Search
document

Document text Analytics

ANIK v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 30846/96 • ECHR ID: 001-4154

Document date: March 4, 1998

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

ANIK v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 30846/96 • ECHR ID: 001-4154

Document date: March 4, 1998

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 30846/96

by idris ANIK

against Turkey

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 4 March 1998, the following members being present:

MM J.-C. GEUS, President

M.A. NOWICKI

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

Mrs G.H. THUNE

MM F. MARTINEZ

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

A. ARABADJIEV

Ms M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 15 December 1995

by idris ANIK against Turkey and registered on 26 March 1996 under file

No. 30846/96;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, born in Sirnak, is a Turkish citizen resident in

Diyarbakir. He is represented before the Commission by Mr Hasip Kaplan

and Ms Merih Acar, lawyers practising in istanbul.

The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may

be summarised as follows.

On 28 March 1992 the applicant's daughter, B.A., was arrested and

taken into custody at the Security Directorate of Sirnak. She was

allegedly subjected to torture and later shot dead while in detention.

On 1 April 1992 the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the

Public Prosecutor of Sirnak against the security forces.

On 26 May 1992 the Public Prosecutor discharged the security

forces and terminated the proceedings on the grounds that there was no

evidence substantiating torture and as it appeared that the applicant's

daughter had committed suicide in her cell with a police rifle which

had been forgotten there.

On 28 May 1992 the decision of the Public Prosecutor not to

commit for trial was served on the applicant. On 12 June 1992 the

decision became final since no objection was raised against it.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains that his daughter was arrested on

28 March 1992 and killed while she was in police custody. He alleges

that his daughter's right to life and her right to security of person

have been violated in contravention of Articles 2 and 5 of the

Convention.

2. The applicant further submits that Articles 6 and 13 of the

Convention have been violated since there were no effective remedies

in domestic law.

3. Relying on the same facts, the applicant also submits that

Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention have been violated.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 15 December 1995 and registered

on 26 March 1996.

On 21 November 1997 the Commission, pursuant to Article 47

para. 2 (a) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to invite the respondent

Government to submit information with regard to the date on which the

Sirnak Public Prosecutor's decision dated 26 May 1992 not to commit for

trial was served on the applicant.

The Government's replied on 5 January 1998. They sent a document,

attached to their letter, which substantiates that the Sirnak Public

Prosecutor's decision was served on the applicant on 28 May 1992.

THE LAW

The applicant complains of the killing of his daughter by

security forces while in detention. He invokes Articles 2 (Art. 2) (the

right to life), 5 (Art. 5) (the right to security of person), 6

(Art. 6) (the right of access to a court), 13 (Art. 13) (the right to

effective remedies for Convention breaches), 14 (Art. 14) (the

prohibition of discrimination) and 18 (Art. 18) of the Convention (the

prohibition to impose restrictions authorised by the Convention for

ulterior purposes).

However, the Commission is not required to determine whether or

not the facts alleged by the applicant in the present case disclose any

appearance of a violation of the above provisions of the Convention as

the applicant has failed to submit his complaints to the Commission

within the six months time limit prescribed by Article 26 (Art. 26) of

the Convention.

The Commission notes that in the present case the Public

Prosecutor of Sirnak discharged the security forces and terminated the

proceedings on 26 May 1992. On 28 May 1992 the decision was served on

the applicant.

The application filed with the Commission on 15 December 1995

must therefore be considered as having been introduced after the expiry

of the six months time limit prescribed by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the

Convention and must accordingly be declared inadmissible under Article

27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER J.-C. GEUS

Secretary President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant