AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 35962/97
by Kemal GÖMİ and Others
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29 April 2003 as a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mrs F. Tulkens,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mr P. Lorenzen,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mr V. Zagrebelsky, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 25 December 1996,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicants, whose names appear in the appendix, are Turkish nationals. Forty-nine of the applicants were detained at the Ümraniye and Bayrampaşa Prisons in İstanbul at the time of the application. Nine of the applicants are the relatives of prisoners who died following the events of 4 January 1996. They are represented before the Court by Mr Metin Narin, Mr Ahmet Düzgün, Mr Efkan Bolaç and Mr Behiç Aşçı from the İstanbul Bar Association, Mr Zeki Rüzgar from the Ankara Bar Association and Ms Filiz Bozoğlu from the Zonguldak Bar Association.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Facts as presented by the applicants
On 21 July 1995, the Ümraniye Prison in İstanbul began to receive detainees convicted of crimes against public order. From the beginning, the detainees, including the applicants, were not permitted to see their families. They were not allowed to receive letters, newspapers or other publications. The prison wardens refused to hand over to the detainees food and clothes brought by their visitors. The detainees were allegedly beaten while being taken outside the prison. Their medical treatment was not followed through.
On 13 December 1995 wardens, gendarmes and police officers used truncheons and planks against the prisoners when the latter complained about prison conditions to the governors of Ümraniye Prison. More than seventy of the detainees were wounded as a result. The injuries were mostly to the head. The other 104 detainees who took fright, barricaded themselves in another dormitory and did not come out until the raid had ended. The police and gendarmes cut off the electricity and water supply to the dormitory. These detainees were then placed in six different dormitories. The medical treatment of the wounded prisoners was not followed through and this resulted in some prisoners suffering permanent disabilities.
The Üsküdar Public Prosecutor initiated an investigation against the detainees but did not file any complaint against the wardens, gendarmes and police officers following the incident.
On 4 January 1996 wardens, gendarmes and police officers once again used physical force against the detainees when they resisted one of the frequent searches. As a result of this incident four of the detainees (Mr Orhan Özen, Mr Abdülmecit Seçkin, Mr Rıza Boybaş and Mr Gültekin Beyhan) died and around sixty were severely injured. The injured detainees were taken to the Haydarpaşa Numune Hospital and Bayrampaşa Hospital for treatment.
On 5 January 1996 the Üsküdar Public Prosecutor wrote to the main medical board of Haydarpaşa Numune Hospital requesting the names of five of the injured detainees in order to enable their identification. The medical board informed the prosecutor that these persons were in the neurosurgery and reanimation department and could not talk because they were in a poor condition.
On the same date, the preliminary autopsy report delivered by the Faculty of Medicine of the University of İstanbul on Abdülmecit Seçkin and Orhan Özen stated the cause of their death to be “... the global effect of the collapse of the skull due to an acute head trauma, brain haemorrhage and haemorrhage of internal tissue under traumatic lesions ...”. The report also stated that there were many injuries on the bodies of the deceased and especially deep fractures of their heads which were 5 to 15 centimetres long.
On 6 January 1996 the Association of Human Rights wrote to the General Directorate of Prisons and Detention Centres about the events of 13 December 1995 and 4 January 1996. The report stated that, following interviews with certain detainees in dormitories D-3 and D-4, it appeared that the violent measures taken by the security forces resulted in the injury to and death of detainees. The report called for legal action to be taken against the persons responsible.
On 12 January 1996 the final autopsy reports delivered by the Faculty of Medicine of the University of İstanbul, on Abdülmecit Seçkin, Orhan Özen and Rıza Boybaş referred to multiple injuries to their heads and confirmed the cause of Abdülmecit Seçkin’s and Orhan Özen’s deaths as “... the global effect of the collapse of the skull due to an acute head trauma, brain haemorrhage and haemorrhage of internal tissue under traumatic lesions ...”. The cause of death of Rıza Boybaş was “the global effect of the collapse of the skull and facial bones due to an acute head and neck trauma, brain haemorrhage, dismemberment of brain tissue and haemorrhage in internal tissues due to traumatic lesions ...”. The applicants assert that the head of Rıza Boybaş was completed shattered.
On 16 February 1996 the reports of the Forensic Medicine Institute of Üsküdar indicated that 22 detainees were temporarily disabled for periods varying between one week and 45 days.
2. Facts as presented by the Government
a. Events of 13 December 1995
On 13 December 1995 at 4 p.m. the detainees in the Ümraniye Prison, members of the DHKP, an illegal organisation, broke down the doors of their dormitories nos. D-5 and D-6, and went out. The Prison Gendarmes Division Commander arrived on the scene. The Principal Public Prosecutor and the Ministry of Justice were also informed about the situation. In the ensuing five minutes, the prisoners attacked and wounded wardens and gendarme officers with iron bars which they had obtained from dismantling furniture in their dormitories. The gendarme officers withdrew until the arrival of additional forces. Meanwhile, the prisoners broke down all the doors and took other prisoners with them.
While the security forces were discussing how they would deal with the situation, they were informed that the rebels were carrying materials such as sugar sacks, gas pipes and beds.
Two wardens were rescued from a dormitory where they had taken refuge at about 7.45 p.m.
After the arrival of firemen and before starting their operation, security forces warned the prisoners that they should surrender and return to their dormitories, and pointed out that they would be responsible for the consequences of their acts and conduct. The prisoners were then given ten minutes to end their insurrection. Having understood that the warnings were to no avail, the security forces entered the dormitories and encountered a barricade. At 9.35 p.m. tear gas bombs was thrown inside. The dormitories of Block C (nos. 4, 8, 9 and 10) were on fire. The investigation revealed that prisoners had set fire to wooden doors, the eds in the courtyard and the corridor of Block D. Security forces had to force open the door of Block C which had been blocked by the barricade. The firemen started to spray water to stop the riot. The security forces threatened to cut off the water supply.
When the security forces gained control of the upper corridor and moved from Block C to the ground floor, the prisoners managed to hide in dormitories D-1 and D-2. Around 4 a.m., the security forces entered dormitories D-1 and D-2 and stopped the rebels.
Barricades were blocking the entrance to the dormitories. When the security forces tried to remove a barricade, the prisoners moved through the common courtyard, entered dormitory C-3 and started to construct another barricade. On their arrival at this dormitory, the security forces noticed that prisoners were in possession of sharp instruments and were about to attack them. The Commander of the Provincial Gendarmes Regiment was informed about the situation and ordered the operation to be halted.
The Ministry of Justice informed lawyers of the Human Rights Administration. The lawyers came and met the rebel prisoners. The prisoners stopped the riot. The main group of rebels numbering 56 prisoners was divided into 3 groups and placed in three different dormitories.
b. Events of 4 January 1996
The gendarme officers and the director of the prison arrived at Ümraniye E-type closed prison to conduct a general search. As the gendarmes took the necessary measures in the corridor to start the search, beginning with dormitories B-1, C-1 and C-9, prisoners blocked the entrance with the aim of preventing the search. They launched an attack, using iron bars, pieces of broken glass and concrete.
At the same time, gendarme officers entered dormitories B-1, C-1 and C-9. A gendarme officer was taken hostage while trying to remove the barricade at the entrance to dormitory C-1. Following this incident, the gendarmes responsible for the security of dormitory C-9 were sent to dormitory C-1 in support of the security forces. The barricade was removed and the hostage was rescued. Meanwhile, a gendarme expert sergeant, twenty non-commissioned officers and privates and ten wardens were wounded by sharp instruments, pieces of concrete and iron bars thrown by prisoners. The prisoners were overcome. Thirty-six of them were wounded.
Some of the wounded were taken to Haydarpaşa Military Hospital and Bayrampaşa State Hospital and the search of the dormitories was completed.
Following the search, three men’s wigs (two black and one brown), the flag of an illegal organisation with the hammer and sickle symbol on it as well as another piece of red cloth with the sickle symbol, slogans written on a white piece of cloth, one kilo of paint, a receipt prepared for the illegal organisation and an approximately 1 metre long iron bar were found in dormitory B-1.
12 iron bars taken from bunk beds and windows, 5 pipes from the heating installation and flags of some illegal organisations and banners were found in dormitory C-1.
3. Materials submitted by the applicants and the Government to the Court in support of their respective assertions
a. Materials submitted by the applicants
On 17 August 1999, medical reports concerning some of the applicants were submitted to the Court. The applicants contend that the medical treatment the injured prisoners received was insufficient and assert that this lack of care resulted in permanent disabilities. Medical reports by the prison doctor concerning the state of health of three of the injured applicants following the events state that :
- the state of health of the applicant, Akın Durmaz, gave rise to concern. A wound on his left eye prevented him from seeing, his left ear was bleeding. He was unconscious and had many injuries all over his body. As he was forced to leave the hospital at an early stage of his treatment, he is now unable to remember when the event occurred;
- the applicant, Cengiz Çalıkoparan had injuries to the brain, his left eye and his back. The tomography showed that his skull had collapsed. His lungs were seriuosly injured and unable to function properly. His medical treatment was not completed and, as a result, he had breathing, vision and speaking problems which were not properly treated;
- the applicant Süleymen Acar had lost consciousness when being taken to the hospital. He had many injuries all over his body and his skull had collapsed. Although his state of health required urgent medical treatment, he was not allowed to attend appointments with doctors and, as a result, suffers from serious health problems.
The applicants draw the attention of the Court to the nature of the wounds, their concentration in the upper part of the body, especially in the head, and allege that the security forces used excessive violence.
b. Materials submitted by the Government
The Government submitted to the Court articles written before the aforementioned events took place. An article dated 2 December 1995 reads as follows:
“... we will be winning again in new trenches. ... We won the victory, obtained our rights and we are moving forward to new victories ... the revolutionary convicts of the Ümraniye Prison ... were sent to Sağmalcılar Prison as a result of their boycott; ... we sent 48 companions to conquer the enemies ... they will make the Ümraniye Prison a school for our war ...”.
Based on these articles, the Government assert that the riots were not a coincidence but were, on the contrary, planned. The Government also draw attention to press releases in which the riots were explained in detail from the viewpoint of the prisoners of the Ümraniye Prison.
4. Proceedings before the domestic authorities
a. Proceedings initiated by the applicants
The applicants, along with other prisoners, filed a criminal complaint with the Üsküdar Public Prosecutor (“the public prosecutor”) against those responsible for the assault. In their complaint they contended that, on 4 January 1996, when the detainees resisted one of the frequent searches, gendarmes and police officers used physical force against them. As a result, 45 detainees and 20 gendarmes were wounded. They further submitted that four of the detainees died during this incident.
On 29 February 1996 the public prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction as regards the criminal liability of the police officers and the gendarmes involved in the incidents and transferred the file to the İstanbul Governor according to the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants.
In his decision of 1 March 1996, the public prosecutor stated that, following the incidents in Ümraniye Prison between 13 and 15 December 1995, the governors and wardens of the prison ordered a general search of the prison. They requested that gendarmes be present during this search for safety reasons. The public prosecutor submitted that when the wardens started the search, the prisoners resisted and attacked them and that the gendarmes intervened at this stage to quell the riot. Consequently, he decided not to start criminal proceedings against the governors and wardens of Ümraniye Prison on the ground that there was no evidence to prove their responsibility for the deaths and injuries which occurred.
The applicants filed an objection challenging this decision with the Kadıköy Assize Court. On 24 May 1996 the court rejected their objections. This decision was served on the applicants on 29 May 1996.
The investigation, which is being conducted by the administrative authorities against the police officers and the gendarmes, is still pending.
b. Proceedings against the applicants
On 15 March 1996 the chief public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings before the Üsküdar Criminal Court against the applicants and other detainees from Ümraniye Prison, charging them with collective revolt against the prison administration.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The principles and procedures relating to liability for acts contrary to the law and to the duties and responsibilities of the members of the Gendarmerie may be summarised as follows.
1. Criminal prosecutions
Under the Turkish Criminal Code (TCC) all forms of homicide (Articles 448 to 455) and attempted homicide (Articles 61 and 62) constitute criminal offences. It is also an offence for a State employee to subject anyone to torture or ill-treatment (Article 243 in respect of torture and Article 245 in respect of ill-treatment). The authorities’ obligations in respect of conducting a preliminary investigation into acts or omissions capable of constituting such offences that have been brought to their attention are governed by Articles 151 to 153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Offences may be reported to the authorities or the security forces as well as to public prosecutors’ offices. The complaint may be made in writing or orally. If it is made orally, the authority must make a record of it (Article 151).
If the suspected offender is a civil servant and if the offence was committed during the performance of his duties, the preliminary investigation of the case is governed by the Law of 1914 on the prosecution of civil servants, which restricts the public prosecutor’s jurisdiction ratione personae at that stage of the proceedings. In such cases it is for the relevant local administrative council (for the district or province, depending on the suspect’s status) to conduct the preliminary investigation and, consequently, to decide whether to prosecute. Once a decision to prosecute has been taken, it is for the public prosecutor to investigate the case.
An appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court lies against a decision of the council. If a decision not to prosecute is taken, the case is automatically referred to that court.
2. Civil and administrative liability arising out of criminal offences
Under section 13 of Law no. 2577 on administrative procedure, anyone who sustains damage as a result of an act by the authorities may, within one year after the alleged act was committed, claim compensation from them. If the claim is rejected in whole or in part or if no reply is received within sixty days, the victim may bring administrative proceedings.
Article 125 §§ 1 and 7 of the Constitution provides:
“All acts or decisions of the authorities are subject to judicial review ...
The authorities shall be liable to make reparation for all damage caused by their acts or measures.”
That provision establishes the State’s strict liability, which comes into play if it is shown that in the circumstances of a particular case the State has failed in its obligation to maintain public order, ensure public safety or protect people’s lives or property, without it being necessary to show a tortious act attributable to the authorities. Under these rules, the authorities may therefore be held liable to compensate anyone who has sustained loss as a result of acts committed by unidentified persons.
Under the Code of Obligations, anyone who suffers damage as a result of an illegal or tortious act may bring an action for damages (Articles 41 to 46) and non-pecuniary loss (Article 47). The civil courts are not bound by either the findings or the verdict of the criminal court on the issue of the defendant’s guilt (Article 53).
However, under section 13 of Law no. 657 on State employees, anyone who has sustained loss as a result of an act done in the performance of duties governed by public law may, in principle, only bring an action against the authority by whom the civil servant concerned is employed and not directly against the civil servant (see Article 129 § 5 of the Constitution and Articles 55 and 100 of the Code of Obligations). That is not, however, an absolute rule. When an act is found to be illegal or tortious and, consequently, is no longer an “administrative” act or deed, the civil courts may allow a claim for damages to be made against the official concerned, without prejudice to the victim’s right to bring an action against the authority on the basis of its joint liability as the official’s employer (Article 50 of the Code of Obligations).
3. The rules concerning duties and authorities of the gendarmerie
According to Article 7/a of the Law on the Organisation, Duties and Authorities of the Gendarmerie, the civilian duties of the latter are :
“... to provide, protect and observe safety and public security and public order; to prevent, pursue and investigate smuggling; to take and implement necessary measures for prevention of crime; to provide external protection for penal execution institutions and places of detention.”
Article 11 of this law regulates the use of firearms by the gendarmerie. In accordance with this article, a gendarme has the authority to use a gun depending on the characteristics and necessity of the service and the duty.
Article 65 § 2 of the Regulation on the Organisation, Duties and Authorities of the Gendarmerie reads as follows:
“...The duties of the gendarmerie, assigned to the protection of penal execution institutions and places of detention, consist of taking measures for their external security and protection and preventing detainees and prisoners from fleeing. Meetings or contacts with detainees or prisoners, interference with the internal running of the penal execution institution and places of detention by gendarmerie are prohibited. In the event of a general revolt or anarchy in a penal execution institution or place of detention, which cannot be quelled by those on duty, at the request of the director or his deputy or the wardens of the penal execution institution or place of detention, the gendarmerie shall intervene and secure [order].”
According to Article 39 k), the use of firearms is permitted for quelling a riot at prisons and detention places. According to Article 40, before having resort to firearms, a gendarme should use clubs, smoke and tear gas bombs.
The applicants Mr Salih Boybaş, Mr Hasan Boybaş, Mrs Şehzade Öztürk, Mr Mehmet Özen, Mrs Elif Özen, Mr Hamayil Beyhan, Mrs Zülfü Beyhan, Mr Selim Seçkin and Mrs Sultan Seçkin, who are relatives of the four prisoners who died as a result of the incidents on 4 January 1996, complain that the death of their relatives in prison constituted a deprivation of life in contravention of Article 2 of the Convention. They submit that the use of force by State agents was not justified under Article 2 § 2 of the Convention.
The other applicants who were detained in Ümraniye Prison at the time of the incidents, complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were subjected to inhuman treatment by State agents. They allege that they were badly beaten on 13 December 1995 and on 4 January 1996.
All applicants submit that the investigations into their complaints were not thorough; nor were they conducted by independent authorities. They allege that the investigations in question suffered from various serious shortcomings. They also allege that pressure was exerted on them and that some of them were arrested. They invoke Article 6 of the Convention in this respect.
A. Arguments before the Court
a. The Government
The Government assert that the applicants should have exhausted the domestic legal remedies governing claims for compensation. The applicants could have made a claim for damages in the administrative courts pursuant to Articles 125 and 129 of the Constitution as well as Law no. 2577 on administrative procedure. Arguing that civil and criminal courts act separately and autonomously in deciding claims for compensation, the Government contend that the applicants could also have lodged a claim for compensation with an ordinary civil court on the basis of the Code of Obligations.
As to the merits of the case, the Government recall that paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Convention provides that the taking of life by a public authority may be permitted under limited and specific circumstances. The Government contend that when a prison is out of control and when there is a clear indication that a riot is going on, the gendarmes are legally obliged to quell the riot. Moreover, having regard to the legislation on the use of guns by the gendarmes, recourse to force was absolutely necessary in the circumstances of the case.
The Government further state that the detainees who were wounded as a result of the use of force received medical care. Four detainees died. However, the security forces did not intend to kill any of them. No guns were used by the gendarmes who only relied on clubs, smoke and tear gas bombs.
The Government also allege that there is no evidence as to the circumstances of the deaths of the four detainees. It might very well be possible that these four detainees were wounded as a result of their own attack on the gendarmes or because of the explosion of gas pipes.
The Government recall that the Üsküdar Public Prosecutor took steps in response to the applicants’ petitions and took non-prosecution and non-jurisdiction decisions in full compliance with the Law on the Prosecution of Civil servants.
The Government assert that the application is therefore manifestly ill-founded.
b. The applicants
The applicants did not comment in detail on the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies. They maintain that the public prosecutor only conducted a superficial investigation before taking the non-prosecution decision. Neither the detainees nor the other witnesses were interrogated. As for the public prosecutor’s non-jurisdiction decision regarding the criminal liability of the police officers and the gendarmes, the applicants stress that the procedure is still pending and that this is further proof of the ineffectiveness of the investigation.
Concerning the merits, the applicants dispute the Government’s arguments and submit that the wounded detainees did not receive adequate medical treatment. This resulted in some detainees being permanently disabled. They assert that one of the applicants, Oktay Karataş, was wounded on 13 December 1995. He was brought to the Haydarpaşa Numune Hospital the next day. The medical examination established that Oktay Karataş had been attacked on the head, many of his brain functions were damaged; he had lost his sense of hearing, was unable to walk steadily due to equilibrium problems and had difficulty in speaking. However, he was sent back to the prison. Between 22 December 1995 and 3 January 1996 the prison doctor several times prescribed his transfer to the Neurosurgery and Ear, Nose and Throat Departments of a hospital. However, he was never in effect brought before a doctor and his medical treatment was not pursued. His lawyers made the necessary appointments with the doctors, but the gendarme officers refused to take him to these appointments. He missed 15 appointments in February, March and April 1996 and, overall, a total of 22 appointments. These failings resulted in his deafness. He is presently unable to walk without help and is occasionally in great pain. The applicants maintain that the state of health of the other 48 applicants is similar. Their transfer to the hospital was delayed and they were obliged to leave the hospital before the end of their convalescence. They were taken to the hospital not in ambulances but in ordinary prison vehicles and were huddled together in these vehicles. On their way to the hospital, the wounded applicants were continuously beaten by gendarme officers and handcuffed to their beds in the hospital.
The applicants draw the attention of the Court to the cause of death of four detainees. The autopsy report established that their deaths were a result of “the global effect of the collapse of the skull due to an acute head trauma, brain haemorrhage and haemorrhaging of internal tissue under traumatic lesions”. No sharp instruments had been used. However, their skulls had collapsed and their internal tissues were bleeding. The detainees were in effect beaten to death. For the applicants, this was a clear indication that the security forces had intended to kill the detainees.
The applicants dispute the claim of the Government that the detainees attacked the security forces and provoked a revolt in the prison. They allege that the assault by the security forces was planned and intentional. They also assert that the poor conditions in Turkish prisons are widely known. The applicants contend that the requests of the detainees were justified and could have been met.
C. The Court’s assessment
As to the objections raised by the Government, the Court notes that Turkish law provides civil, administrative and criminal remedies in respect of illegal and criminal acts attributable to the State or its agents.
The Court observes that the applicants filed a criminal complaint with the Üsküdar Public Prosecutor against the gendarmes and police officers of Ümraniye Prison in respect of the killings and woundings which occurred on 4 January 1996. Following the decision of non-jurisdiction issued by the public prosecutor, the file was transferred to the İstanbul Governor pursuant to the Law on the Prosecution of civil Servants. The proceedings appear to be still pending before the competent administrative authorities.
The Court reiterates its position in this regard: recourse to the criminal law constitutes an adequate domestic remedy for allegations under Article 2 and 3 of the Convention and, in the circumstances of the case, an official complaint filed with the prosecutor’s office can be considered “effective” for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Parlak, Aktürk et Tay c. Turquie (dec.), no. 24942/94, 24943/94 et 25125/94, 9 January 2001).
In respect of an action in administrative law under Article 125 of the Constitution, the Court notes that this remedy is based on the strict liability of the State, in particular for the illegal acts of its agents, whose identification is not a prerequisite for bringing an action of this nature. However, the investigation, which the Contracting States are obliged by Articles 2 or 13 of the Convention to conduct in cases of fatal assault, has to be able to lead to the identification and punishment of those responsible. That obligation cannot be satisfied merely by awarding damages (see Yaşa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports p. 2431, § 74).
As regards a civil or an administrative action for compensation for damage sustained through illegal acts, the Court notes that pursuant to the Code of Obligations or Article 13 of Law no. 2577 on administrative procedure, a plaintiff in such actions must, in addition to establishing a causal link between the tort and the damage he or she has sustained, identify the person believed to have committed the tort. In the instant case, however, it appears that it is still unknown who was responsible for the acts complained of.
Consequently, the applicants who have filed a criminal complaint with the competent authority were not further required to bring the civil and administrative proceedings in question and the Government’s preliminary objection must be dismissed.
The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that the application raises complex issues of law and fact under Articles 2, 3, 6 and, in substance, 13 of the Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits. The Court concludes therefore that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established. It follows that the application should be declared admissible.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Deputy Registrar President
LIST OF THE APPLICANTS:
APPLICANTS WHO ARE RELATIVES TO THE DEAD DETAINEES
1. Salih BOYBAŞ, born in 1952 in Reşadiye.
2. Hasan BOYBAŞ, born in 1965 in Tokat.
3. Şehzade ÖZTÜRK, born in 1945 in Reşadiye.
4. Mehmet ÖZEN resident in Tunceli.
5. Elif ÖZEN resident in Tunceli.
6. Hamayil BEYHAN resident in Bursa.
7. Zülfü BEYHAN resident in Bursa.
8. Selim SEÇKİN resident in Bursa.
9. Sultan SEÇKİN resident Bursa.
APPLICANTS WHO WERE DETAINED AT THE ÜMRANİYE PRISON
10. Kemal GÖMİ, born in 1969 in Mardin.
11. Cengiz ÇALIKOPARAN, born in 1968 in Tekirdağ.
12. Akın DURMAZ, born in 1972 in Uşak.
13. Oktay KARATAŞ, born in 1962 in Ardahan.
14. Turan ADA, born in 1964 in Sivas.
15. Metin TURAN, born in 1967 in Trabzon.
16. Serdar KARAÇELİK, born in 1971 in Hınıs.
17. Süleyman METİN, born in 1956 in Sivas.
18. Asĸm ÖZDEMİR, born in 1967 in Kars.
19. Çetin DÖNMEZ, born in 1971 in Tokat.
20. İbrahim Halil ŞAHİN, born in 1968 in Şanlıurfa.
21. Mustafa ATALAY, born in 1956 in Uşak.
22. Mustafa GÖK, born in 1966 in Kayseri.
23. Ağa YILDIRIM, born in 1971 in İstanbul
24. Sezgin ÇELİK, born in 1966 in İstanbul.
25. Kenan TANDOĞAN, born in 1973 in Bingöl.
26. İzzet ÇETİN, born in 1974 in Sivas.
27. Hasan ÖZDEMİR, born in 1965 in Gönen.
28. Serdar YILDIRIM, born in 1970 in Erzincan.
29. İbrahim ERLER, born in 1972 in Ordu.
30. Nurettin ASLAN, born in 1965 in Tunceli.
31. Erdal KOÇ, born in 1970 in İstanbul.
32. Ümit GÜNGER, born in 1972 in Artvin.
33. Halil ACAR, born in 1973 in Gebze.
34. Halil ÖNDER, born in 1970 in Adana.
35. İbrahim YERLİKAYA, born in 1972 in Sivas.
36. Erol ARİKAN, born in 1962 in Balıkesir.
37. Kazĸm ARSLAN, born in 1955 in Sivas.
38. Süleyman ACAR, born in 1962 in Örencik.
39. Savaş KIRCAN, born in 1975 in İzmir.
40. İsmail BAHADIR, born in 1972 in Kütahya.
41. Ali Rıza DEMİR, born in 1973 in Adıyaman.
42. Barış PEHLİVAN, born in 1976 in İstanbul.
43. Malik KOPARAN, born in 1964 in Samsun.
44. İbrahim DALKAYA, born in 1966 in Malatya.
45. Rasim ÖZTAŞ, born in 1963 in Elazığ.
46. Feridun Yücel BATU, born in 1968 in Antalya.
47. Serdar ADALI, born in 1968 in Tunceli.
48. İsmail TOPKAYA, born in 1969 in Kars.
49. Ahmet ÖZDEMİR, born in 1970 in Sivas.
50. Ahmet GENÇ, born in 1974 in Bayburt.
51. Metin ŞİMŞEK, born in 1976 in Sivas.
52. Muharrem KARADEMİR, born in 1973 in Sivas.
53. Serhat AKTUĞ, born in 1970 in Eskişehir.
54. Levent NEVRUZ, born in 1974 in Sivas.
55. Akın OLGUN, born in 1975 in Sivas.
56. Ergül ACAR, born in 1972 in Tunceli.
57. Oktay YILDIRIM, born in 1974 in Bayburt.
58. Sadık EROĞLU, born in 1965 in Malatya.
GOMI and Others v. TURKEY DECISION
GOMI and Others v. TURKEY DECISION