of the handwriting and signature on the documents indicated that the said documents had been signed by two different persons. The experts were of the opinion that the arrest and body search protocols were signed by one person and the confession statements were signed by another person. However, they could not reach a certain conclusion as the documents in question were not the original copies.
5. The criminal proceedings initiated against the suspected perpetrator(s) of the killing of Kasım Açık
90. On
91. On
92. During the hearing before Kartal High Criminal Court on 19 March 1998 Ayhan Güneş admitted that he had strangled Kasım Açık with a piece of rope. He contended that Kasım Açık had suffered from psychological problems, that he had been very anti-social and that not been liked by any of the other inmates. On the day he was killed, Kasım Açık had provoked Ayhan Güneş by criticising the book that the latter had been reading. Ayhan Güneş finally stated that he had acted alone and that no other inmate had been involved in the killing.
93. On
94. On
95. On
6. Other documents
96. By letter of
97. According to an undated press release issued by the TDP, Kasım Açık had acted as a spy and had betrayed the organisation's confidential strategy. According to this press release, Kasım Açık had been tried under the rules of the TDP and had been sentenced to death for the murder of Talat Türkoğlu.
98. On
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
99. For the relevant domestic
law and background information, the Court refers to the judgments of Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey (no. 27602/95,
§§ 111-18,
THE LAW
I. THE GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
100. The Government submitted that the applicant had filed her application without awaiting the outcome of the domestic criminal investigation into the death of her husband. They contended that the investigation is still continuing and should be regarded as effective. According to the Government, the application was therefore premature.
101. The applicant submits that although an investigation was opened at her request, it has remained inadequate and ineffective.
102. The Court reiterates
that, in its decision of
103. Consequently, the Court joins the preliminary objection concerning the effectiveness of the criminal investigation to the merits of the applicant's complaint under Article 2 of the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION
104. The applicant alleged
that her husband had been abducted and killed by agents of the State and that
the authorities had failed to carry out an effective and adequate investigation
into his disappearance and subsequent death. She relied on Article 2 of the
Convention, which provides:
1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall
be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a
court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by
law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in
contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no
more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the
escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a
riot or insurrection.
A. The parties' submissions
1. The applicant
105. The applicant alleged
that it was established beyond reasonable doubt that the State security forces
had abducted her husband, who had met his death at the hands of the State
agents. She maintained that it was also established
beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent Government had failed to protect
Talat Türkoğlu's right to life, in that they had failed to conduct an
independent, effective and thorough investigation into his disappearance and subsequent
death in suspicious circumstances. She submits
in this connection that, although an investigation was opened at her request,
it has remained inadequate. In her opinion, no serious investigations were ever
conducted in
2. The Government
106. The Government submitted that the applicant's claims were wholly unsubstantiated and that there were no indications that her husband had in fact been deprived of his liberty or killed by the Turkish authorities. They maintained that it could not be considered beyond reasonable doubt that the Government was responsible for the death of applicant's husband. The Government further submitted that the domestic authorities fulfilled their obligation to take effective steps to discover the whereabouts of the applicant's husband or the fate which befell him.
B. The Court's assessment
1. The alleged failure to protect the right
to life
107. The Court reiterates that Article 2 of the Convention, which safeguards the right to life and sets out the circumstances when deprivation of life may be justified, ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention, to which no derogation is permitted. Together with Article 3, it also enshrines one of the basic values of the democratic societies making up the Council of Europe. The circumstances in which deprivation of life may be justified must therefore be strictly construed. The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings also requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 97, ECHR 2000‑VII).
108. In the
light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, the Court
must subject deprivations of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into
consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding
circumstances (see Tekdağ v. Turkey, no. 27699/95, § 73, 15
May 2004).
109. The Court will examine the issues that arise in the light of the documentary evidence adduced in the present case, in particular the documents furnished by the Government with respect to the judicial investigations carried out in the case as well as the parties' written observations.
110. The Court notes that Talat Türkoğlu was arrested several times and charged with membership of the prohibited TKP/B party prior to his disappearance.
111. The applicant alleges
that her husband was abducted and killed by agents of the State. In this
respect, she relies on the document containing statements made by Kasım
Açık (see paragraph 18 above). According to this document, Talat
Türkoğlu had been abducted and subsequently killed in
112. Thus, the applicant's allegation that her husband was killed by or at least with the connivance of State agents cannot therefore be discarded as prima facie untenable.
113. Yet, the applicant's allegation that the abduction of her husband was carried out by the agents of the State is not supported by any cogent evidence.
114. In this connection, the Court points out that it has not been provided with any eyewitness accounts or evidence corroborating the applicant's account to a decisive extent. It notes that the only available evidence confirming the applicant's stance is the document which contains confession statements given by Kasım Açık.
115. However, the nature of this document raises serious doubts as to its authenticity. According to the report of the Criminal Laboratory attached to the General Security Directorate, the signature in the document in question is different from the one contained in the arrest and body search protocols concerning Kasım Açık (see paragraph 89 above). Moreover, the circumstances in which these statements were made remain unclear.
116. In this connection, the Court recalls that, in assessing evidence, it adopts the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 264, ECHR 2002). Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, § 161 and Ülkü Ekinci, cited above, § 142).
117. On the basis of the material in its possession, the Court considers that the actual circumstances in which the applicant's husband disappeared remain a matter of speculation and assumption and that, accordingly, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis on which to conclude that the applicant's husband was, beyond reasonable doubt, killed by or with the connivance of State agents in the circumstances alleged by the applicant.
118. Accordingly, there has
been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention on that account.
2. The
alleged inadequacy of the investigation
119. The Court recalls that, according to its case-law, the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 to secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention, requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force. This obligation is not confined to cases where it has been established that the killing was caused by an agent of the State. Nor is it decisive whether members of the deceased's family or others have lodged a formal complaint about the killing with the competent investigation authority. The mere fact that the authorities were informed of the killing of the applicant's husband gave rise ipso facto to an obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, §§ 101 and 103, ECHR 1999-IV). The nature and degree of scrutiny which satisfies the minimum threshold of an investigation's effectiveness depends on the circumstances of each particular case. It must be assessed on the basis of all relevant facts and with regard to the practical realities of investigation work (see Velikova v. Bulgaria, no. 41488/98, § 80, ECHR 2000-VI, and Ülkü Ekinci, cited above, §144).
120. There is also a
requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition implicit in this context (Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, §§ 80, 87 and 106, ECHR 1999-IV, Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93,
§§ 106-07, ECHR 2000-III). It must be accepted that there may be obstacles
or difficulties which prevent progress in an investigation in a particular
situation. However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating a use
of lethal force or a disappearance may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining
public confidence in their maintenance of the rule of law and in preventing any
appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see, in general, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no.
28883/95, §§ 108-15, ECHR 2001‑III, and Avşar v.
Turkey, no.
25657/94, §§ 390-95, ECHR 2001‑VII).
121. The Court notes that
there is no proof that Talat Türkoğlu has been killed. However, the
above-mentioned procedural obligations extend to but are not confined to cases
that concern intentional killings resulting from the use of force by agents of
the State. The Court considers that these obligations also apply to cases where
a person has disappeared in circumstances which may be regarded as
life-threatening. In this respect, it must be accepted that the more time that
goes by without any news of the person who has disappeared, the greater the
likelihood that he or she has died (see Tahsin Acar v.
122. In
the present case, an investigation was indeed carried out into the
disappearance and alleged death of the applicant's husband. However, there were
important shortcomings in the conduct of the investigation.
123. The
Court observes that in the confession statements that were allegedly made by
Kasım Açık, the latter gave a detailed description of the
circumstances surrounding the alleged killing of the applicant's husband as
well as the names of the persons who were allegedly involved in the gang which
committed this murder and many others (see paragraphs 73-78 above).
124. While the Government challenged the authenticity of the document containing Kasım Açık's statements, the domestic authorities conducted investigations into his allegations. In particular, the Çorlu public prosecutor carried out a thorough investigation into the allegation that a gang had killed two persons named Cengiz and Faruk (see paragraph 81 above). The Lice and Silvan public prosecutors also investigated Kasım Açık's allegation that a number of persons were abducted and killed in the Lice and Silvan districts in 1995 (see paragraphs 26 and 84-87 above).
125. In view of these
findings, the Government disputed the credibility of the statements allegedly
made by Kasım Açık. The Court does not disregard the Government's
submissions. Nonetheless, bearing in mind what was at stake for the applicant, it
considers that it would not be unreasonable to seek further
evidence concerning the allegations made about the murder of Talat
Türkoğlu as the rest of the allegations in the document were thoroughly
investigated.
126. In
this connection, the Court observes that the authorities did not make any
attempt to question Murat
İpek and Murat Demir, although they were detained in the Metris prison
(see paragraph 36 above). Moreover, no evidence was obtained from the police
commissioner Mustafa Karagöz and the two other police officers, Ersan and
Ahmet, who were mentioned in the statement given by Kasım Açık.
127. Furthermore, the national authorities failed to conduct an investigation into the circumstances in which Kasım Açık's confession statements were taken.
128. Finally, although the Government challenged the authenticity of the document containing Kasım Açık's confessions as early as 31 March 1998 before the Convention organs, it was not until 2001, following the admissibility decision rendered by the Court that a graphological examination was carried out on this document.
129. In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the national authorities failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the applicant's husband. There has therefore been a breach of the State's procedural obligation under Article 2 to protect the right to life. It accordingly dismisses the Government's preliminary objection based on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see paragraph 104 above) and holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION
130. The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that her husband was arbitrarily deprived of his liberty by State agents. Article 5 of the Convention reads as follows:
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non- compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.
3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
131. The applicant maintained
that her husband was abducted by State agents without
any guarantee as to security of person and disappeared. She contended that
Talat Türkoğlu had not been brought promptly
before a judicial authority after his arrest. She
submitted in this connection that at the material time there were a significant
number of killings and disappearances in
132. The
Government submitted that the applicant's allegations were untrue and
unsubstantiated.
133. The Court refers to
its above finding that it has not been established beyond all reasonable doubt
that any State agent or person acting on behalf of the State authorities was
involved in the alleged abduction of the applicant's husband (see paragraph 117
above). There is thus no factual basis on which to conclude that there has been
a violation of this provision as alleged by the applicant.
134. Accordingly,
the Court holds that there has been no violation of Article 5 of the
Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF
THE CONVENTION
135. Article 41 of the
Convention provides:
If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law
of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be
made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured
party.
A. Pecuniary damage
136. The applicant claimed
10,000
137. The Government maintained that the claims were unsubstantiated.
138. The Court observes that there is no causal link between the matter held to constitute a violation of the Convention the absence of an effective investigation and the pecuniary damage alleged by the applicant (see Ülkü Ekinci, cited above, § 167). It dismisses the applicant's claim under this head.
B. Non-pecuniary damage
139. The applicant claimed USD 100,000 for non‑pecuniary damage. She referred in this respect to the severe anguish and distress she had suffered on account of her husband's disappearance.
140. The Government contested the applicant's claim.
141. The Court reiterates
that it has found that the authorities failed to carry out an effective
investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the
applicant's husband, contrary to the procedural obligation under Article 2 of
the Convention. In the light of its established case-law in similar cases (see Tahsin Acar cited above, § 264, and Seyhan v. Turkey, no.
33384/96, § 103,
C. Cost and expenses
142. The applicant did not submit any claim for costs and expenses.
143. The Government did not make any comment under this heading.
144. The Court points out that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court any claim
for just satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing together with
the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, failing which the Chamber may
reject the claim in whole or in part.
145. In the instant case, on
146. In view of the above, the
Court makes no award under this heading.
D. Default interest
147. The Court considers it
appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending
rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage
points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Joins to the merits the Government's preliminary objection that the application is premature and dismisses it;
2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention as regards the applicant's allegation that her husband was abducted and killed by State agents or persons acting on behalf of the State authorities;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the national authorities' failure to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the applicant's husband;
4. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 5 of the Convention;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay
the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes
final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 10,000
(ten thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Turkish
liras at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may
be chargeable;
(b) that from the expiry of the
above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable
on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the
European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on
Vincent Berger Botjan M. Zupančič
Registrar President
[1] İtirafçılar, a term used to describe defected members of an illegal organisation who provide the authorities with information about that organisation.
[2] The date
[3] The Idealist Hearths; an extreme right wing nationalist association.
[4] Trade union activist who has disappeared on
[5] Relatives of disappeared persons demonstrating every Saturday in