(TRANSLAT[ON) THE FAC'TS The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicant M . F . and the applicant B . F. were born in 1958 mtd 1959 respectively at M .-P. (Turkey). They are of Turkisfi nationality and were living at Chur (Switzerland) at the time of the introduction of their application . They are represented by Mr . R. Weibel, a lawyer practising in Bern . The applicants are members of the Kurdish minority in Turkey . The applicant M . F . claims to have been prosecuted by the Turkish au[horities on acccwnt of his political activities . From 1974 to 1977 he was 2 member of Halkin Birligi (Onity of Ihe People) . He Ihen claims to have been associated with the KKP (Kurdish People's Party) . He attended meetings of the par4y and distributed leaflets . In August 1980 the applicant travelled to Switzerland, from where he was clepoated after a year on the grounds that he was working itlegally . After has return to Purkey, he was taken to the police station on about 15 occasions and fr+ed each titne after a few days throu.gh the intervention of his father . The applicants married in August 1982. The applicant M. F. left Turkey in September 1982 . After working illegally in Italy, he travelled to Switzerland on 21 Noventber 1983. On 22 November 1983 he applied for political asylum in Switzerland . 'The applicant E . F . left Turkey in December 1984 to join her husband in Switzerland . On 21 Deceinber 1984 she also applied for political asylum in Switzerland . She informed the aulhorities that she had nca been engaged in political activities in Turkey, but that her husband would be in danger r .n his ccmm:ry. 287 By decisions of 2 October 1985, the Federal Office of Police (Office fédéral de la police) rejected the two applications for asylum and ordered the applicants to leave Switzerland by 31 December 1985 . The decision concerning the applicant M. F. gives the following reasons "The applicant did not give a convincing account of the facts that he alleges in support of his application, in accordance with section 12 of the Asylum Act . A number of the essential facts that he alleges do not tally with the statements he made to the Immigration Department (police des étrangers), were not supported by evidence, amount to commonplaces, were submitted at an advattced stage in the asylum procedure and are contradictory . In particular, the applicant did not mention to the Immigration Department that he had been arrested. Before the Federal Office of Police he first talked of at least one arrest a week, then referred to about 15 arrests . His statements concerning the duration of these arrests varied and are contradictory . There are serious doubts as to his statements about his political activities. He informed the Immigration Department that he had been a member of the HBP (Party of the United People) since 1975 and that during his initial stay in Switzerland he had been in contact with the PKK group . He informed the Federal Office of Police that he was a supporter of the HBP, then a member of the KKP (Kurdish People's Party) . However, according to the information obtained by the Office, these party initials (HBP and KKP) do not exist . If he had really attended party meetings, he would at least remember their names . It is unlikely that someone claiming to have been sought by the authorities for his political activities could have returned in 1981, obtained a second passport without difficulty and again left Turkey shortly after his marriage in 1982 . He has already attempted to work illegally during his first stay in Switzerland and, after attempting to work illegally in Italy in 1983, returned to Switzerland . It is clear from his wife's statements that they travelled to Switzerland for economic reasons . " The applicants appealed against the decisions of 2 October 1985 . On 26 September 1986 the Federal Department of Justice and Police (Département fédéral de justice et police) dismissed the appeals and ordered the applicants to leave Switzerland by 15 November 1986 . The decision gives the following reasons, among others : "The Department draws attention to the definition of `refugee' (Section 3 of the Asylum Act) and points out that economic or occupational circumstances do not on any account justify the award of refugee status . The applicant must prove, or at least make a convincing statement of, his claim to be a refugee (section 12 of the Asylum Act) . The statement that Kurds have reason to fear . persecution in Turkey is not relevant as such . The asylum-seeker must give a convincing account of concrete steps taken to prosecute him. However, this requirement is not satisfied in the present case . The statements made on the 288 subject are unconvincitig and contradictory . The same applies to the statements concerning alleged prosecution . A judgment of the Adana military tribunal piroduced by the applicant cannot prove his alleged political activities, since it concerns a cousin of his and bears no relation to the applicant himself wirh regard to tho right of asyluny as he admitted himself on deciding to torego a translation of the said judgment . " On 3 November 1986 the applicants requested the Federal Deparhnent of Justice and Police to postpone their deportation until the European Commission of Human Riy_hts had ruled on the application they intended to introduce. They alleged that the appeal to the Department did not constitute an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Corvention . Cn 12 November 1986 the Head of the Federal Department of Justice and Police informed the applicants thai : the decision of 26 September 1986 was final. He expressed the op,nion that deporlation was not contrar) to Anicle 3 of the Conventiori . In addition, according to i:he case-law of the Federal Tribunal, appeal to the Federal Department of Justice and Police in matters of asylum complies with the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention. Lastly, an appli-ation to the Commission does not have suspensive effect, so that the applicants ntay await the Commission's decisioi while abroad . COMPLAINTS (Extract) The applicants [also] complain that, as a result of the refusal of the Federal Office of Police to grant them asylum, they had no effective remedy within the meaning of Articie 13 of the Convention . The appeal to the Federal Deparnment of Justice and Policce is not an effective remedy because the Depanment also has politicid duties to perform in matters relating to the right of asylum and because the Federal Office of Police is not independent of the Department . The applicants consider that in ntatters of asylum only an independent judicial authority should be competent to ensure respect for human rights . THE LAW (Extract) 2. The applicants allege that in matters relating to the tight of asylum they should have access to a court and that appeal to the Federal Department of Justice and Polic e 289 is not an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention, which provides that : "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity . " The Commission considers that it appears from the wording of Article 13, compared with that of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, that this provision does not necessarily require access to a court (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Golder judgment of 21 Febcuary 1975, Series A no . 18, para . 33). The provision requires that a person who claims to have been the victim of a violation of rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention should be able to apply to a national authority which is empowered to set aside the disputed measure if appropriate . Before the Federal Department of Justice and Police an appellant may allege a violation of federal law, including the Convention . The applicants allege that the fact that the Federal Office of Police is under the authority of the Federal Department of Justice and Police means that the two bodies are interdependent . On this point, the Commission finds that the fact that an appeal is lodged with a superior administrative authority does not suffice to show it to be ineffective . In Switzerland the Federal Office of Police has its own decision-making powers in matters of political asylum and the right of residence. Appeals to the Federal Department of Justice and Police are investigated independently by the Department's Appeals Section . The applicants have in no sense established that the Federal Department of Justice and Police, as an appeal body, simply endorses the Office's decisions on a regular-basis without independently conducting a further examination . In the present case, the reasons given for the Department's decision rather suggest the contrary . In addition, the Commission emphasises that this case is quite different from the Silver case, in which the Court considered that a petition to the Minister challenging the instructions he had issued himself would be ineffective (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Silver and others judgment of 15 March 1983, Series A no . 61, para. 116). In this case, on the contrary, the Federal Office of Police (first instance) and the Federal Department of Justice and Police (second instance) apply provisions (Asylum Act) enacted by Parliament . In the present case, therefore, there has clearly been no violation of the abovementioned provision . 290