CASE OF ÇAKICI v. TURKEY
Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 2;Violation of Art. 3 (applicant's brother);No violation of Art. 3 (applicant);Violation of Art. 5;Violation of Art. 13;No violation of Art. 14;No violation of Art. 18;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
Luzius Wildhaber
8. The applicant, Mr İzzet Çakıcı, is a Turkish citizen who was born in 1953 and is at present living in Diyarbakır in south-east Turkey. His application to the Commission was brought on his own behalf and on behalf of his brother Ahmet Çakıcı, who, he alleges, has disappeared in circumstances engaging the responsibility of the State. 9. The facts surrounding the disappearance of the applicant’s brother are disputed. 10. The facts presented by the applicant are contained in Section 1 below. In his memorial to the Court, the applicant relied on the facts as established by the Commission in its report (former Article 31 of the Convention) adopted on 12 March 1998 and his previous submissions to the Commission. 11. The facts as presented by the Government are set out in Section 2. 12. A description of the materials submitted to the Commission is contained in Part C. A description of the proceedings before the domestic authorities regarding the disappearance of the applicant’s brother as established by the Commission is set out in Part D. 13. The Commission, with a view to establishing the facts in the light of the dispute over the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the applicant’s brother, conducted its own investigation pursuant to former Article 28 § 1 (a) of the Convention. To this end, the Commission examined a series of documents submitted by both the applicant and the Government in support of their respective assertions and appointed three delegates to take the evidence of witnesses at hearings conducted in Ankara on 3 and 4 July 1996 and in Strasbourg on 4 December 1996. The Commission’s evaluation of the evidence and its findings thereon are summarised in Part E. 14. On 8 November 1993, the applicant’s brother, Ahmet Çakıcı, was detained during an operation in the village of Çitlibahçe carried out by gendarmes and village guards. When the operation commenced early in the morning, Ahmet Çakıcı hid in a house near the fountain while the other men were gathered in an open area. The security forces began setting fire to the houses. Ahmet Çakıcı retrieved money, 4,700,000 Turkish liras (TRL), which he had hidden in the roof of his house and was caught leaving the house. Ahmet Çakıcı was taken from the village by the security forces. This was witnessed by the other villagers. The money was taken from Ahmet Çakıcı by a first lieutenant. Remziye Çakıcı, Ahmet Çakıcı’s wife, was told by a boy from the village that he had seen a gendarme take money from Ahmet Çakıcı. 15. Ahmet Çakıcı was first taken to Hazro, where he was kept overnight before being taken to Diyarbakır. In Diyarbakır, he was detained at the provincial gendarmerie headquarters. After about six to seven days, he was held for sixteen to seventeen days in the same room as Mustafa Engin, Abdurrahman Al and Tahsin Demirbaş, who had been taken into custody on 8 November 1993 by the security forces in an operation at Bağlan. Ahmet Çakıcı had been beaten, a rib being broken and his head split open. He was taken out of the room for interrogation on several occasions, when he received electric shocks and was beaten. Mustafa Engin was also told by Ahmet Çakıcı that a first lieutenant had taken money from him. At the end of this period, the other three detainees were brought before the court. Engin and Demirbaş were released and Abdurrahman Al was remanded in custody. Engin did not see Ahmet Çakıcı again. 16. After eighty-five days at the provincial gendarmerie headquarters, in or about late January-early February 1994, Ahmet Çakıcı was taken back to Hazro where he was detained for several months. From there he was moved to the gendarmerie station at Kavaklıboğaz. During a period of thirteen days in or about spring or early summer 1994, Hikmet Aksoy, who was also detained at Kavaklıboğaz, saw Ahmet Çakıcı when they were taken out of the cells for meals. At the end of that period, Hikmet Aksoy was transferred to Lice. 17. In May 1996, following the transmission of Government submissions, the applicant learned for the first time that it was claimed by the authorities that Ahmet Çakıcı had been killed in a clash between 17 and 19 February 1995 on Kıllıboğan Hill, Hani. The identification appeared to be based solely on the claim that Ahmet Çakıcı’s identification card was found on one of the bodies. 18. The Government recall that at this time the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) had destroyed numerous villages, inflicted suffering on thousands of innocent victims and exerted intolerable oppression over the population of the south-east region. 19. They state that Ahmet Çakıcı was not taken into custody by the security forces during the operation carried out at Çitlibahçe on 8 November 1993 and was not held in detention over any subsequent period. The custody records indicated that he was not held at Hazro or at Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie headquarters. Nor was he was taken to the gendarmerie station at Kavaklıboğaz. 20. Ahmet Çakıcı was a militant member of the PKK organisation. Following an armed clash between the PKK and the security forces on 17 to 19 February 1995, he had been found dead with fifty-five other militants at Kıllıboğan Hill. Ahmet Çakıcı had been implicated in the killing on 23 October 1993 of five teachers from Dadaş whom he had reportedly described as “servile dogs of the State”. He most probably disappeared after this incident with the intention of escaping justice and continuing his activities for the PKK. 21. No complaint was made to the public prosecutor at Hasro by any member of the applicant’s family in respect of the alleged disappearance. 22. In the proceedings before the Commission, the applicant and the Government submitted a number of statements by the applicant, which he had made to the Human Rights Association in Diyarbakır (HRA) and to the public prosecutor at Diyarbakır. Statements had also been taken by the HRA and the public prosecutor from Remziye Çakıcı, the wife of Ahmet Çakıcı, and Mustafa Engin, who had been detained from 9 November to 1 December 1993 at Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie headquarters. Mustafa Engin had also made a statement to a police officer. Statements had been taken by Osman Baydemir, on behalf of the applicant, from Abdurrahman Al, who had been detained at the same time as Mustafa Engin, and from two villagers, Mehmet Bitgin and Fevzi Okatan. 23. The Government also provided an arrest report dated 8 November 1993 concerning the apprehension of Mustafa Engin, Abdurrahman Al and Tahsin Demirbaş, two operation reports dated 7 and 8 November 1993 respectively concerning the operation at Çitlibahçe village, documents concerning the witness Hikmet Aksoy whom the Commission’s delegates had summoned to give evidence but who did not appear and documents relating to inquiries made by the authorities into the allegations. 24. The Commission requested copies of the custody records for the relevant period for Hazro gendarmerie station, Lice gendarmerie station, Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie headquarters and the gendarmerie station at Kavaklıboğaz. The Commission’s delegates further requested the opportunity to inspect the original records of Hazro, Diyarbakır and Kavaklıboğaz. The Government provided the original custody record of the Hazro central gendarmerie station as well as copies of the custody record of Lice gendarmerie headquarters and Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie headquarters for the relevant period. The Government did not provide the Commission’s delegates with sight of the original custody record for Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie headquarters, or with either a copy of, or sight of, the original custody record for the gendarmerie station of Kavaklıboğaz. 25. On 22 December 1993, Tevfik Çakıcı, the father of the applicant and Ahmet Çakıcı, submitted a handwritten petition to the Diyarbakır National Security Court requesting information as to what had happened to Ahmet Çakıcı, who had been taken into custody on 8 November 1993 by the security forces at the same time as Mustafa Engin, Abdurrahman Al and Tahsin Demirbaş, who had been released twenty-four days later. An oral reply was given to him that Ahmet Çakıcı was not on the list of persons in custody. 26. By letter dated 4 April 1994, the Hazro public prosecutor, Aydın Tekin, informed the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır National Security Court that, on examination of their records, Ahmet Çakıcı had not been taken into custody or detained on 8 November 1993. 27. By letter dated 19 April 1994 to the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır National Security Court, the Hazro public prosecutor, Aydın Tekin, confirmed his letter of 4 April 1994 and stated that no application had been filed by Ahmet Çakıcı’s family to the effect that he was missing. 28. By letter dated 18 August 1994, the Ministry of Justice (General Directorate for International Law and External Relations), referring to correspondence from the Foreign Ministry of 19 July 1994 outlining the complaints made by the applicant to the European Commission of Human Rights, requested the Diyarbakır Attorney-General to have the applicant’s complaints investigated and evaluated according to law. 29. On 9 September 1994, the applicant’s statement was taken by a public prosecutor at Diyarbakır. In his statement, he stated that his brother Ahmet Çakıcı had been taken into custody by soldiers on 8 November 1993 and that he had been seen by Mustafa Engin and Tahsin Demirbaş, who were also detained. On 25 November 1994, the public prosecutor took a statement from Remziye Çakıcı. She stated that gendarmes had taken away her husband during an operation on 8 November 1993. 30. By letter dated 1 December 1994, Colonel Eşref Hatipoğlu of Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command informed the Diyarbakır Attorney-General, in reply to a letter of enquiry of 22 November 1994, that their records indicated that Ahmet Çakıcı had not been detained on 8 November 1994 [error for 1993]. 31. By letter dated 8 December 1994, Colonel Eşref Hatipoğlu reported to the Diyarbakır provincial authorities on the subject of the applicant’s application to the European Commission of Human Rights. It was reported, inter alia, that police officers had been unable to find the addresses of the applicant, his father, Ahmet Çakıcı, Mustafa Engin, Abdurrahman Al or Tahsin Demirbaş for the purpose of taking their statements. It had been established that Ahmet Çakıcı, who was alleged to be missing, was involved with the PKK, having participated in killings. He was reported to have been a member of the PKK mountain team which, on 23 October 1993, kidnapped seven persons (five teachers, an imam and the imam’s brother) from Dadaş village and killed five of them. Their headquarters were looking for him. 32. By letter dated 1 March 1995, Colonel Eşref Hatipoğlu forwarded to Hazro district gendarmerie command documents found in the area and upon the bodies of fifty-six terrorists found dead as a result of an operation carried out in the Kıllıboğan region from 17-19 February 1995. 33. By letter dated 14 March 1995, Hazro public prosecutor Mustafa Turhan requested that the Lice public prosecutors investigate whether Mustafa Engin and Tahsin Demirbaş were detained by the gendarmes on 8 November 1993, and that they seek observations from Mustafa Engin concerning Ahmet Çakıcı, who was alleged to have disappeared in custody. 34. By letter dated 14 April 1995, Hazro public prosecutor Mustafa Turhan requested the Hazro district gendarmerie command urgently to inform him concerning the operation carried out in Çitlibahçe on 8 November 1993 and to investigate and establish whether Ahmet Çakıcı had been detained along with Mustafa Engin, Abdurrahman Al and Tahsin Demirbaş. 35. By letter dated 17 May 1995, the Hazro district gendarmerie command informed the Hazro public prosecutor in reply that the operation on 8 November 1993 had been intended to capture members of the PKK and those aiding and abetting them and that their records indicated that Ahmet Çakıcı, Mustafa Engin, Abdurrahman Al and Tahsin Demirbaş had not been detained. 36. By letter dated 22 May 1995, the Hazro public prosecutor requested the Hazro district gendarmerie command as a matter of urgency to establish the whereabouts of Ahmet Çakıcı. 37. By letter dated 23 June 1995 to the Hazro public prosecutor, the district gendarmerie command at Hazro referred to the prosecutor’s enquiry dated 22 May 1995 about the whereabouts of Ahmet Çakıcı and to the letter dated 1 March 1995 from the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command. It stated that Ahmet Çakıcı had been a member of the PKK. Following an operation carried out at Kıllıboğan Hill on 17-19 February which resulted in the deaths of fifty-six terrorists, Ahmet Çakıcı’s identity was established by the identity card located amongst the documents found on the body of a terrorist. It was concluded that he was one of the terrorists. 38. By letter dated 27 June 1995, the Hazro public prosecutor informed the Diyarbakır Attorney-General, in reference to their letter of 1 December 1994 and the letter of the Ministry of Justice of 18 August 1994, that an operation had been carried out on 8 November 1993 in order to apprehend members of the PKK and those assisting them and that Ahmet Çakıcı, Mustafa Engin and Tahsin Demirbaş had not been detained as claimed. Referring to the letter of 23 June 1995 above, it was stated that Ahmet Çakıcı was a member of the PKK and found dead during operations carried out in the Kıllıboğan Hill region, Hani district, on 17-19 February 1995. The Lice public prosecutor had been requested to obtain a statement from Mustafa Engin, a response to which was still awaited. 39. By letter dated 4 July 1995, the Hazro public prosecutor’s office informed the Ministry of Justice (Directorate of International Law and Foreign Affairs) of the information provided by the Hazro gendarmes (see paragraph 37 above). It stated that a preliminary investigation (no. 1994/191) had been started and was still pending. 40. By letter dated 5 March 1996, the Hazro public prosecutor informed the Ministry of Justice that upon its request the Diyarbakır Attorney-General had been instructed to take a statement from Mustafa Engin. 41. On 12 March 1996, a police officer took a brief statement from Mustafa Engin in which it was stated that he had not seen Ahmet Çakıcı for three years. On 13 May 1996, a public prosecutor at Diyarbakır took a statement from Mustafa Engin. In this statement, he stated, inter alia, that he had not seen Ahmet Çakıcı in custody though Ahmet Çakıcı might have seen him and referred to himself having been given electric shocks once while he was detained at Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie headquarters. 42. By decision of 13 June 1996, Hazro public prosecutor Mustafa Turhan issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction and transferred the file to the District Administrative Council. The decision named the applicant and Remziye Çakıcı as the complainants and identified the victim as Ahmet Çakıcı. The offence was described as ill-treatment, torture and confiscation of money of a detainee and the defendants as unidentified individuals of Hazro gendarmerie station and village guards. It stated that the complainants claimed that soldiers from Hazro gendarmerie command arrived in Çitlibahçe on the morning of 8 November 1993 and detained the victim, that the victim had been taken to Diyarbakır where he was tortured and that a lieutenant had removed TRL 4,280,000 from him. The investigation had established that the victim was a member of the PKK terrorist organisation and that following an operation by the security forces in the Kıllıboğan Hill region on 17 and 19 February the victim’s identity card had been located on one of the dead terrorists, thus confirming the individual’s identity as Ahmet Çakıcı without doubt. Mustafa Engin had made a statement to the effect that he had not seen Ahmet Çakıcı. The suspects fell under the Law on the prosecution of civil servants and following the withdrawal by the Hazro prosecution the documentation was transferred to the Presidency of Hazro District Administrative Council for the necessary action. 43. Since the facts of the case were disputed, particularly concerning the events in or around November 1993, the Commission conducted an investigation, with the assistance of the parties, and accepted documentary evidence, including written statements and oral evidence taken from eleven witnesses: the applicant; Fevzi Okatan, previous muhtar of Çitlibahçe; Remziye Çakıcı, the wife of Ahmet Çakıcı; Mustafa Engin, who had been detained at Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie headquarters from 9 November to 1 December 1993; Ertan Altınoluk, who had been gendarmerie commander of Hazro in November 1993 and had commanded the operation at Çitlibahçe on 8 November 1993; Mehmet Bitgin, a villager from Çitlibahçe; Mustafa Turhan, public prosecutor in Hazro from November 1994; Aytekin Türker, the Hazro central station commander at Hazro district gendarmerie headquarters from July 1993 to August 1994; Ahmet Katmerkaya, the gendarme responsible for keeping the custody records at Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie headquarters since August 1992; Kemal Çavdar, a gendarme who had served at Kavaklıboğaz station from July 1993 to August 1995; and Abdullah Cebeci, the brother of the imam who had been kidnapped with five teachers from Dadaş. A further six witnesses had been summoned but did not appear: Aydın Tekin, Hazro public prosecutor in 1994; Colonel Eşref Hatipoğlu, Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie commander; Hikmet Aksoy, who was alleged by the applicant to have seen his brother in detention at Kavaklıboğaz; Tevfik Çakıcı, the father of the applicant and Ahmet Çakıcı; Tahsin Demirbaş and Abdurrahman Al, who had both been detained at Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie headquarters from 8 November to 1 December 1993. It appeared that Tevfik Çakıcı had died prior to the hearing. The Government claimed that they were unable to locate the witness Hikmet Aksoy for the hearing in July 1996 despite the fact that they had been provided with information from the applicant that he was detained in Konya Prison. The Government stated that Hikmet Aksoy was served with the summons for the hearing to take place before the delegates on 20 November 1996 but that he refused to sign the acknowledgment of service and was released from prison on 18 November 1996. The Government failed to provide the Commission with any explanation as to the timing and reason for his release. Aydın Tekin had informed the Commission by letter that he had no direct or indirect knowledge of the incident and that he did not consider himself obliged to attend. At the hearing in July 1996, the Government Agent explained to the delegates that they were unable to require public prosecutors to attend, nor could they oblige a senior officer such as Eşref Hatipoğlu to attend either. The Commission made a finding in its report (at paragraph 245) that the Government had fallen short of their obligations under former Article 28 § 1 (a) of the Convention to furnish all the necessary facilities to the Commission in its task of establishing the facts. It referred to (i) the Government’s failure to provide the Commission’s delegates with the opportunity to view original custody records (see paragraph 24 above); (ii) the Government’s failure to facilitate the attendance of the witness Hikmet Aksoy; (iii) the Government’s failure to secure the attendance of the witnesses Aydın Tekin and Eşref Hatipoğlu. 44. In relation to the oral evidence, the Commission was aware of the difficulties attached to assessing evidence obtained orally through interpreters. It therefore paid careful attention to the meaning and significance which should be attributed to the statements made by witnesses appearing before its delegates. In a case where there were contradictory and conflicting factual accounts of events, the Commission particularly regretted the absence of a thorough domestic judicial examination. It was aware of its own limitations as a first-instance tribunal of fact. In addition to the problem of language adverted to above, there was also an inevitable lack of detailed and direct familiarity with the conditions pertaining in the region. Moreover, the Commission had no power to compel witnesses to appear and testify. In the present case, while seventeen witnesses had been summoned to appear, only eleven gave evidence. The lack of documentary materials is adverted to above. The Commission was therefore faced with the difficult task of determining events in the absence of potentially significant testimony and evidence. The Commission’s findings may be summarised as follows. 45. Çitlibhaçe was in a district where terrorist activity was intense in 1993. On or about 23 October 1993, members of the PKK kidnapped five teachers, an imam and the imam’s brother, Abdullah Cebeci, from the village of Dadaş and marched them across country, passing near the village of Bağlan. Mustafa Engin was required to shelter one of the teachers, who was of Kurdish origin, overnight before allowing him to leave. The PKK shot and killed the remaining four teachers and the imam, while Abdullah Cebeci, though wounded, was able to reach safety. He gave the gendarmes at Lice gendarmerie headquarters descriptions of the persons whom he had seen, including the villagers who had brought food and stood guard. Bağlan was a village under the jurisdiction of Lice gendarmes. The kidnap victims had also passed close to the village of Çitlibahçe, less than a kilometre from Bağlan, but which was under the jurisdiction of the Hazro gendarmes. 46. The gendarmes from Hazro and Lice conducted a coordinated operation on 8 November 1993. This operation concerned the collecting of evidence and information relating to the kidnapping and murder and the apprehension of persons suspected of involvement. Ertan Altınoluk was in command of the gendarmes from Hazro. The operation order drawn up by him on 7 November 1993 indicated that the purpose of the operation was the capture of PKK terrorists and their collaborators and the destruction of shelters, and it named Çitlibahçe as the place of the operation. The Commission rejected the testimony of Ertan Altınoluk that they were not looking for Ahmet Çakıcı when they went to Çitlibahçe. The delegates assessed his evidence as evasive and unhelpful, and demonstrating a lack of sincerity. The Commission had regard to the evidence from two other gendarmes that Ahmet Çakıcı was already wanted by the authorities in relation to suspected PKK involvement before this operation and found that in all probability the Hazro gendarmes went to Çitlibahçe with the intention of locating and apprehending Ahmet Çakıcı in relation to the kidnapping incident. 47. The Commission assessed the evidence of the witnesses from the village, Remziye Çakıcı, Fevzi Okatan and Mehmet Bitgin, who stated that they saw Ahmet Çakıcı being taken from the village by the gendarmes, as being on the whole consistent, credible and convincing. They found the Government’s objections to their credibility to be unfounded on examination. Accordingly, the Commission found that when the gendarmes arrived in Çitlibahçe on 8 November 1993, Ahmet Çakıcı attempted to hide but was found and taken from the village in custody by the Hazro gendarmes. Meanwhile, in Bağlan village, the Lice gendarmes took into detention three individuals, Mustafa Engin, Abdurrahman Al and Tahsin Demirbaş. 48. Mustafa Engin, Abdurrahman Al and Tahsin Demirbaş were taken to Lice gendarmerie headquarters where they spent the night. They were not entered into the custody records. The next day, on 9 November 1993, they were taken to Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie headquarters, where entries in the custody record stated that they had been detained on that day. 49. The Hazro gendarmerie station custody record made no entry on 8 November with respect to Ahmet Çakıcı. Nor did the copies of the entries for the period November to December 1993 at the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie headquarters. The Commission examined in detail the entries for both. It found disturbing discrepancies. In particular, it found that entries were not in sequential or chronological order; that all the entries in the Diyarbakır custody record were in the same handwriting; and that the number of persons recorded as detained in Diyarbakır exceeded the officially available number of cells. This gave rise, inter alia, to a strong suspicion that entries were not made contemporaneously. The oral explanations of Ahmet Katmerkaya, who was responsible for the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie records, were found by the Commission to be highly unsatisfactory, indicating that an entry in the register did not necessarily indicate the physical presence of a suspect and that no entries were made to reflect the movements of suspects in and out of the custody area. It concluded that the record did not constitute an accurate or comprehensive record of the persons who might have been detained over that period and the absence of Ahmet Çakıcı’s name in the Hazro and Diyarbakır records was not sufficient to prove that he had not been taken into custody. 50. The Commission accepted the oral evidence of Mustafa Engin, who stated that while he was detained at Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie headquarters he saw and spoke to Ahmet Çakıcı, who was detained over a period of sixteen to seventeen days in the same room. It also accepted his evidence that Ahmet Çakıcı looked in a bad condition, with dried blood on his clothes, and that Ahmet Çakıcı had told him that he had been beaten, one of his ribs broken, his head split open and that he had been given electric shocks twice. Supporting evidence for the fact that Ahmet Çakıcı had been detained and ill-treated was to be found in the written statement of Abdurrahman Al, taken by the HRA. The Commission gave consideration to the written statements made by Mustafa Engin and relied on by the Government as undermining his oral testimony. It found the first statement taken from Mustafa Engin by a police officer on 12 March 1996 to be a brief and imprecise denial. The statement taken by a public prosecutor on 13 May 1996 was also brief and contained contradictory and ambiguous phrasing. It concluded that this statement was not a full and frank reflection of Mustafa Engin’s testimony and did not destroy the credibility of his evidence to the delegates. It accordingly found it established that Ahmet Çakıcı was taken after his apprehension at Çitlibahçe to Hazro where he spent the night of 8 November 1993 and that he was transferred to Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie headquarters where he was last seen by Mustafa Engin on or about 2 December when the latter was released. 51. The Commission made no findings as to the allegation made by the applicant that Ahmet Çakıcı was taken from Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie headquarters to Hazro and from Hazro to Kavaklıboğaz gendarmerie station. These allegations were based on oral statements made to the applicant by Hikmet Aksoy, who did not appear before the delegates and who had not produced any written statement. While there were some supporting elements, the Commission found that the evidence failed to reach the requisite standard of proof. 52. The family of Ahmet Çakıcı were not informed of his alleged death in a clash between the PKK and the security forces on 17 to 19 February 1995. Although Colonel Eşref Hatipoğlu had been requested to provide the authorities with information as to the whereabouts of Ahmet Çakıcı, he made no official report as to the alleged finding of Ahmet Çakıcı’s identity card on the body of one of the dead terrorists at Kıllıboğan Hill. The first report as to the finding of the identity card was made by the Hazro gendarmes, who had been passed information that the clash had occurred, accompanied by unspecified documents, by Colonel Hatipoğlu. There were however no documents provided to the Commission relating to the identification of the body or release of the body for burial. The Commission was not prepared to find it established that Ahmet Çakıcı was killed as alleged or that his body was amongst those found at Kıllıboğan Hill. 53. The Commission found that the applicant and his father, Tevfik Çakıcı, made petitions and enquiries to the National Security Court prosecutor at Diyarbakır in relation to the disappearance of Ahmet Çakıcı. The only steps taken by the authorities were to verify whether the National Security Court records contained the name of Ahmet Çakıcı and for an enquiry to be sent to the Hazro public prosecutor, who examined his records. 54. Following communication of the application to the Government, further enquiries were made by the Diyarbakır and Hazro public prosecutors. Statements were taken from Mustafa Engin, Remziye Çakıcı and the applicant. The addresses of Tahsin Demirbaş and Abdurrahman Al were not discovered. The Commission found that the Hazro public prosecutor made enquiries from the Hazro district gendarmerie as to their alleged apprehension of Ahmet Çakıcı but that he did not inspect the original custody record. Nor was any inspection carried out by a public prosecutor of the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie custody records. No steps were taken to verify the information submitted by the Hazro district gendarmerie that Ahmet Çakıcı was amongst the dead terrorists at Kıllıboğan Hill. 55. In reaching his decision of lack of jurisdiction of 13 June 1996, the Hazro public prosecutor had available to him the statements taken from Mustafa Engin, Remziye Çakıcı and the applicant and the information from the Hazro gendarmerie with regard to the alleged discovery of Ahmet Çakıcı’s body. He also may have had documents relating to the applicant’s application to the Commission and copies of custody records. 56. The Government have not submitted in their memorial any details on domestic legal provisions which have a bearing on the circumstances of this case. The Court refers to the overview of domestic law derived from previous submissions in other cases, in particular the Kurt v. Turkey judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, pp. 1169-70, §§ 56-62, and the Tekin v. Turkey judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, pp. 1512-13, §§ 25-29. 57. Since approximately 1985, serious disturbances have raged in the south-east of Turkey between the security forces and the members of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). This confrontation has, according to the Government, claimed the lives of thousands of civilians and members of the security forces. 58. Two principal decrees relating to the south-eastern region have been made under the Law on the State of Emergency (Law no. 2935, 25 October 1983). The first, Decree no. 285 (10 July 1987), established a regional governorship of the state of emergency in ten of the eleven provinces of south-eastern Turkey. Under Article 4 (b) and (d) of the decree, all private and public security forces and the Gendarmerie Public Peace Command are at the disposal of the regional governor. 59. The second, Decree no. 430 (16 December 1990), reinforced the powers of the regional governor, for example to order transfers out of the region of public officials and employees, including judges and prosecutors, and provided in Article 8: “No criminal, financial or legal responsibility may be claimed against the state of emergency regional governor or a provincial governor within a state of emergency region in respect of their decisions or acts connected with the exercise of the powers entrusted to them by this Decree, and no application shall be made to any judicial authority to this end. This is without prejudice to the rights of individuals to claim indemnity from the State for damage suffered by them without justification.” 60. Article 125 §§ 1 and 7 of the Turkish Constitution provides as follows: “All acts or decisions of the administration are subject to judicial review ... … The administration shall be liable to make reparation for any damage caused by its own acts and measures.” 61. This provision is not subject to any restrictions even in a state of emergency or war. The latter requirement of the provision does not necessarily require proof of the existence of any fault on the part of the administration, whose liability is of an absolute, objective nature, based on the theory of “social risk”. Thus, the administration may indemnify people who have suffered damage from acts committed by unknown or terrorist authors when the State may be said to have failed in its duty to maintain public order and safety, or in its duty to safeguard individual life and property. 62. Proceedings against the administration may be brought before the administrative courts, whose proceedings are in writing. 63. The Turkish Criminal Code makes it a criminal offence: – to deprive an individual unlawfully of his or her liberty (Article 179 generally, Article 181 in respect of civil servants); – to issue threats (Article 191); – to subject an individual to torture or ill-treatment (Articles 243 and 245); – to commit unintentional homicide (Articles 452, 459), intentional homicide (Article 448) and murder (Article 450). 64. For all these offences complaints may be lodged, pursuant to Articles 151 and 153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the public prosecutor or the local administrative authorities. A public prosecutor who is informed by any means whatsoever of a situation that gives rise to the suspicion that an offence has been committed is obliged to investigate the facts in order to decide whether or not to bring a prosecution (Article 153). Complaints may be made in writing or orally. A complainant may appeal against the decision of the public prosecutor not to institute criminal proceedings. 65. Any illegal act by civil servants, be it a crime or a tort, which causes material or moral damage may be the subject of a claim for compensation before the ordinary civil courts. Pursuant to Article 41 of the Code of Obligations, an injured person may file a claim for compensation against an alleged perpetrator who has caused damage in an unlawful manner whether wilfully, negligently or imprudently. Pecuniary loss may be compensated by the civil courts pursuant to Article 46 of the Code of Obligations and non-pecuniary or moral damages awarded under Article 47. 66. In the case of alleged terrorist offences, the public prosecutor is deprived of jurisdiction in favour of a separate system of national security prosecutors and courts established throughout Turkey. 67. The public prosecutor is also deprived of jurisdiction with regard to offences alleged against members of the security forces in the state of emergency region. Decree no. 285, Article 4 § 1, provides that all security forces under the command of the regional governor (see paragraph 58 above) shall be subject, in respect of acts performed in the course of their duties, to the Law of 1914 on the prosecution of civil servants. Thus, any prosecutor who receives a complaint alleging a criminal act by a member of the security forces must make a decision of non-jurisdiction and transfer the file to the Administrative Council. These councils are made up of civil servants, chaired by the governor. A decision by the Council not to prosecute is subject to an automatic appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court. Once a decision to prosecute has been taken, it is for the public prosecutor to investigate the case.