FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Applications nos. 35072/97 and 37194/97 by Şaziment ŞİMŞEK and Others and Hakkı YILMAZ and Others against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 May 2004 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää , Mr R. Türmen , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mrs E. Fura-Sandström, judges , and Mr M. O'Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 7 February and 12 May 1997,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the applications 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 FACTS

The applicants, whose names appear in the appendix, are close relatives of the persons who were killed during demonstrations in Istanbul. They are represented before the Court by Mr S. KuÅŸkonmaz, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case are in dispute between the parties. The facts as presented by the applicants are contained in Section 1 below. The facts as presented by the Government are set out in Section 2.

The summaries of the proceedings concerning the Gazi and Ãœmraniye incidents are also given separately in Part B.

1. The facts as submitted by the applicants

Gazi Incidents

Gazi is a neighbourhood located within the GaziosmanpaÅŸa district in Istanbul. A majority of residents living in the Gazi neighbourhood belongs to the Alevi sect.

At around 9 p.m. on 12 March 1995 a group of unidentified persons opened gunfire from a taxi towards cafes and a patisserie situated in the Gazi neighbourhood. The shooting continued for approximately five minutes. An elderly person, called Halil Kaya, was killed and twenty-five persons were wounded. Many shops were also badly damaged during the firing. The perpetrators of the attack killed the driver of the taxi and fled.

Following this incident, residents of the neighbourhood gathered on the street outside the cafes and in front of the Cemevi [ A meeting place for Alevis for social and religious gatherings ] to protest against the indifference displayed by police officers after the shooting incident. People also gathered outside the hospitals, where injured people were being treated. At about midnight, the group, numbered in their thousands started marching towards the local police station. The police officers set up barricades with panzers and subsequently started attacking the group with their truncheons and the butts of their weapons.

At 4 a.m. on 13 March 1995 the Istanbul governor and the chief of police went to the Gaziosmanpasa governor's office and held a meeting with the community leaders to stop the incidents. The demonstrators began to calm down.

At that moment two panzers approached the demonstrators and began firing at them. As a result, Mehmet Gündüz was killed on the spot and 10 persons were injured.

In the morning of 13 March 1995 thousands of other people from the surrounding neighbourhoods joined the demonstrators. According to the applicants, there was no provocation by any terrorist organisation. Some of the demonstrators started throwing stones and coins at the police barricades.

At 11 a.m. police began firing from behind their barricades. Snipers were positioned on nearby buildings, who targetted the protesters. During this firing, Fadime Bingöl and Sezgin Engin were killed and a number of others were injured.

The killing of these three persons raised the tension and the demonstrators began advancing towards the police barricades at 2 p.m. Uniformed and plainclothes police officers, who had positioned themselves behind the barricades, on the side streets and on some of the buildings, fired intensively. For about twenty minutes the police officers chased a number of demonstrators who were trying to run away from the scene and shot them. Zeynep Poyraz, Dilek Şimşek Sevinç, Ali Yıldırım, Reis Kopal, Mümtaz Kaya, Fevzi Tunç, Hasan Sel, Hasan Gürgen, Dinçer Yılmaz and Hasan Ersürer were shot and killed. More than a hundred persons were injured. The police prevented the demonstrators from taking the wounded persons to hospital.

At 3.15 p.m. the same day, the police attacked the crowd who were attending the funerals of Halil Kaya and Mehmet Gündüz. Military reinforcements were further called to the area. The applicants state that the group did not protest against the soldiers.

At 4 p.m. a curfew was imposed in the area.

In total, fifteen persons, including the person in the café, Halil Kaya, and the taxi driver, were killed and 276 people were injured throughout the Gazi incidents.

Ãœmraniye Incidents

The incidents in the Gazi neighbourhood sparked widespread outrage throughout the country and a number of demonstrations were held in different parts of Turkey during which the actions of the police officers were condemned.

On 15 March 1995 a large crowd gathered in the Mustafa Kemal neighbourhood, located within the Ãœmraniye district in Istanbul. The group began marching in order to attend the funerals of those who had been killed during the Gazi incidents.

At 2.30 p.m. the same day, the crowd came across the barricades that had been set up by the police officers in a square outside a primary school. A number of demonstrators started throwing stones towards the barricades upon which, without any warning, uniformed and plainclothes police officers began firing at the crowd. No one in the group returned fire. None of the police officers were killed or injured. Hasan Puyan, İsmihan Yüksel, İsmail Baltacı, Genco Demir and Hakan Çabuk were killed during the firing. More than twenty people were injured.

2. The facts as submitted by the Government

The Government submit that upon receipt of information that some cafes in the Gazi neighbourhood were subjected to gunfire, police officers were sent to the scene of incident. When the police officers arrived in front of the cafes, they saw that a group of forty persons had gathered together, shouting slogans against the police. The group attacked the police vehicles and the police officers were unable to conduct an investigation. Therefore they called for reinforcement. Following the arrival of additional security forces, the police officers conducted an investigation and the wounded persons were sent to hospital. At the same time, some people from the neighbourhood joined the protesting group. Together, they started shouting slogans, and throwing coins and stones at the police officers. Some of the protesters had fire bombs in their hands. With the participation of other people from the neighbourhood, the group became larger and they started to march towards the Gazi Police Station. Many shops and vehicles were set on fire. Some masked men, who were amongst the group, threw fire bombs towards the police officers. In order to prevent the group from going further, the police officers built barricades. Security forces first warned the group verbally to stop. They then used pressurised water and batons to disperse the crowd. When they were not able to disperse them, they fired warning shots in the air. However the group continued to walk towards the security forces and attacked the panzers with fire bombs. The riot in the Gazi neighbourhood lasted for two days. At the end of the second day, a curfew was imposed in the area. During the riot, 16 people died and 195 persons (152 residents, 36 police officers, 7 soldiers) were wounded.

Following the incidents that took place on 12 March 1995, the security forces received intelligence reports about further possible riots in the Ümraniye area. In order to prevent any untoward occurrences, a meeting was organised on 14 March 1995 at the Ümraniye district security directorate building. The district director of security, the muhtar of the neighbourhood and the president of the Pir Sultan Abdal Association participated in the meeting which was presided over by the district governor. During the meeting, the situation was discussed and residents were requested not to be influenced by any provocation. In the morning of 15 March 1995, on threats from a terrorist organisation, all the shops in the neighbourhood closed down as a sign of protest. A second meeting was held to discuss the situation. At about 1 p.m. the same day, a group of 1,500 people gathered together in front of the Pir Sultan Abdal Association in the Mustafa Kemal neighbourhood and started to march towards the Örnek neighbourhood. The security forces announced that the march was illegal and requested the participants to disperse. The group started shouting slogans and continued to march. The number of people increased to 2,500. Some of the protesters were wearing red berets and scarves. Some people from the group threw stones and coins towards the security forces. As the tension increased, the group started to attack the security forces with bricks and stones. The security forces took precautions and established a security line. After some time, armed men amongst the group starting shooting towards the security forces and the crowd. The security forces fired warning shots in the air and the attack was thereby stopped. The wounded persons were taken immediately to the hospital. When the wounded persons were taken to the hospitals, the group continued shouting slogans and throwing stones from behind the shelters. Traffic was also halted by burning tyres. Military forces arrived at the incident scene, a curfew was established and the entrance of the neighbourhood was placed under strict control.

Following the incidents, the domestic authorities immediately commenced investigating the events. Several witness statements were taken, autopsies were conducted and the bullets recovered from the bodies of the wounded and dead persons were sent for ballistic examination. According to the ballistic reports, none of the bullets that were recovered from the bodies of the victims matched the weapons of the security forces who were on duty during the two incidents.

In accordance with Article 22 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act No. 3713, in April 1995 the families of the deceased persons were paid 150,000,000 Turkish Liras (equivalent to 3,600 US Dollars) by way of compensation from the Social Collaboration and Solidarity Encouragement Fund.

B. Domestic proceedings concerning the Gazi and Ãœmraniye incidents

Proceedings concerning the Gazi incidents

On 11 April 1995 a criminal complaint was filed with the Eyüp public prosecutor's office against the Ministry of Interior, the governor of Istanbul, the director of the Istanbul police headquarters and the police officers who were involved in the incidents of 13-15 May 1995 in the Gaziosmanpaşa District.

On 10 July 1995 the Eyüp public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Eyüp Assize Court in which twenty police officers who were on duty during the demonstrations between 12 and 13 May 1995 were named as defendants. The indictment involved the death of seven persons during the Gazi incidents.

Mukaddes Gündüz (wife of Mehmet Gündüz), Mustafa Tunç (Fevzi Tunç), Çiçek Yıldırım (mother of Ali Yıldırım), Cemal Poyraz (father of Zeynep Poyraz), Celal Sevinç (husband of Dilek Şimşek Sevinç), Ali Şimşek (father of Dilek Şimşek Sevinç), Hüseyin Kopal (father of Reis Kopal), Aslan Bingöl (husband of Fadime Bingöl) intervened to the proceedings.

On 13 July 1995 the Eyüp Assize Court decided to transfer the case to another court in another location for security reasons. The court noted that its location was very close to the vicinity where the incident had taken place.

On 15 August 1995 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Eyüp Assize Court and decided to transfer the case to the Trabzon Assize Court, approximately 1000 kilometres away from Istanbul.

On 11 September 1995 the Trabzon Assize Court held a preliminary hearing. The court decided to send letters rogatory to a number of courts to take statements from fifty eye-witnesses. It also decided to consider hearing at a later stage a further approximately 250 eye-witnesses. The court finally requested the public prosecutor to find the current addresses of the twenty accused police officers who, since the incident, had been posted elsewhere in the country. It adjourned the examination of the case until 15 November 1995.

On 15 November 1995 the Trabzon Assize Court stayed the trial on the ground that the indictment lacked the prior authorisation of the Istanbul Provincial Administrative Council to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers. The court therefore sent the case-file to the governor's office in Istanbul in accordance with the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants. The applicants filed an objection against this decision.

On 8 October 1996 the Court of Cassation decided that the decision of the Trabzon Assize Court staying the trial was not a final decision as such, and that an appeal against it could not be examined by the Court of Cassation. The prosecutor at the Court of Cassation appealed against this decision.

On 17 December 1996 the Joint Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal that had been lodged by the prosecutor and held that the Court of Cassation was not the competent court to examine this objection. Accordingly, it transferred the case to the Rize Assize Court.

On 3 March 1997 the Rize Assize Court, which was the nearest assize court to the Trabzon Assize Court, quashed the latter's decision of 15 November 1995.

On 28 March 1997 the Trabzon Assize Court insisted that its decision of 15 November 1995 was valid and that authorisation of the Istanbul Provincial Administrative Council was required to try the defendants. It decided to send the file to the Ministry of Justice to obtain a written order instructing the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation to refer the case to the Court of Cassation. The Trabzon public prosecutor was requested to forward the file to the Ministry of Justice.

On 31 March 1997 the Trabzon public prosecutor sent the file to the Ministry of Justice together with his observations, in which he stated that the issue in question had already been examined by the Joint Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation and that in his opinion it was not necessary for the Ministry of Justice to issue a written order.

On 13 May 1997 the Ministry of Justice sent the file back to the Trabzon Assize Court together with its decision rejecting the Trabzon Assize Court's request for a written order.

On 23 May 1997 the president of the Trabzon Assize Court submitted a two-page letter to that court and informed it of his decision to abstain from sitting as a member of the court during the examination of the case against the police officers. The president stated that it was impossible for him to remain impartial and independent in the trial of the police officers when his own life was being protected by members of the security forces.

On 13 June 1997 the Trabzon Assize Court resumed the trial and held a preliminary hearing. The president of the court who had abstained from hearing the case was replaced by another judge.

On 16 September 1997 the Trabzon Assize Court held the first hearing in the case. The applicants filed a petition with the court and intervened in the proceedings. The defendants did not attend the hearing.

The court ordered that eight of the defendants be placed in detention on remand in Trabzon prison. It also summoned the remainder of the defendants for the next hearing. The court finally asked to be sent a number of documents, including in particular, the autopsy and ballistic reports and television footage.

The Trabzon Assize Court held 28 hearings until 3 March 2000.

On 3 March 2000 the court delivered its judgment. It found that two accused police officers, A.A. and M.G., were guilty of killing Dilek Şimşek Sevinç, Reis Kopal, Fevzi Tunç, Mümtaz Kaya and Zeynep Poyraz. It acquitted the remaining accused police officers.

On 5 April 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Trabzon Assize Court in respect of the acquitted police officers. However it quashed the first-instance court's judgment in respect of the convictions of A.A. and M.G. The court held that the first instance court had failed to establish the facts of the case. Holding that the assize court's evaluation of evidence was not sufficient, the Court of Cassation quashed this part of the judgment.

On 4 June 2001 the Trabzon Assize Court resumed the proceedings. It held 4 hearings and re-examined the case file.

On 5 November 2001 the court applied the decision of the Court of Cassation and rectified its former judgment. Accordingly, the Assize Court found A.A. guilty of killing Fevzi Tunç, Reis Kopal and Dilek Sevinç and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment. AA was further barred from public service for 3 months. The court acquitted him of the remaining charges against him, namely the killing of Sezgin Engin.

The Court found that M.G. was guilty of killing Mümtaz Kaya under Article 448 of the Criminal Code. It sentenced him to one year eight months' imprisonment and barred him from public service for three months. Finally, the court acquitted M.G. of the remaining charges against him concerning the killing of Zeynep Poyraz. The Court suspended the sentence of M.G.

On 11 June 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first instance court.

Proceedings concerning the Ãœmraniye incidents

On 11 April 1995 the applicant Sabri Puyan filed a criminal complaint with the Üsküdar public prosecutor's office against the Ministry of Interior, the governor of Istanbul, the director of the Istanbul police headquarters and the police officers who were involved in the incidents of 15 March 1995 in Ümraniye district. He submitted that as a result of the opening fire by police officers, five persons, including his son, were killed and 20 others were injured. He argued that the Ministry of Interior, the governor of Istanbul and the director of the Istanbul police headquarters had been negligent in failing to control the actions of the police officers. Mr Puyan further argued that the police officers had even followed those running away from the scene and fired at them. He contended that the demonstrators had not fired at the police and that the fact that none of the police officers had been injured or killed proved this.

On 15 April 1997 the Üsküdar prosecutor's office decided not to prosecute the 238 police officers who were referred to in this decision as defendants. It was stated in the decision that police officers had fired in the air in order to disperse the demonstrators. The deceased persons had not been killed by fire opened by members of the rapid response force (Çevik Kuvvet) . It had not been possible to establish the accuracy of the claims that a number of civilians who opened fire on the crowd were plainclothes police officers. In reaching this conclusion the Üsküdar public prosecutor's office had regard to the eyewitness accounts of a number of persons including the relatives of the deceased persons. A number of police officers working at the Ümraniye police headquarters had also been questioned. Eight bullets removed from the bodies of the deceased and the injured persons had been compared with those obtained from the weapons of each of the 238 defendants. It was established that these eight bullets had not been fired from the weapons owned by the defendants. Video footage and a number of pictures of the scene were obtained by the prosecutor's office but they turned out to relate to events which had taken place subsequent to the killing of the applicants' relatives. It was concluded in the decision that it had not been possible to identify the demonstrators with the exception of the injured demonstrators against whom criminal proceedings were brought for participating in unauthorised demonstrations. The opening of fire in the air by police officers did not constitute a criminal offence. It was noted that a decision not to prosecute the Ministry of Interior, the governor of Istanbul and the director of the Istanbul police headquarters had already been taken. It was finally noted in the decision that the ballistic examinations of the weapons belonging to a number of other police officers had not yet been concluded and that a decision as to whether to prosecute these officers would be taken at a later date.

The applicants Sabri Puyan, Hacer Baltacı, Aynur Demir and Aligül Yüksel appealed against the decision.

On 13 November 1998 the appeal was dismissed by the Kadıköy Assize Court.

On 10 November 1998 the Üsküdar prosecutor's office decided not to prosecute the remaining seven police officers for the same reasons it had relied on in its decision of 15 April 1997.

On 30 November 1998 the applicants appealed against the decision of 10 November 1998 not to prosecute. Their appeal was rejected.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain of violations of Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 14 and 17 of the Convention.

As to Article 2, they complain that their relatives were unlawfully killed by police officers in the course of the demonstrations between 13 and 15 March 1995.

As to Article 3, the applicants maintain that they and their relatives were severely beaten by police officers during the demonstrations.

As to Article 6, the applicants contend that they were denied a fair and public hearing.

As to Articles 14 and 17, the applicants allege that they were discriminated against on account of their religious beliefs.

The applicants, Hakkı Yılmaz and Others further submit under Article 5 of the Convention that their relatives were deprived of their right to security of person as they were killed by police officers.

THE LAW

The applicants complain of violations of Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 14 and 17 of the Convention which provide as follows:

Article 2

“1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”

Article 3

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Article 5

“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law...”

Article 6

“1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law...”

Article 14

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

Article 17

“Nothing in [the] Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.”

A. The Government's preliminary objections

The Government submit that the applications are inadmissible as the applicants have failed to exhaust domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 of the Convention.

In the first place, the Government argue that the criminal proceedings concerning both of the incidents were still pending before the domestic authorities at the time of the applications. The Government submit that, as the applicants had failed to await the outcome of the domestic proceedings, they did not comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 of the Convention.

In respect of the Ümraniye incidents, the Government further submit that, following the decision of the Kadıköy Assize Court which upheld the non-prosecution decision of the Üsküdar public prosecutor, the applicants could have requested the Ministry of Justice to issue a written order to the principal public prosecutor requiring him to ask the Court of Cassation to set aside the judgment concerned pursuant to Article 343 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The applicants dispute the contentions of the Government and maintain that they have complied with the exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement in Article 35 of the Convention.

The Court notes in this respect that the domestic proceedings concerning the Gazi and Ãœmraniye incidents were concluded on 11 June 2002 and 10 November 1998 respectively. It accordingly holds that the Government's preliminary objection in this respect cannot be upheld.

In so far as the Government allege that the applicants could have requested a written order from the Ministry of Justice, the Court recalls that the written order provided for in the Turkish law is an extraordinary remedy available against judgments given at last instance against which no appeal lies to the Court of Cassation. According to Article 343 of the Criminal Procedure Code, only principal public prosecutors at the Court of Cassation are empowered to refer a case to the Court of Cassation, but they may do so only on the formal instructions of the Minister of Justice. The remedy in question is therefore not directly accessible to people whose cases have been tried (see in this respect Zarakolu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 37061/97, 5 December 2002).

In the light of the foregoing the Court considers that it is not necessary for this remedy to have been used to satisfy the requirements of Article 35 of the Convention, and accordingly it dismisses the preliminary objections of the Government.

B. Merits

1. The applicants complain that their relatives were unlawfully killed by police officers in the course of the demonstrations between 13 and 15 March 1995 and further contend that they were denied a fair hearing concerning their allegations. In this respect, they invoke Articles 2, 6, 14 and 17 of the Convention.

The Government contest the version of events given by the applicants. They highlight the fact that the relevant domestic authorities properly conducted their investigations into the events in dispute. The Government also submit that the relatives of the deceased persons were paid compensation pursuant to Article 22 of Law No 3713.

The Government further maintain that the Trabzon Assize Court convicted two police officers of killing Fevzi Tunç, Reis Kopal, Dilek Sevinç and Mümtaz Kaya. The Government underline the fact that the assize court rendered its decision following a detailed examination of the case file and based itself on the witness statements, autopsy reports, medical reports, photographs and TV cassettes.

The Government finally allege that the use of force during both of the demonstrations was proportionate and necessary. The Government state that the demonstrators were first verbally warned to disperse, then pressurised water and sticks were used and as a last resort the police officers fired warning shots in the air. According to the Government, the officers had a duty to maintain public safety. The Government further refer to the ballistics reports which indicated clearly that the bullets taken from the bodies of the deceased did not match the bullets obtained from the weapons of the security forces.

As regards the substance of the applicants' above mentioned complaints, the Court considers, in the light of the parties' submissions, that these complaints raise complex issues of law and fact under the Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits of the application as a whole. The Court concludes, therefore, that the complaints under Articles 2, 6, 14 and 17 of the Convention are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring them inadmissible have been established.

2. The applicants further maintain under Article 3 of the Convention that they and their relatives were severely beaten by the police officers during the demonstrations.

In so far as the allegations concern the relatives of the applicants who died during the incidents, the Court notes that these allegations are closely linked with Article 2 of the Convention and that it should examine them under Article 2 of the Convention.

In respect of the applicants' allegations that they themselves were also severely beaten by the police officers during the demonstrations, the Court recalls that allegations of ill-treatment should be supported before the Court by appropriate evidence (see, mutatis mutandis , the Klaas v. Germany , judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no 269, p. 17, § 30).

In the instant case, the Court notes that the applicants have not furnished any medical evidence in support of their allegations nor have they suggested that they were refused permission to see a doctor. Furthermore, the applicants cannot even prove that they themselves were present during the incidents.

In this respect, the Court observes that the applicants have failed to lay an arguable basis for their complaints.

Accordingly, this part of the complaints must be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

3. The applicants in the application of Hakkı Yılmaz and Others further submit under Article 5 of the Convention that their relatives were deprived of their right to security of person as they were killed by police officers.

The Government deny the allegations and contend that the applicants' relatives were never deprived of their liberty.

The Court recalls that the expression “liberty and security of person” in Article 5 § 1 must be read as one single concept and that consequently, “security” should be understood in the context of “liberty”. The protection of “security” in its context is concerned with an arbitrary interference by a public authority with an individual's personal “liberty”. The Court reiterates that the primary concern of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention is protection from arbitrary deprivation of liberty. The notion of security of person has not been given an independent interpretation (see in this respect East African Asians v. the United Kingdom , nos. 5573/72 and 5670/72, Commission decision of 16 July 1976, Decisions and Reports 7, p. 8, and Kemal Güven v. Turkey (dec.), no. 31847/96, 30 May 2000).

The Court observes that in the present case, there was no interference with the liberty of the applicants' relatives and that their complaints concerning the killing of their relatives fall to be examined under Article 2.

Accordingly, this part of the complaints should be declared inadmissible as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares admissible, without prejudging the merits, the applicants' complaints concerning Articles 2, 6, 14 and 17;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Michael O'Boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President

GAZÄ° INCIDENT

No.

APPLICANT

DECEASED

RELATIONSHIP

1Hakkı Yılmaz

Dinçer Yılmaz

Father

2Hüseyin Kopal

Reis Kopal

Father

3Cemal Poyraz

Zeynep Poyraz

Father

4Mustafa Tunç

Fevzi Tunç

Father

5Mahmut Engin

Sezgin Engin

Father

6Arslan Bingöl

Fadime Bingöl

Husband

7Veli Kaya

Mümtaz Kaya

Father

8Mehmet Gürgen

Hasan Gürgen

Father

9Çiçek Yıldırım

Ali Yıldırım

Mother

10Hüseyin Sel

Hasan Sel

Father

11Mukaddes Gündüz

Mehmet Gündüz

Wife

12Ali ÅžimÅŸek

Dilek Şimşek Sevinç

Father

13Åžaziment ÅžimÅŸek

Dilek Şimşek Sevinç

Mother

14Dilay ÅžimÅŸek

Dilek Şimşek Sevinç

Sister

15Erkan ÅžimÅŸek

Dilek Şimşek Sevinç

Brother

16Gökhan Şimşek

Dilek Şimşek Sevinç

Brother

17Åženay ÅžimÅŸek

Dilek Şimşek Sevinç

Sister

ÃœMRANÄ°YE INCIDENT

No.

APPLICANT

DECEASED

RELATIONSHIP

1Hacer Baltacı

İsmail Baltacı

Wife

2Sabri Puyan

Hasan Puyan

Brother

3Zeynel Abit Çabuk

Hakan Çabuk

Father

4Aynur Demir

Genco Demir

Relative

5Aligül Yüksel

İsmihan Yüksel

Relative