9.  The applicants are all Turkish nationals. They were living in Elgazi village at the time of the alleged events giving rise to the present application. The facts of the case are in dispute between the parties and may be summarised as follows. 10.  Until October 1994 the applicants all lived in Elgazi, a village of Ovacık district in Tunceli province, in the then state-of-emergency region of Turkey. In 1994, terrorist activity was a major concern in this area. Since the 1980s a violent conflict had been going on in the region between the security forces and sections of the Kurdish population in favour of Kurdish autonomy, in particular members of the PKK (Workers Party of Kurdistan). The inhabitants of the applicants’ village were suspected of “aiding and abetting terrorists”; and accordingly they were strictly and frequently controlled by the gendarmes stationed near the village. 11.  On 4 October 1994 security forces surrounded Elgazi and assembled the inhabitants in the village square. Using curse words, they told the villagers that the village would be evacuated at once with no possibility of return. The applicants took what they were able to carry with them and left the village. Immediately after the evacuation, the soldiers set the houses and the crops on fire. 12.  The applicants moved temporarily into a prefabricated State disaster housing complex close to Ovacık. 13.  Following the incident, the applicants filed individual petitions with the Ovacık Public Prosecutor’s office complaining about the burning down of their village by gendarmes. The applicants noted their temporary addresses as the reply address for their petitions. 14.  As the case concerned an investigation into alleged acts of the security forces, the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non‑jurisdiction and referred the petitions to the office of the District Governor in Ovacık in accordance with the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants (Memurin Muhakematı Kanunu). 15.  The District Governor sent a letter to the Ovacık Gendarmerie Headquarters and requested information about the applicants’ allegations. 16.  In a letter of 1 November 1994 the Gendarmerie Commander informed the District Governor that the security forces had not burned any house during their operations in the area. Accordingly, the Ovacık Administrative Council issued a decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings against the gendarmes. 17.  On 25 October 1995 the Ovacık District Governor sent a letter to the applicants. Relying on the Ovacık Gendarmerie Commander’s letter of 1 November 1994, he explained that he was unconvinced by their allegations. He further explained that pursuant to the established case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court (Danıştay), no inquiry was possible unless the identity of the accused civil servant were specified. He therefore stated that the authorities would not initiate an investigation into the alleged events. 18.  On 15 February 1996 the District Governor’s above letter was served upon one of the applicants Mehmet Yılmaz, who is the former mayor (muhtar) of the evacuated Elgazi village. The cover letter stated that the authorities were unable to find out the new addresses of the applicants and that therefore Mehmet Yılmaz, as the mayor of the village, had been required to forward it to the other petitioners. The applicants learned about the District Governor’s letter through their relatives and acquaintances at a much later stage. 19.  In 1994 members of the PKK started a propaganda campaign for the organisation in the villages of Ovacık district. They kidnapped young men from these villages and forced them to join the organisation. The PKK militants issued threats against the villagers and harassed them. The inhabitants of the villages left their homes as a result of the pressure exerted by the PKK. 20.  The investigation carried out by the authorities revealed that the applicants’ houses had not been burned by the security forces but by terrorists wearing military uniforms. In their statements to the investigating authorities, the applicants failed to indicate the identity of the perpetrators of the alleged crime. 21.  The parties submitted various documents with a view to substantiating their claims. These documents, in so far as they are relevant, can be summarised as follows. 22.  The Human Rights Foundation is a non-governmental organisation with its head office in Ankara, Turkey. Its 1993 Report stated that, from 1990 to 1993, more than 913 villages and hamlets had been evacuated. The 1993 Report maintained that village evacuations had accelerated in 1993, mostly targeting the villages whose inhabitants refused to serve as village guards. 23.  The 1994 Report of the TIHV argued that the Government’s policy was to claim that the evacuations and eventual destructions were caused by PKK terror, poverty and the forces of nature. According to the same report, some 50 to 60 villages were burned down in each of the provinces subject to the emergency rule. 24.  The 1995 Report maintained that more than 400 villages had been evacuated in 1995. According to the 1996 Report, the State-of-Emergency Regional Governor once mentioned that a total of 918 villages and 1,767 hamlets had been evacuated for various reasons, although never admitting that evacuations had been carried out by security forces. 25.  The 1997 and 1998 Reports described the Government’s policy of evacuating villages as a systematic “internal security operation” applied throughout the 1990s.
(b)  Excerpts from “Burned-down / Evacuated Villages and Migration”, a book published by the Human Rights Association 26. The excerpts gave a comprehensive list of burned-down and/or evacuated villages from February 1990 to January 1999. The list did not make any reference to Elgazi as having been evacuated and destroyed. 27.  The excerpts contained several articles reproduced from a daily newspaper Ülkede Gündem, relating to the evacuation of villages and its detrimental effects on the displaced persons. The articles stressed that numerous villagers had filed petitions with the State authorities, complaining that their villages had been burned down by security forces. 28.  The articles also emphasized that the Government’s public declarations, which appeared to allow displaced villagers to return to their villages, were unreliable. Whenever villagers had attempted to do so, they were physically denied access to their villages.
(c)  The report of 14 January 1998 of the Turkish Grand National Assembly’s Commission of Inquiry on the measures to be taken in order to address the problems of the persons displaced following the evacuation of settlement units in east and south-east Anatolia 29.  This report was prepared by a Commission of Inquiry composed of ten members of parliament. According to the report, in 1993 and 1994 the inhabitants of 905 villages and 2,923 hamlets were evicted and forced to move to other regions of the country (p.13). 30.  The report included a statement by Mr Doğan Hatipoğlu, a former governor of Diyarbakır. Mr Hatipoğlu explained that, during his office, occasional village evacuations by military authorities were brought to his attention. He stated that – although very rarely – he had received complaints about village burnings. According to Mr Hatipoğlu, it was inconceivable to assert that all the villages were vacated due to PKK coercion. He alleged that the Government had failed to take the necessary measures for a healthy resettlement of displaced persons (p.13). 31.  The report also referred to the “Human Rights Report – Turkey”, prepared and submitted to the Commission of Inquiry in 1995 by Mr Yavuz Önen, the chairman of the Human Rights Foundation. This latter report dedicated a chapter to immigrants and evacuated villages. It argued that, in 1995, the practice of evacuation of villages and hamlets was widespread. Many houses in villages were either destroyed or made uninhabitable. People were forced to emigrate from the region and pressure was exerted on the inhabitants until they left their villages. In early 1995 there was practically no village or hamlet inhabited except those whose inhabitants agreed to become village guards (p.19). 32.  The report of the Commission of Inquiry also referred to the speech delivered at the Turkish Grand National Assembly by Mr Salih Yıldırım, a deputy from Şırnak, on 3 June 1997 on the question of evacuated villages. Mr Yıldırım stated, inter alia, that the villages were evacuated either by the PKK, in order to intimidate those who opposed it, by the authorities since they were unable to protect the villages, or because the inhabitants of those villages refused to become village guards or were suspected of having aided the PKK (p. 20). 33.  In conclusion, it was recommended in the report that the inhabitants of the settlement units should be re-housed in the provinces, districts or central villages – rather than hamlets – close to the area where they used to live and that necessary economic measures should be taken with a view to providing employment to the inhabitants of the region, priority being given to the immigrants. 34.  This report aims at establishing the property owned by each of the applicants. Having regard to the registers of the land registry office and municipality registry office, it appears that Kumri Yılmaz did not own any property. However, in 1990 the applicant declared to the authorities that he had owned a house and a stable each measuring 150 metres square. He was not involved in any commercial activity because he did not pay any taxes to the Government. 35.  Yeter Yılmaz did not own any immovable property according property according to the land registry records. But according to his declaration in 1990 he claimed that he owned a house and a stable each measuring 150 metres square. He was not involved in any commercial activity because he did not pay any taxes to the Government. Mr Yılmaz received food, 10 sheep, a ram and TRL 340,000,000’s in aid from the Ovacık District Governor’s office. Furthermore, he lived in a house provided by the Government in the ‘disaster houses complex’. 36.  Mehmet Yılmaz did not own any immovable property according property according to the land registry records. However, the records of the District Directorate of Agriculture in Ovacık indicated that he owned a land measuring 12,000 metres square, which could bring the applicant TRL 192,000,000’s annual income. According to his declaration in 1985 he claimed to have owned a house measuring 50 metres square, whereas in 1990 he declared that he owned a house and a stable each measuring 200 metres square. He was not involved in any commercial activity because he did not pay any taxes to the Government. Mr Yılmaz received food, 10 sheep, a ram and TRL 340,000,000’s in aid from the Ovacık District Governor’s office. 37.  Memli Müldür died in 1997. There was no registered property with his title in the land registry records. Yet the records of the District Directorate of Agriculture in Ovacık indicated that he owned land measuring 10,500 square metres, which could bring the applicant TRL 168,000,000’s annual income. In 1982 he declared to the authorities that he owned land and a house measuring 1,850 and 100 square metres respectively. In his declaration of 1990 he claimed to have owned a house and a stable measuring 240 and 150 metres square. He received food, 10 sheep, a ram and TRL 340,000,000’s in aid from the Ovacık District Governor’s office. 38.  Süleyman Müldür was not involved in any commercial activity given that he did not pay any tax to the Government. In his declaration of 1994 to the authorities of Ovacık he stated that he owned a house measuring 100 metres square, whereas in 1998 he claimed to have owned a house measuring 120 metres square. 39.  Haydar Müldür did not own any immovable property according to the land registry records. In his declaration of 1998 he claimed to have owned a house measuring 120 metres square. Furthermore, he did not carry out any commercial activity given that he did not pay any tax to the Government. 40.  Eyyüp Genç, did not own any immovable property according to the land registry records. However, the records of the District Directorate of Agriculture in Ovacık indicated that he owned land measuring 17,000 square metres, which could bring the applicant TRL 272,000,000’s annual income. According to his declaration in 1988 he claimed to have owned a land measuring 29,370 metres square. In his declarations of 1992 and 1994 he stated that he owned a house measuring 200 metres square. He was not involved in any commercial activity because he did not pay any taxes to the Government. Mr Genç received food, 10 sheep, a ram and TRL 170,000,000’s in aid from the Ovacık District Governor’s office. 41.  İbrahim Genç, did not own any immovable property according to the land registry records. However, the records of the District Directorate of Agriculture in Ovacık indicated that he owned land measuring 12,000 square metres, which could bring the applicant TRL 192,000,000’s annual income. According to his declaration in 1986 he claimed to have owned land measuring 29,976 square metres. In his declaration of 1998 he stated that he owned a house measuring 200 metres square. He was not involved in any commercial activity because he did not pay any taxes to the Government. Mr Genç received food and TRL 51,000,000’s in aid from the Ovacık District Governor’s office. 42.  Hasan Genç, did not own any immovable property according to the land registry records. The records of the District Directorate of Agriculture in Ovacık indicated that he owned land measuring 17,000 square metres, which could bring the applicant TRL 272,000,000’s annual income. According to his declaration in 1986 he claimed to have owned land measuring 29,976 square metres. In his declaration of 1994 he stated that he owned a house and a stable each measuring 200 metres square. He was not involved in any commercial activity because he did not pay any taxes to the Government. 43. Hasan Kerem died in 2001. Prior to his death, he did not own any immovable property according to the land registry records. However, the records of the District Directorate of Agriculture in Ovacık indicated that he owned land measuring 3,500 metres square, which could bring the applicant TRL 56,000,000’s annual income. According to his declaration in 1986 he claimed to have owned land measuring 8,674 metres square. In his declaration of 1998 he stated that he owned a house and a stable each measuring 200 metres square. He was not involved in any commercial activity because he did not pay any taxes to the Government. 44.  Haydar Karakaya died in 2001. Prior to his death, he did not own any immovable property according to the land registry records. However, the records of the District Directorate of Agriculture in Ovacık indicated that he owned land measuring 16,500 square metres, which could bring the applicant TRL 264,000,000’s annual income. According to his declaration in 1986 he claimed to have owned land measuring 15,400 square metres. In his declaration of 1994 he stated that he owned a house and a stable measuring 300 and 200 metres square respectively. He was not involved in any commercial activity because he did not pay any taxes to the Government. 45.  Dedeali Karakaya owned half of land measuring 24,702 square metres according to the land registry records. Furthermore the records of the District Directorate of Agriculture in Ovacık indicated that he owned land measuring 7,760 square metres, which could bring the applicant TRL 122,720,000’s annual income. According to his declaration in 1986 he claimed to have owned land and a house measuring 23,010 and 132 square metres respectively. In his declaration of 1994 he stated that he owned a house measuring 120 metres square. He was not involved in any commercial activity because he did not pay any taxes to the Government.
(b)  Haydar Müldür and Haydar Karakaya and Mehmet Yılmaz’s statements dated 10-11 March 2004, taken by two gendarme officers 46.  The witnesses are residents of Elgazi village. Their statements were taken in order to determine the situation of the applicants who had lodged an application with the Court. The witness stated that between 1994 and 2002 the applicants had lived in prefabricated houses in Kandolar neighbourhood of Ovacık. In 2002 they had moved into new houses built by the Government. At the relevant time nobody lived in Elgazi. There was no electricity, school or telephone in the village.
(c)  Letter of 15 October 2002 from Ovacık District Governor to the applicants 47.  In his letter, the District Governor informed the applicants that the authorities had been carrying out maintenance work to repair the infrastructure of the villages in the region. He noted that there was no obstacle for their return to the villages in Ovacık if the villagers wished to use their property.
(d)  Letter of 1 November 1994 from the Ovacık District Gendarme Commander to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık 48.  Gendarme Major Yüksel Sönmez informed the Chief Public Prosecutor that the houses belonging to Cafer Karakaya, Nemli Münzül, Haydar Münzül, Süleyman Münzül and Haydar Karakaya in Elgazi village had been burned down by terrorists wearing military uniforms. In his opinion, the terrorists aimed at neutralising the security forces and creating hostility between the latter and the people in the region.
(e)  Investigation report of 4 June 1995, prepared by police superintendent Bahri Üstüner 49.  Following an investigation conducted into the allegations that State security forces had burned down houses in Elgazi village, the inspector established that the houses had not been burned down by the security forces but by terrorists wearing military uniforms. The terrorists had further forced the villagers to complain to the authorities that their houses had been burned down by the security forces. The inspector also noted that the security forces had been conducting operations in the region with a view to maintaining the security of the people and that therefore they would not burn villages or damage property.