TEPE/TÜRKİYE DAVASI

CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FORMER SECOND SECTION CASE OF TEPE v. TURKEY (Application no. 27244/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 9 May 2003 FINAL 09/08/2003 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

TEPE v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Tepe v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Mr C.L. ROZAKIS, President, Mr A.B. BAKA, Mr P. LORENZEN, Mr M. FISCHBACH, Mrs M. TSATSA-NIKOLOVSKA, Mr E. LEVITS, judges, Mr F. GÖLCÜKLÜ, ad hoc judge, and Mr E. FRIBERGH, Deputy Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 10 February 2000 and on 10 April 2003, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 27244/95) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, İsak Tepe (“the applicant”), on 4 May 1995. 2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented before the Court by Mr Philip Leach, a lawyer attached to the Kurdish Human Rights Project in London. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court. 3. The applicant alleged that his son had been tortured and killed following his abduction by undercover agents of the State and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into his death. He relied on Articles 2, 3, 5, 10, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention. 4. The application was declared admissible by the Commission on 25 November 1996 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1999 in accordance with Article 5 § 3, second sentence, of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the Commission not having completed its examination of the case by that date. 5. The application was allocated to the Second Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1 of the Rules of Court. Mr Türmen, the judge elected in respect of Turkey, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28).

2 TEPE v. TURKEY JUDGMENT The Government accordingly appointed Mr F. Gölcüklü to sit as an ad hoc judge to sit in his place (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1). 6. The Court, having regard to the factual dispute between the parties over the circumstances surrounding the death of the applicant’s son, conducted an investigation pursuant to Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court appointed three delegates to take evidence from witnesses at hearings conducted in Ankara betwee...