PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. N. BRATZA

                 JOINED BY MR. H.G. SCHERMERS

     For substantially the same reasons as in my separate opinion in

Application No. 21893/93, Akdivar and others v. Turkey, I found no

violation of Article 6 in the present case but instead a violation of

Article 13 of the Convention.  As in that application, it seems to me

that the real complaint concerns not the right of access to court but

the effectiveness of the domestic remedies available under domestic law

in the particular circumstances of the case.  The circumstances of the

present application involve allegations of torture and ill-treatment

by State officials of persons in custody in South-East Turkey suspected

of involvement in terrorist activities.

     As in the case of Akdivar and others, it is not disputed by the

applicant that he could in theory have brought civil proceedings for

damages against the persons responsible for his ill-treatment, or

against the State of which they were agents.  It is instead his case

that under Turkish law such civil proceedings could not be contemplated

until the facts concerning the events had been established and the

perpetrators had been identified in a prosecution and that in the

absence of such a prosecution, or at least a proper investigation into

the events, civil proceedings would have had no prospect of success.

The failure to prosecute, or to carry out a proper criminal

investigation into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment, is

relied on as making the remedy of civil proceedings ineffective and

illusory.

     This contention of the applicant is in substance accepted by the

Commission in paragraphs 188 and 189 of its Report where recognition

is given to the fact that allegations of torture in custody are

extremely difficult for the victim to prove and that these difficulties

are reinforced when those responsible for public prosecution have a

blinkered approach to allegations of torture made to them.

     I fully share the view but again see the issue as one not of a

denial of access to court, in breach of Article 6, but of the absence

of any adequate and effective remedy in the circumstances of the

applicant's case, in breach of Article 13.