ÇAKICI v. TURKEY JUDGMENT
14
4. The investigation into the alleged disappearance of Ahmet Çakıcı
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.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
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.
A. State of emergency
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