Menteş and Others v Turkey: Village Destruction in Turkey
Kurdish Human Rights Project
Compte d’auteur
The IHD (insan Hakları Derneği) (Human Rights Association) was established in July 1986 with the purpose of promoting human rights and civil liberties in Turkey. It is a non-governmental organisation with nearly 16,000 members and 58 local branches around Turkey. One of the activities of the Diyarbakir branch of IHD of IHD is to assist individuals who have suffered a violation of their human rights to obtain a domestic remedy and if this fails, to assist them in applying to the European Commission of Human Rights. IHD staff have been arrested and subjected to intimidation on many occasions. Recently, on 12 May 1998, Akin Birdal, head of IHD in Ankara was shot in his office by unidentified gunmen. Depsit having been hit 6 times by bullets, his life is now out of danger. 2 Reports available from KHRP include:" Akduvar v Turkey, the story of Kurdish villagers seeking Justice in Europe", October 1996; "The destruction of villages in south east Turkey, 1996; "Aksoy v Turkey and Aydin v Turkey, a case report ...
The Kurdish Human Rights Project is an independent, non-political, non-governmental human rights organisation. It is committed to protecting the human rights of all persons living in the Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria and the former Soviet Union, irrespective of race, religion, sex, political persuasion, belief or opinion. It is a registered charity (Charity No. 1037236) and a company limited by guarantee registered in England.
medico international is an independent, humanitarian, non-governmental organisation based in Germany. It provides immediate medical aid in war zones, to refugees and those suffering in emergency situations. It struggles for human rights and intervenes when people are exposed to state repression.
Table of Contents
Foreword / I-II
Part I
Summary of the Case / 1
The Facts / 1
The facts as presented by the applicants / 1 Damage and losses / 2 The facts as presented by the Government / 3 The findings of fact of the Commission / 3 The findings of fact of the Court / 4 Map of the area where the incident occurred / 5
The Legal Proceedings / 6
Chronology of events and legal proceedings / 6 How to bring a case before the Commission and the Court / 7 What are investigation hearings? / 7
The Applicants’ complaints / 9
Table I - Summary and Outcome of the Complaints / 9 Article 8: Right to respect for private and family life and home / 10 Limitations under paragraph 2 of article 8 / 11 Article 3: Freedom from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment 12 Article 5(1): Right to liberty and security of the person / 13 Articles 6(1) and 13: Access to a court and right to an effective remedy / 13 Article 6 and 13: The debate / 16 Articles 6 and 13: The dissenting opinions / 17 Articles 14 and 18: Freedom from discrimination and permitted restrictions under the Convention / 17 Administrative practice / 18 Just satisfaction: Compensation under article 50 / 18 Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages / 19
Part II
Menteş v. Turkey in the Context of Village Evacuation and Destruction in south-east Turkey / 21
Part III
Admissibility decision of the European Commission of Human Rights. Decision of the European Commission of Human Rights (article 31 Report). Judgment on the merits of the European Court of Human Rights. Article 50 judgment (just satisfaction) of the European Court of Human Rights.
Part IV - Appendices
Appendix A - Extract of Report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography, Humanitarian Situation of the Kurdish Refugees and Displaced Persons in south-east Turkey and North Iraq, June 1998.
Appendix B - Turkish Parliamentary (Temporary) Committee, A Report by The Parliamentary (Temporary) Committee Established for Studying and Determining Necessary Measures to the Problems of Villagers Who Emigrated Because of Village Evacuations in the East and South-East, 1998.
FOREWORD
This report deals with the case of Menteş and Others v Turkey, a case which part of a series of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on the issues of Village Evacuations and Destruction in the Kurdish Region (south east) of Turkey.
When the Kurdish Human Rights Project (KHRP) initially submitted this case the Turkish Government disputed the facts and the European Commission had to conduct investigation hearings in Turkey where the arguments of both parties were heard and the witnesses cross-examined. This case took approximately 4 years from the initial application to the stage of being heard in the court. Finally the Commission and the Court were satisfied with the accounts of the applicant and delivered a judgment in favour of Mrs Menteş stating that the Turkish State Security Forces had attacked and destroyed the applicant's house ( as well as those of 2 of the 3 other applicants) and that the Turkish judicial system had failed to redress Mrs Menteş' complaint to this effect. This judgment like many others has an important significance for democracy and the Rule of Law in Turkey.
The KHRP has been involved with the Human Rights Association (IHD)1 of Turkey in bringing a large number of cases complaining of the most serious violations of human rights to the European Commission of Human Rights. According to the statistics of the European Commission and the Court, until 1993 there were very few cases brought against the state of Turkey, however, Turkey now ranks highest among the states with complaints registered against it. The European Court of Human Rights' first ruling was on the case of Akdivar v Turkey, also a 'village destruction' case in 1996 and the Court found the state of Turkey in breach of The European Convention.2
Since this judgements village destruction and evacuations have continued to occur in the Kurdish regions.
Despite these important judgments, the state of Turkey has not taken substantive steps to tackle the issue and resettle or compensate the millions of victims of their policy.
Turkey is bound to honour its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, however despite the number of judgments produced by the Court, its domestic legislation and jurisprudence are still in direct conflict with the rights set out by the Convention.
It is now time for the International Community to monitor the implementation of the Court's judgments.
We believe that it is the duty and obligation of the International Community to ensure that the Government of Turkey takes steps towards changing its state policy on the issue of village destruction and forced evacuation of villages and in general to respect the Rule of Law and fundamental human rights of the Kurds living in the regions.
The first part of the present report deals specifically with the case of Menteş and Others v Turkey and provides a legal analysis of the Commission's decision and the Court's judgment. The second part sets out the general backdrop to the decision and presents a study of the practice of village destruction and forced evacuation, particulary in south east Turkey. The admissibility decision, the Commission's article 31 report as well as the Court's judgment are annexed to the report.
Kerim Yildiz Executive Director, KHRP
Hans Brandscheidt Director, medico international.
1 The IHD (insan Hakları Derneği) (Human Rights Association) was established in July 1986 with the purpose of promoting human rights and civil liberties in Turkey. It is a non-governmental organisation with nearly 16,000 members and 58 local branches around Turkey. One of the activities of the Diyarbakir branch of IHD of IHD is to assist individuals who have suffered a violation of their human rights to obtain a domestic remedy and if this fails, to assist them in applying to the European Commission of Human Rights. IHD staff have been arrested and subjected to intimidation on many occasions. Recently, on 12 May 1998, Akin Birdal, head of IHD in Ankara was shot in his office by unidentified gunmen. Depsit having been hit 6 times by bullets, his life is now out of danger.
2 Reports available from KHRP include:" Akduvar v Turkey, the story of Kurdish villagers seeking Justice in Europe", October 1996; "The destruction of villages in south east Turkey, 1996; "Aksoy v Turkey and Aydin v Turkey, a case report on the practice of torture in Turkey", Vol. I and n, December 1997. To order any of these reports, please contact the Kurdish Human Rights Project, Publications Department, Suite 319, Linen Hall, 162-168 Regent Street, London W1R 5TB or telephone on (0171) 287 2772. Alternatively, any order can also be placed by fax by dialling (0171) 734 49 27. Publications list are also available on request.
Part I
Menteş and Others v. Turkey Azize Menteş, Mahile Turhallı, Sulhiye Turhallı, Sariye Uvat v. Turkey
Summary of the Case
On 28 November 1997, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) delivered its judgment in the case of Menteş and Others v. Turkey. The Court confirmed the European Commission of Human Rights’ (the Commission) decision in respect of articles 8 and 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention). It found a violation of article 8 with respect to the first three applicants (Azize Menteş, Mahile Turhallı and Sulhiye Turhallı) in that, on 25 June 1993, soldiers had set fire to the applicants’ houses and arbitrarily expelled them from their village. In addition, the Court found a violation of article 13 of the Convention with respect to the first three applicants on account of the failure of the state authorities to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the applicants’ allegations thereby undermining the exercise of any domestic remedies available to the applicants. As regards the fourth applicant, Sariye Uvat, neither the Commission nor the Court found any breach of the Convention.
The Facts The facts as presented by the applicants
The applicants are all Turkish nationals of Kurdish origin who lived in the hamlets of Sağgöze1, in the Genç district of the province of Bingöl in south-east Turkey. The first three applicants, Azize Menteş (aged 29 years), Mahile Turhallı (aged 49 years), and Sulhiye Turhallı (aged 56 years), lived in the lower neighbourhood in Sağgöze village and the fourth applicant, Sariye Uvat (aged 36 years), lived in Piroz, a hamlet of the village.
They stated that on 23 June 1993, an attack was carried out by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) on Üçdamlar gendarme station. The security forces carried out a followup operation in pursuit of those responsible and, on the evening of 24 June 1993, the security forces arrived in the area, surrounding Sağgöze village by helicopter. The following morning, gendarmes entered the village and assembled people from the upper neighborhood in the area in front of the school. Gendarmes in the lower part of Sağgöze village carried out a search and then proceeded to bum the houses. The gendarmes told the villagers they were burning village houses because they helped the …
1 In Turkey, several hamlets form a village. For instance, in this case the hamlet of Piroz where the fourth applicant lived is part of the village of Sağgöze. Villages are part of a district which itself is part of a province. In south-east Turkey, villages often have an older Kurdish or Ottoman name as well as a newer, official Turkish name. In this case, Sağgöze is the Turkish name and Riz the Kurdish name of the village.
Kurdish Human Rights Project
Menteş and Others v Turkey
Compte d’auteur
Copte d’auteur Menteş and Others v Turkey A KHRP Case Report on Village Destruction in Turkey Kurdish Human Rights Project
September 1998
KHRP Suite 319, Linen Hall, 162-168 Regent Street, London W1R 5TB,United Kingdom Tel / Fax: (0171) 287 2772 / 734 4927 E-mail: khrp@khrpdemon.co.uk Website: http://www.khrp.org
Registered Charity (No. 1037236) A Company Limited by guarantee registered in England
Kurdish Human Rights Project
Medico internationale.V. Published by the Kurdish Human Rights Project, London, September 1998, with the generous support of medico international, Obermainanlage 7, D-60314 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
ISBN: 1 900175 16 9 This report was written by Nathalie Boucly, KHRP legal officer; Carla Buckley, lawyer; and Jacob Jensen, acting Deputy Director of KHRP.
The Admissibility Decision, the Report of the European Commission of Human Rights and the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Menteş and Others v. Turkey can be obtained in their original form the European Commission and Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex, France. Telephone: (33) 3-88-41-20-24 Facsimile: (33)3-88-41-27-04 Website: http://www.dhcour.coe.ff
