PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE TÃœRMEN

1 . To my regret, I am unable to agree with the majority of the Court that the national authorities failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the killing of the applicant ' s late husband in violation of Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention. Nor do I share the view of the majority that the excessive sum awarded to the applicant in respect of her costs and expenses had actually and necessarily incurred.

2. However, I subscribe to the finding that the allegations concerning the killing of the applicant ' s husband were mere speculations and that it was not established to the requisite standard of proof that Kutlu Adalı had been killed by or with the connivance of any State agent or person acting on behalf of the State authorities or that, subsequent to the death of her husband, the applicant had been subjected to harassment, intimidation and discrimination by the local authorities. I also endorse the conclusions reached by the majority in respect of the complaints made under Articles 6, 10, 11 and 34 of the Convention.

3. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that the national authorities carried out an adequate and meticulous investigation into the impugned incident as demonstrated by the voluminous investigation files which were submitted to the Court. It appears from the documents contained in the case files that the investigating authorities have taken statements from almost a hundred persons who either lived in the neighbourhood or who might have heard or seen anything at the time of the killing (see paragraphs 37-178 in the Appendix). The local police arrived at the scene of the crime within a few minutes of the incident, a pathologist performed post-mortem examination, photographs of the scene of the incident were taken and a sketch map was drawn up, an autopsy was carried out, later on the same day, on Mr Adalı ' s body and his personal belongings were secured as evidence (see paragraphs 48-52 of the judgment). Furthermore, a ballistics examination of the used cartridges found at the scene of the crime was carried out. As it can be seen from the meetings held between the applicant and the local authorities and also the numerous statements taken from family members, the applicant and her family members were provided with access to the investigation from the outset (see paragraphs 155, 160-163 in the judgment and paragraphs 37-43 and 170 in the Appendix). From the lowest ranking officer up to President Denktaş, the domestic authorities have attached great importance to the issue of solving the murder and there was sufficient public scrutiny. In addition, it is clear that domestic authorities have given a follow up to each and every one of the applicant ' s complaints of discrimination, harassment or intimidation and conducted a prompt investigation into them (see, paragraphs 121, 139, 164, 166, 16 7 and 168-178 in the Appendix).

4 . As stated in the judgment, in conformity with the Court ' s case-law, the essential purpose of the investigation is, “in cases involving state agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility. What form of investigation will achieve those purposes may vary in different circumstances ... The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident” (see paragraphs 221 and 223 of the judgment). It is clear from the case-law mentioned above that the authorities have a margin of appreciation in conducting the investigation. However, in the present case, the majority not only refused to leave such a margin to the investigating authorities but was inclined to act as a private body of investigators replacing the national authorities. Following can be observed in respect of such attitude:

a) As one of the defects in the investigation, the majority relied on the fact that the investigating authorities had failed to take fingerprints on the terrace or inside the applicant ' s family home. As explained by the principal investigator Ahmet Soyalan and Mehmet Özdamar, such an examination was unnecessary because the incident had taken place on the street and the house or its terrace had not been a crime scene (see paragraphs 117 and 139 in the judgment). No reason was given by the majority as to why this explanation was not found plausible.

b) Furthermore, it is hard to accept the majority ' s consideration that there was no effective control of the authorities as to whether all persons in the neighbourhood had been questioned (see paragraph 229 in the judgment) although the investigating authorities drew up a list of residents in the neighbouring streets, visited those at home and took statements from thirty-three persons within a day of the incident (see paragraph 51 in the judgment). It is true that the Government have furnished the Court with a supplementary investigation file containing witness statements and reports from October 2002. In this connection, it need to be stressed that such a necessity arose only after the applicant had made numerous unfounded allegations concerning the possible involvement of certain individuals, such as Hüseyin Demirci, Altay Sayıl and Mustafa Asilhan, in the killing of her late husband.

c) Moreover, I cannot understand the necessity of taking statements from Eybil Efendi, a police officer who was the first to arrive at the scene of the crime, and Ali Rıza Görgüner, the then muhtar of the neighbourhood , who first entered the house with the police officers (see paragraph 230 in the judgment). They have seen what other police officers have seen.

5 . Furthermore, the majority failed to take into account the negative effect of the applicant ' s behaviour on the investigation. The applicant from the very outset created imaginary scenarios, put forward inconsistent and untrue allegations and even concealed certain facts from the authorities. All this had a misleading impact on the investigation. Following are the examples of such behaviour:

a) Despite these conclusions, the majority accepted the applicant ' s assertion that the killing of her husband was a political crime although Mr Adalı had never been prosecuted for the opinions he had expressed in his newspaper and none of his publications had ever been seized or confiscated by the authorities. It is therefore hard to consider Mr Adalı as a “political figure” or an opponent of the local government by the mere fact that he used to write for a left-wing newspaper where he allegedly published articles criticising the policies of that government or of President Rauf Denktaş.

b) Moreover, the applicant advanced a further claim that her husband ' s killing was related to the so-called “St Barnabas incident” because he had published an article in Yenidüzen newspaper about the involvement of the Civil Defence Organisation and that he had been threatened by the head of the aforementioned organisation (see paragraph 198 of the judgment). However, it transpires from the submissions of the parties that Yenidüzen was not the only newspaper which reported the St Barnabas incident; Kıbrıs newspaper of 16 March 1996 reported the incident in detail a day before the Yenidüzen report. Furthermore, there is not even a shred of evidence that Mr Adalı had written an article about the St Barnabas incident because his name did not appear anywhere in Yenidüzen . It is therefore not possible for a reader of the newspaper of 17 March 1996 to deduce that Mr Adalı was the author of the report about the incident which would consequently prompt the alleged “threats”.

c) Be that as it may, it now appears from an interview given by the applicant that Mr Adalı ' s killing was not political or linked to the St Barnabas incident as alleged but could well be related to the information he had held about secret organisations, drug traders and money launderers (see paragraph 198 in the Appendix). It is striking that the applicant has never informed the national authorities about this aspect of the case but misled both the domestic investigating authorities and the Court with her allegations of political crime. Thus, in the absence of any allegation, the investigating authorities were unable to broaden the investigation so as to cover the alleged research or information held by Kutlu Adalı about the secret organisations.

6 . Bearing in mind the above findings, it is worth pointing that in the case of Denizci and Others v. Cyprus ( nos. 25 316-25321/94 and 27207/95, ECHR 2001 ‑ V ), which concerned, among other issues, the killing of one of the applicants ' son and his friend in southern Cyprus, the Court held that the investigation was adequate and sufficient because the local police went to the scene, a plan of the incident site was drawn up and a list of the objects found established. Relevant samples were taken and scientifically examined. A pathologist who arrived at the scene a few hours after the killing performed the post ‑ mortem examination and, later on the same day, carried out an autopsy on the bodies. The Court also attached great weight to the fact the investigation into the killing of Ä°lker Tufansoy and his friend comprised of a case file of more than 600 pages ( ibid ., §§ 353-54). Having compared the investigation conducted in these two cases, I do not think that fewer steps had been taken in the instant case. To the contrary, the investigation in the present case was much more comprehensive and the investigation file which contains well over 1,000 pages of documents is an indication of the wide span of the investigation.

7 . Finally, I find the sum awarded to the applicant for her costs and expenses to be excessive. As correctly pointed out in the judgment, the applicant has only partly succeeded in making out her complaints under the Convention (see paragraph 289 in the judgment). However, despite that fact, the majority considered it reasonable to award EUR 75,000. I should like to point out that only a week before the adoption of the present judgment, the very same First Section of the Court awarded EUR 20,000 to the applicants in respect of their costs and expenses in the case of Akkum and Others v. Turkey (no. 21894/93, 24 March 2005). In Akkum and Others , the applicants were represented by two eminent university professors, namely Mr Kevin Boyle and Ms Françoise Hampson , who have considerable experience in Convention proceedings. These two professors participated at a hearing in Strasbourg as well as at fact finding hearings in Turkey . Furthermore, the Court found in that case the Government responsible for the deaths of three relatives of the applicants and found multiple violations of Article 2 of the Convention as well as violations of Article 3 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Accordingly, having regard to its facts, the number of applicants and the violations found, Akkum and others case was a far more complex case compared to the present one. The sum claimed by the applicants in Akkum and Others for the fees and costs of their lawyers, i.e. GBP 29,219.40, can be contrasted to the amount claimed by the applicant in the present case, i.e. GBP 319,783.85. In the light of the above, I am unable to see an objective and reasonable justification for the huge difference in respect of costs and expenses in the two cases.

APPENDIX

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES

1 . The parties submitted various documents concerning the investigation into the killing of Kutlu Adalı and the alleged acts of harassment, intimidation and discrimination by the “TRNC” authorities.

1. Documents in the investigation file and the c oroner ' s inquest file (listed in the order they have in their respective files)

(a) Yenişehir Police Station ' s work schedule between 7 July 1996 and 30 July 1998 concerning the murder of Kutlu Adalı

2 . This document contains the time table of the work carried out by the police assistant inspector Mr Ahmet Soyalan in the context of the investigation into the killing of the applicant ' s husband.

(b) Report by the Head of the Directorate of Police, dated 7 July 1996

3 . This report was drafted to be sent to the relevant doctor at the Nicosia State Hospital . It summarised the initial events concerning the killing of Kutlu Adalı. It stated that Kutlu Adalı was a 60-year-old married journalist and that he had been shot and killed in front of his house by an unknown assailant or assailants. According to the report, the police were informed of the death by Mr Ali Rıza Kırçay on 6 July 1996 at 11.45 p.m. The Head of the Security Directorate requested the doctor in charge to carry out an autopsy.

(c) Coroner ' s autopsy order addressed to Nicosia State Hospital

4 . On 7 July 1996 the c oroner ordered Dr İsmail Budak to carry out an autopsy on the corpse of Kutlu Adalı and to draft a report when the corpse was sent to Nicosia State Hospital by the police.

(d) Autopsy report of 7 July 1996

5 . According to the autopsy report, a 0.5 cm entry hole was observed in the front part of the left shoulder. In the rear part of the left z ygoma tic bone at a point marked between the nose and the ear lobe , another entry hole of 1 c m diameter was found close to the ear.

6 . The body was opened along the trajectory of the hole in the shoulder. No bullet was found. The chest cavity was opened. It was observed that the lungs were of a pale colour and that there were black lines on the surface of the lungs. There was almost two and a half litres of blood.

There was a wound passing from the left to the right of the lungs ; along the line of the wound , a hole in the a orta was observed.

7 . When the skull was opened it was observed that the brain tissue was swollen and that there was widespread haematoma in the sub tural region. When the brain tissue was taken out a round, fragmented hole was observed on the internal surface of the underside of the left temporal bone. T he brain tissue in that area had been damaged.

8 . The abdomen was opened and it was observed that there was a high degree of hepatomegaly. Furthermore, a fragmented area was seen at the edge of the lower lobe of the liver. There was blood in the abdomen. The bullet shells were extracted from the lower side of the left breast.

9 . The death was found to have resulted from bullets fired from a firearm , which had caused disintegration of the internal organs, internal bleeding and cerebral haemorrhage.

(e ) Plan of the neighbourhood and the sketch of the scene of the incident

10 . Together with a letter dated 26 July 1996 , the Title and Land Registry Office sent the Nicosia Security Directorate a plan of the neighbourhood, where Kutlu Adalı had been shot dea d.

11 . A sketch of the scene of the incident was drawn up indicating the direction of the shots, the position of the corpse and the location of the shells.

(f) The investigating officer ' s report dated 16 July 1996

12 . This report was drafted and signed by Mr Ahmet Soyalan. According to the report, on 6 July 1996 an unidentified person called the Nicosia Directorate of Police and reported that there had been a murder. Assistant Inspector R. Öztümen, after examining the area, established the identity of the deceased as Kutlu Adalı. On 7 July 1996 Dr Fazilet Özturk examined the corpse at the scene of the i ncident and established that Mr Adalı had died as a result of two bullet wounds sustained to the left temple and the left shoulder.

13 . On the same day, Mr Öztümen arranged for photographs to be taken of the scene of the incident, prepared a sketch of the scene of incidents, took possession of the evidence and arranged for the body to be moved to the morgue. The evidence included blue coloured shorts, a striped T-shirt, a pair of slippers and a pair of glasses belonging to the deceased. The report further stated that on 7 July 1996 an autopsy had been carried out which had indicated that the applicant had died as a result of disintegration of the internal organs, internal bleeding and cerebral haemorrha ge. Mr Soyalan noted that two 9- m m bullet shells had been extracted from the corpse and taken as evidence. He also noted that the investigation was continuing.

(g) Assistant I nspector Muharrem Göç ' s statement of 24 July 1997

14 . Mr Göç, who was an assistant inspector working in the political department of the Directorate of Police, stated that on 6 July 1996 at 7 p.m. he had seen the Deputy Chief of Police, Mustafa Asilhan, and another man whose name he knew to be Hüseyin in a café and he had sat with them until 9 p.m. He stated that he had made his excuses and left as he had been on duty . He went off duty at 11 p.m. and did not know what time Mr Asilhan and Hüseyin had left the café.

(h) Statement by Mr Enver KuyucuoÄŸlu dated 25 July 1996

15 . Mr Kuyucuoğlu, who was an expert working at the Photographic Fingerprinting Department in the General Directorate of Police, stated that on 6 July 1996 at 11.50 p.m. he took photographs for the investigation into the killing of Kutlu Adalı. He also had taken pre-autopsy photographs at 7.45 a.m. on 7 July 1996 . He stated t hat after placing the films in a bath, he had developed the pictures from the photographic negatives, put the photographs in an album and added an explanatory index. He noted that t he relevant negatives were held in the archives of the General Directorate of Police.

(i) The forensic expert ' s report dated 6 August 1996

16 . The forensic expert, Mr Abdullah Iraz, examined the 14 used cartrid ges and stated that they were 9-mm P arabellum - type cartridges and had b een fired from a single gun at a close range. It was further observed that the two bullet shells removed from the corpse had also been fired from a single gun. It was noted in the report that the cartridges and the bullet shells did not match any other cartridges or bullet shells found within the territory of the “TRNC” or recorded in the files on murders by unknown assailants.

(j) Letter from the “TRNC” Presi dent Denktaş to the Head of the Nicosia General Directorate of Police dated 26 August 1996

17 . Mr Denktaş requested the Head of the Nicosia Directorate of Police, Mr Atilla Sav, to take statements from Mr Adalı ' s wife and children in order to ascertain whether Mr Adalı had been requested to testify before the European Court of Human Rights. He stated that there had been an allegation in a newspaper called Ortam that Mr Adalı would testify before the Court. In this connection, Mr Denktaş contended that Mr Adalı might have been killed by those who knew that he would not say anything of any value and who wanted to strengthen the argument that he was a key witness.

(k) Report dated 23 September 1996 about the analysis of Mr Adalı ' s clothes

18 . This report was signed by the head of the State Laboratory, Ms Hatice Kale. It stated that the blood stains found o n both the blue shorts and the T ‑ shirt came from human blood of group “A”.

(l) Police I nspector Refik Öztümen ' s report dated 4 October 1996

19 . After restating the facts set out in the report of 7 July 1996 and the findings of the autopsy report, Mr Öztümen noted that thirty-five statements had been taken from the residents of the neighbourhood. Following the taking of the statements from the residents, it was established that the assailants had used a vehicle of an unknown make and registration and that they had entered a oneway street, Akasya Street and had driven into Ardıç Street, from where they had entered Şehit Ecvet Yusuf Street ; all trace s had been lost after they had exited that street .

20 . The report further reiterated the statements taken from the applicant and her children on 7 July 1996 . It noted that an investigation had been conducted into the applicant ' s allegations and that at the time of the murder the street lights at the scene of the i ncident and in the vicinity had been switched off . Following the enquiries made by Mr Ali Horoz, an equipment engineer at the Turkish Cyprus Electricity Company, it was established that the street lights at the site of the incident and in the nearby Akasya, Akalan , Bağarası, Söğüt and Altınova S treets were connected to the “Sıdıka Çatozlu” power box and not to the Civil Defence Organisation power supply as alleged by the applicant. It appeared from the statements of the residents in the area that there had been no power cut on the night of Mr Adalı ' s murder and that even if, as alleged by the applicant, the power supply in the courtyard of the Civil Defence Headquarters had been interfered with in order to affect the street lamps, it would not have been possible to switch off the street lights at the scene of the incident or in the streets in the vicinity.

(m) Petition dated 15 October 1996 by the applicant to the Telecommunications Directorate and the note by the Deputy Director

21 . The applicant requested the Directorate to provide a breakdown of her telephone conversations as she thought that her conversations had been tapped. She further requested that she be allotted another phone number and that a monitoring device be set up on her line.

22 . Further to the applicant ' s petition, the Deputy Director requested the Head of the Nicosia Regional Office to comply with the applicant ' s requests in so far as the technical facilities allow ed and to inform her accordingly .

(n) L etter dated 18 November 1996 from Mr Cahi t Hüray to the Nicosia Telecommunications Directorate

23 . Mr Cahit Hüray informed the Telephone Directorate that his domestic telephone line had been cut off as his number had been traced after a call had been made from his number to the applicant ' s telephone number. He submitted that he had never dialled the applicant ' s number. Mr Hüray requested an inquiry to be carried out into this incident.

( o) M alicious call report of 11 December 1996 by the Telecommunications Directorate

24 . On 11 December 1996 a malicious phone call received on the applicant ' s phone was traced.

(p) The investigating officer Ahmet Soyalan ' s report of 4 March 1998

25 . Mr Soyalan, after having stated the facts of the case and summari s ed witness statements, concluded that the investigation had not produced any findings which could enable the security forces t o identify the assailant(s). He therefore proposed to classify the case under the heading “Unsolved”.

(q ) S tatement by Ahmet Soyalan dated 4 March 1998

26 . Mr Ahmet Soyalan, after having carried out an investigation into the murder of Mr Kutlu Adalı, concluded that it had not been possible to identify the murderer(s) and that he was therefore unable to reach a positive result in the investigation.

(r) S tatements by Refik Öztümen dated 4 March 1998

27 . Mr Refik Öztümen stated that, on 6 July 1996 at 11.40 p.m. , he had received a phone call and that he had gone to the scene of the incident. He identified the deceased as Mr Kutlu Adalı and, following an initial examination, observed that he had died as a result of bullet wounds sustained to the left temple and left shoulder. He then found fourteen empty 9 - mm empty cartridges and indicated the position of the body and the cartridges to be taken by drawing a sketch of the scene. He also arranged for photographs by Mr Enver Kuyucuoğlu and for the initial examination of the corpse to be carried out by Dr Fezile Öztürk. He checked the deceased ' s house and secured it.

28 . Following enquiries made by the police among several residents, he established the unidentified feature of the assailants ' vehicle and the direction in which the assailant(s) had gone after shooting the deceased. The next day Mr Refik Öztümen obtained an autopsy order. After the autopsy he took the bullet shells ext racted from the deceased ' s body and the deceased ' s clothing and a pair of glasses as evidence. He gave some of the evidence to the forensic expert, Abdullah Iraz, for examination. He returned the rest of the evidence to Mr Ahmet Soyalan, the inspector who had conducted the investigation. On 11 July 1996 he went to the scene of the incident with Mr Ahmet Soyalan and İlksen Ökter, an officer from the Land Registry office , and organised the preparation of a scale drawing of the scene of the incident.

(s) Letter dated 31 July 1998 from the Head of the Nicosia Directorate of Police to the c oroner

29 . The Head of the Nicosia Directorate of Police sent a letter to the c oroner stating that Mr Kutlu Adalı had died after being shot , resulting in the disintegration of his internal organs, internal bleeding and cerebral haemorrhage. He also attached the report of the investigating officer, Mr Ahmet Soyalan, to his letter.

(t) Record of the interview of Mr Ahmet Soyalan, dated 5 November 1998

30 . When questioned by Judge Emine Dizdarlı, Mr Ahmet Soyalan repeated the facts and the findings concerni ng the murder of Mr Kutlu Adalı which he had already stated in his reports dated 16 July 1996 and 4 March 1998 .

( u) Coroner ' s decision dated 11 D ecember 1998 to conclude the inquiry into the murder of Mr Kutlu Adalı

31 . Judge Emine Dizdarlı decided to conclude the judicial inquiry in to the death in accordance with Sections 26 and 27 of the Death Inquiry Judges Act and ordered that a copy of the report on the inquiry procedure be sent to the Nicosia Directorate of Police.

(v) Undated letter from Mr Erhan Arıklı to Mr Kutlu Adalı

32 . Mr Erhan Arıklı wrote a letter to Mr Kutlu Adalı on behalf of the Nationalist Thought Association, criticising his views as expressed in one of his articles published in the Yenidüzen newspaper on 27 June 1990 . He particularly disapproved of Mr Adalı ' s opinions in support of federalism in Cyprus .

(w) Newspaper article by E. Arıklı, published in Birlik on 23 November 1995

33 . The article described the leftist ideology as a disease called “Red”, listed its symptoms and explained the treatment of the disease in a pejorative style.

(x) Newspaper article published in Milliyet on 18 July 1996

34 . The article contained an interview with the applicant and her children , who stated that Mr Kutlu Adalı had probably been murdered by more than one person whom he had known.

(y) List of p hotograph s

35 . The document contained the list of photographs of the deceased , Mr Kutlu Adalı , taken at the scene of the incident.

(z) Petition signed by the residents of the Kızılay neighbourhood, including Mr Kut lu Adalı, and addressed to the m ayor of Lefkoşa ( Nicosia )

36 . The residents of the Kızılay neighbourhood, including Mr Kutlu Adalı, requested the m ayor of Nicosia not to grant a licence f or the establishment of a night club in their area.

2. Witness statements in the investigation file

(a) Ms İlkay Adalı ' s statements of 7 July 1996 , 27 July 1996 , 4 October 1996 and 6 January 1997

37 . In her statement of 7 July 1996 , the applicant contended that her husband had probably been killed as a consequence of his articles in the Yenidüzen newspaper. She stated that her husband had written articles for Yenidüzen newspaper and that he had mostly worked at home. He used to take their dogs out at night . She further stated that her husband had started receiving threatening letters and phone calls after he had writt en an article concerning the St Barnabas incident , and that he had not taken any precautions. The applicant told the investigat ing officer that she had been in Turkey when her husband had been killed and that she had talked to him on the phone at 11.1 5 p.m. on 6 July 1996 . She said that she would furnis h the threatening letters to the police.

38 . On 27 July 1996 the applicant made an additional statement and submitted that she had received a phone call from an unidentified caller who had told her that he knew the assailants.

39 . On 4 October 1996 the applicant gave a further statement . She submitted that Mr Kutlu Adalı had never been invited to be a witness before the European Court of Human Rights.

40 . On 6 January 1997 the applicant gave the letter written by Mr Erhan Arıklı, the head of the National ist Thought Association, to the police.

(b) Statements dated 7 July 1996 and 27 July 1996 by the applicant ' s daughter, sister and son

41 . On 7 July 1996 Ms Kut Adalı, the applicant ' s daughter, stated that Mr Adalı had received threatening calls and that he had repeatedly said that he had been threatened on account of his articles published in Yenidüzen . She testified that she had talked to her father at around 11 p.m. on 6 July 1996 and that he had not mentioned anything unusual during a phone call.

42 . On the same day Ms Gültekin Karsu, the applicant ' s sister stated that she had been taken to Nicosia State Hospital and testified that the corpse shown to her was the corpse of her brother-in-law, Mr Kutlu Adalı.

43 . On 27 July 1996 Mr Er Adalı stated that, on that day at 2.25 a.m. , he had received a phone call from an unidentified caller who wanted to inform his mother about the identity of the murderers of Mr Kutlu Adalı. He submitted that the person on the phone had refused to talk to him and had asked for assurance s that he would not tape the conversation. The unidentified caller told him that he did not trust the police.

(c) Cahit Hüray ' s statement dated 12 December 1996

44 . Mr Cahit Hüray, the subscriber to the phone line from which a malicious call was allegedly made to the applicant ' s house, c ontended before the investigating officer that he had submitted petitions to the Telephone Directorate stating that he had never dialled the applicant ' s phone number and that someone could have intercepted the line using a radio since he had a cordless phone.

(d) Statements dated 28 July 1996 , 31 July 1996 and 3 August 1996 by Bora Baykara, Erinç Aydınova and Hüseyin Tekçe

45 . Mr Bora Baykara, one of the first persons to find the corpse of Mr Kutlu Adalı, submitted that he had been together with two friends of his , Mr Hüseyin Tekçe and Mr Erinç Aydınova, when they had seen the corpse in Ardıç Street . The body was under the street light. They did not see anyone in the area when they arrived at the scene of the incident. He stated that he had looked at his watch when they had seen the corpse and the time had been 11.34 p.m. He finall y submitted that the electric lights on the lamp po sts had been switched on.

46 . Mr Erinç Aydınova contended that when they found the corpse he had not seen any car s in the one-way street. He further submitted that he had looked around and seen Ali Rıza Kırcay. When Mr Aydınova shouted that someone had been shot, Mr Kırcay came over and told him that the corpse was that of Mr Kutlu Adalı. Afterwards, an architect living in Ardıç Street came out of his house and when he was told to call the police, he said that he had already done so. The witness finally stated that he had only seen persons from the Özkonanlar Table Tennis Training Centre in front of the center ' s building in Akasya Street .

47 . Mr Hüseyin Tekçe stated that he had been with two of his friends when they saw the corpse in Ardıç Street . One of his friends, Mr Erinç Aydınova , left to fetch Mr Ali Rıza Kırcay. Mr Hüseyin Tekçe and Mr Bora Baykara went to a house which was diagonally across from the scene of the incident and asked the girl in the house, whose name was Özlem, to call the police. She told them that she was already aware of the incident and had called the police. He submitted that he had not seen any vehicle attempting to get away from the area.

(e) Statement dated 22 November 1996 by İrfan Özakalın

48 . Mr İrfan Özakalın is the Head of the Technical Section of the Telecommunications Directorate. He submitted that after receiving a complaint from the applicant, the Telecommunications Directorate had started monitoring her line.

49 . On 12 November 1996 a call was received from the telephone number 2271851. The authorities found out that the number belonged to Mr Cahit Hüray, whose telephone line was then cut off. Following a request made by a Ms Berna Konuksever, the telephone was reconnected on payment of a certain amount of money. Mr Cahit Hüray lodged a complaint to the Telecommunications Directorate on 18 November 1996 stating that he had never dialled the applicant ' s number. Mr Hüray requested an inquiry to be carried out into this incident. Mr İrfan Özakalın lastly maintained that a technical investigation was continuing at the time of his testimony.

(f) Statement by Ali Tekman dated 18 July 1996

50 . Mr Ali Tekman, who was a columnist using the pen-name “Timur Ali”, stated that his pen-name had been mentioned in an article published in Milliyet , which had referred to him as a member of the Nationalist Thought Association. The article referred to another article containing statements such as “Kutlu Adalı must be destroyed like a dog by the c ouncil” , which had appeared in the newspaper Birlik and had allegedly been made by Timur Ali. Mr Tekman submitted that he had never written such an article and that he had actually never written anything for Birlik .

(g) Statements by Kutlu Adalı ' s friends and colleagues

51 . On 8 July 1996 Mr Erdoğan Volkan, a friend of Mr Kutlu Adalı, testified. He stated that Mr Adalı had been a dear friend and that they had never talked about politics. He submitted that he had seen Mr Adalı on 4 July 1996 . They did not talk about politics. He went to the seaside on 5 July 1996 and learned that Mr Adalı had been murdered on the evening of 7 July 1996 , following his return to Nicosia . The witness submitted that he did not know who had killed Mr Adalı. Mr Adalı had never talked to him concerning the threatening phone calls. He added that he went to the seaside every week and that the applicant, Ms İlkay Adalı had never talked to him about her husband ' s problems.

52 . Mr Soner Ergin, a friend and a colleague of Mr Kutlu Adalı, who was a journalist working for the Yeniçağ newspaper , made a statement on 10 July 1996 . He stated that he had visited Mr Kutlu Adalı once or twice a week at his house. He submitted that Mr Kutlu Adalı did not go out alone. Mr Kutlu Adalı use d to take his dogs out at night . Mr Soner Ergin stated that he had never seen him out alone. Mr Adalı had told the witness that he had been threatened on the telephone and that members of his family had been insulted. Mr Adalı further told the witness that he had started receiving the telephone calls after he had written articles about the S t Barnabas incident. On 3 July 1996 he visited Mr Kutlu Adalı at around 9.30 p.m. and they talked about politics. The witness contended that Mr Adalı had not spoken about the threatening calls at their last meeting. Mr Soner Ergin lastly submitted that he had not been in Nicosia on 6 July 1996 and that he had learned about the murder on 7 July 1996 from Mr Alpay Durduran on his return to Nicosia .

53 . On 10 July 1996 Mr Ahmet Cavit An, who was a close friend of Mr Kutlu Adalı, testified. He said that Mr Kutlu Adalı had told him that he had been receiving threatening calls and that the calls had starte d after he had written about the S t Barnabas incident. However, he did not mention the name of anyone who was threatening him. Mr Ahmet Cavit An spoke to Mr Kutlu Adalı at 12.30 p.m on the day of his killing. Mr Kutlu Adalı ' s wife and daughter were in Turkey . Mr Kutlu Adalı told the witness that he was about to go out and that they would talk on Monday. Mr Ahmet Cavit An learned about the murder on 7 July 1996 on the radio. He submitted that Mr Adalı might have been killed by underground organisations. He further contended that the murder could could have been politically motivated since the opinions of Mr Adalı had been disturbing for a group of people. He finally stated that Mr Adalı had asked the unidentified callers to disclose their identity but they had not done so. They had told Mr Kutlu Adalı that they were calling from Famagusta and Kyrenia.

54 . On 13 July 1996 Mr Ahmet Cavit An made an additional statement. He submitted that he had made statements concerning undercover groups in his statement of 10 July 1996 and that he did not in fact know who these undercover groups were.

55 . On 11 July 1996 Mr Altay Sayıl, another friend of Mr Kutlu Adalı, stated that he had been a friend of Mr Adalı for fifteen years and that they had never talked about politics. However, Mr Adalı had told the witness, two or three months prior to his death, that he had been threatened on the phone. The witness stated that he had gone to Mrs and Mr Adalı ' s house on 4 July 1996 to take a copy of a poem that Mrs İlkay Adalı would read on the same day on the occasion of the retired police officers ' evening. Mr Sayıl submitted that Mrs and Mr Adalı had gone to the event that night. He stated that he had gone to Hamitköy for a wedding on 6 July 1996 . He had learned that Mr Adalı had been shot dead at 1.30 a.m. on 7 July 1996 . The witness stated that Mr Adalı had not talked about his problems and that in general had not gone out of his house.

56 . On 13 July 1996 Celal Harun, a friend of the deceased, stated that he had known Mr Kutlu Adalı since his childhood. He submitted that Mr Adalı had never mentioned the threatening calls. He added that İlkay Adalı had told him once that they had been receiving silent calls. The witness saw Mr Adalı on 4 July 1996 when he and his wife went to see İlkay Adalı. They did not enter Mr Adalı ' s house as it was 11.10 p.m. Celal Harun stated that he had gone to Hamitköy for a wedding on 6 July 1996 . He had learned that Mr Adalı had been murdered on 7 July 1996 when he read the Kıbrıs newspaper. He stated that he did not know how and by whom Mr Adalı had been killed.

57 . Hasan Kahvecioğlu, a colleague and friend of Mr Adalı, was the director of a company which published a newspaper called Ortam . On 14 July 1996 he stated that he had not met Mr Adalı very often in the last few years. He submitted that they had talked on 14 June 1996 , when Mr Adalı had called him. Mr Adalı said that he wanted to write on specific issues and that he could not do so since the CTP was in power. Mr Adalı told Mr Kahvecioğlu that he wanted to give the witness some information and mentioned two mobile telephone numbers. The witness did not remember the numbers. Mr Adalı told the witness that these numbers had been given to the head of the Directorate of Police and the head of the Nicosia Directorate of Police by the mayor of Nicosia . He requested the witness to provide more information and write about the issue in the Ortam newspaper. After Mr Adalı had been murdered, the witness wrote in his column in Ortam that Mr Adalı had complained about the CTP and had told him that he had not been allowed to write on certain issues although he had been given information , and that Mr Kahvecioğlu should write on those issues. The witness submitted that Mr Adalı had not given any other information than the information outlined above and that he had not given him any document s .

58 . On 17 July 1996 Hasan Kahvecioğlu made a further statement and said that he had found the telephone numbers. He submitted that Mr Adalı told him that the numbers were the numbers of mobile phones belonging to the Head of the Directorate of Police and to the Head of the Nicosia Directorate of Police. The mayor of Nicosia had given the mobiles to these persons as gift s . The witness stated that he had not had this information confirmed and that he had not given the names of these officials in his article published in Ortam, headlined “What Standard? ”.

(h) Statements dated 7, 8 and 13 July 1996 by 32 residents of the applicant ' s neighbourhood

59 . A number of residents in the neighbourhood where the app licant and Mr Kutlu Adalı lived gave evidence testified about the murder of Mr Adalı. Those who had been at their houses at the time of the incident stated that they had heard gunshots and then a car driving away speedily and that when they had looked out they had seen police and other residents of the neighbourhood.

60 . Some witnesses submitted that they had first heard people arguing and then the gunshots. One of the witnesses, Emine Çağın , heard a quarrel. She submitted that someone had shouted “You have gone too far this time” and that gunfire had then been heard. Some of the witnesses maintained that they had seen the car leaving after the sound of the gunshots. Other witnesses submitted that they had not seen the car but only the dust and earth it had left behind. None of the witnesses could specify the registration number of the car.

61 . One of the witnesses, Mr Ali Rıza Kırçağ, contended that the car was a white one. He further submitted that his children had told him about a grey Ford Cortina which had passed by their street twice on 5 July 1996 .

62 . Four of the witnesses, Mr Ahmet Çağlan, Ms Özlem Özüner, Mr Erol Özüner and Ms Arzu Çağın , stated that the street lights had been on when they looked outside through their windows to see what had happened.

63 . Some of the residents called the police after the incident. A number of residents maintained that they had not been in the neighbourhood at the time of the incident and that they had learned about the murder of Mr Adalı when they had returned to their homes.

64 . Most of the witnesses stated that Kutlu Adalı used to take his dogs out every night between 11 and 11.30 p.m.

(i) S tatement by Birol Bebek dated 7 July 1996

65 . Mr Birol Bebek, a journalist working for the Kıbrıs newspaper, stated that on 7 July 1996 at 4.50 p.m. he had received a phone call from an unidentified caller. The person on the phone was a man who had said: “We killed Kutlu Adalı. T he name of our organisation is ' Turkish Reven ge Brigade ' .”

66 . Mr Bebek submitted that the person had a Turkish accent ( with no trace of a Cypriot Turkish accent) and that his Turkish had been pure and correct. He had a deep and young voice. The witness guessed that he would have been around 25 -30 years old.

(j) S tatements by Hasan Türkmen dated 7 July 1996

67 . Mr Hasan Türkmen, an employee working for the Kıbrıs newspaper, was on duty as the switchboard operator on 7 July 1996 . He stated that he had received a phone call at 4.40 p.m. from a man who had a Turkish accent and a deep voice. The caller asked Mr Türkmen to connect him to the news desk. Mr Türkmen asked the person to give his name twice. As the caller did not want to reveal his name, Mr Türkmen connected the line to the news desk. The witness submitted that he had later learned from Mr Birol Bebek who the caller was.

(k) S tatement by Hilmi Åžen dated 1 November 1996

68 . Mr Hi lmi Şen participated in a three-day mobilisation exercise within the military forces on 11, 12 and 13 October 1996 . He was in Deneköyü, in Nicosia . He submitted that there had been a discussion about the murder of Mr Adalı and that he had stated what he had heard. He said that it was not certain whether Mr Adalı had been kil led by the military, by the p olice or by terrorist groups. Someone among the crowd told Mr Şen that he was the nephew of Mr Adalı and asked him how he had heard about these rumours. Mr Şen told him that everybody was talking about it. The witness stated before the investigating officer that he did not know anythi ng about the murder of Mr Kutlu Adalı.

(l) S tatement by Hüseyin Demirci dated 11 July 1996

69 . Mr Hüseyin Demirci, who was the head of the “İnönü National Culture and Solidarity Association” and whose name appeared in the investigation file as a result of a tip-off, stated that he had no connection whatsoever with the murder of Mr Adal ı . He stated that he was a patriot and that he had sometimes led villagers in a ctions on the border with Greece . He submitted that this might have been a reason why his name had been given in connection with the murder of Kutlu Adalı. He finally added that in 1994 he had formed a scout group in their association, and that a comment article had appeared in Yenidüzen on the subject, headlined “Is this a military activity?”.

(m) S tatement by Celal Akıcı dated 12 July 1996

70 . Mr Celal Akıcı worked in the Merih Patisserie . He stated that on 6 July 1996 he had worked in the shop alone. At around 9.30 p.m. a woman and a man came to the shop. He guessed that they were a couple. They drank beer and left the shop at around 10.30 p.m. The witness did not remember exactly when they had left the shop. He could not remember their features as it had been the first and the only time that he saw them.

(n) S tatements by Ahmet Özipek dated 12 July 1996

71 . The witness stated that Mr Soner Ergin, who worked for the Yeniçağ newspaper, was the uncle of his son-in-l aw. He submitted that on 6 July 1996 his daughter ' s wedding had taken place. He stated that Mr Soner Ergin had been with him and had not left their village between 6 p.m. and 2.30 a.m. on 7 July 1996 .

(o) S tatements by Ha rbil DoÄŸan dated 13 July 1996

72 . Mr DoÄŸan, the owner of the Merih Patisserie , went to his shop between 10.30 p.m. and 11.30 p.m. on 6 July 1996 . He did not remember the exact time. He stated that he had seen a retired policeman whose first name was Altay and a woman sitting in the shop . After midnight , when he returned to his shop , the man and the woman had left. He did not remember exactly when he had gone back to the shop.

(p) S tatements by Mehmet Özdağ dated 11 July 1996

73 . Mr Mehmet Özdağ stated that he had been a student of Mr Turgut Yaran at the high school. He said that he had seen Mr Yaran on 7 July 1996 at around 11 a.m. at Kocareis beach, in Famagusta . He stated that when he had told Mr Yaran that Mr Adalı had been murdered, Mr Yaran had left the beach. Mr Mehmet Özdağ finally submitted that he had seen Mr Yaran at the same beach a week before this statement.

(q) S tatements by Erol Ergün dated 15 July 1996

74 . Mr Erol Ergün stated that Mr Ahmet Elbasan was his friend and that he had heard that Mr Aydın Pabuçcu was to open a nightclub called Flamingo in the village of Demirkan and that Mr Elbasan would help him financially. He did not know whether the night club had in fact been opened. Mr Ergün stated that a week before he gave his statement, he had gone to Nicosia State Hospital to visit Mr Nihat Korkulu with Mr Elbasan. Mr Korkulu was in intensive care and they were not allowed to see him. They then went to Karaoğlanoğlu to see a friend of Mr Elbasan, Hamit. Mr Elbasan and Hamit ta lked about a purchase of about 40,000 United States dollars . Afterwards, Mr Elbasan and the witness went to Kyrenia, to the butcher ' s shop run by Mr Ahmet Fuat. They then went to Nicosia and Famagusta . The witness stated that he had never gone to the night club in the village of Demirkan and that he had never had a long conversation with Mr Fuat and Mr Elbasan.

(r) S tatements by Ahmet Fuat dated 15 July 1996

75 . Mr Ahmet Fuat stated that he was a butcher. He said that Mr Ahmet Elbasan and Mr Erol Ergün, whom he did not know , had visited him in his shop. He did not remember the date of the visit. He did not know anyone called Aydın Pabuçcu a nd he had never been to a night club with Mr Elbasan or Mr Ergün.

(s) S tatements by Ahmet Elbasan dated 15 July 1996

76 . Mr Ahmet Elbasan stated that he had gone to Mr Ahmet Fuat ' s shop with Mr Erol Ergün following an appointment they had made with Mr Fuat on the phone in order to receive a cheque. He submitted that after they had left the butcher ' s shop, they had gone to Famagusta . He stated that since then he had not been to Nicosia . He further contended that he had not been to the Flamingo night club with Mr Ahmet Fuat and Mr Erol Ergün the week before he testified and that he had never gone anywhere with these two people. He stated that he had never gone to any night club.

(t) Record of the Interview of Arzu Çağın by the public prosecutor, dated 20 October 1998

77 . Ms Arzu Çağın stated that on the night of 6 July 1996 she had been talking on the telephone. She looked out and saw the same car passing by twice. She realised that the car had not had a number plate. In fact, there was a lamp where the plate was supposed to be. She then heard a quarrel and two gunshots. She looked out but could not see anything. She submitted that she had heard only male voices. The car went towards the one-way street. She went to the living room where her sister was. They saw young boys from the neighbourhood on the street. Ms Çağın stated that she had called the police and then gone out. She submitted that the car had been dark maroon. She lastly stated that it could have been a Şahin brand car as it had round lights.

(u) Record of the Interview of Bora Baykara by the public prosecutor, dated 20 October 1998

78 . Mr Bora Baykara submitted that on 6 July 1996 he had been with his friends and that they had heard gunshots at 11.26 p.m. He testified that there had been a man covered in blood on the street. He stated that a vehicle had passed by them speedily. He could not see whether it was a car.

(v) Record of the Interview of Ali Rıza Kırçay by the public prosecutor, dated 20 October 1998

79 . Mr Ali Rıza Kırçay stated that on 6 July 1996 he had heard two gunshots and that he had seen a dark coloured vehicle passing by. He then called the police. When he realised that he had called the fire brigade by mistake, he called his neighbour and found that the line was busy. He stated that he had run to the scene of the incident. In three minutes the police arrived. He submitted that he had heard someone shouting “don ' t” and then the gunshots. He finally testified that he did not know the number of people.

(w) Record of the Interview of Özlem Özüner by the public prosecutor, dated 9 December 1998

80 . Ms Özlem Özüner stated that on 6 July 1996 a car had passed by their house twice. When it came in front of their house f or the second time, she heard shouting and then two gunshots. When she went out, she saw a man lying on the street. She later learned that that person was Mr Kutlu Adalı.

3. Documents and witness statements in the supplementary investigation file

(a) Chief Inspector Ahmet Soyalan ' s report dated 31 October 2002 and the work schedule

81 . According to the report prepared by the Chief Inspector, Mr Ahmet Soyalan, on 16 October 2002 the “TRNC” Legal Directorate requested him to carry out an additional investigation in respect of the allegations put forward by Mrs İlkay Adalı before the European Court of Human Rights. Mr Ahmet Soyalan concluded, after investigating the allegations by Mrs Kutlu Adalı, that her allegations were unfounded. In this connection he made the following remarks .

82 . According to the records of the immigration department of the Police General Directorate, Begum Shadia Jamal Khan and Farhat Jamal Khan left the “TRNC” on 18 May 1998 . They had been residing at 31 Ardıç Street in Kızılay at the time of the murder of Mr Kutlu Adalı. The police visited their house on the night of the murder and the following day. They could not be found and statements could not be taken from them . Furthermore, Mrs İlkay Adalı had neither furnished any information to the police that these persons had had knowledge of the incident nor requested the police to take their statements.

83 . Chief Inspector Eybil Efendi, the team leader of the police rapid response unit, went to the incident location very quickly since he and his team were mobile in a vehicle in the area as part of their duties.

84 . The incident investigation officer Mr Ahmet Soyalan established that no person bearing the name Mehmet Özbay or Abdullah Çatlı had been in the “TRNC” on 6 July 1996 . He further established that there was no organisation called “Turkish Revenge Brigade” (Türk İntikam Tugayı) in the “TRNC”.

85 . Mrs Adalı never requested the police to provide her with the autopsy and the ballistics reports concerning the murder of Kutlu Adalı.

86 . Şahin and Murat make cars are produced in Turkey and imported to the “TRNC” by Levent Oto Ticaret Ltd . These two makes are completely different externally. The body of the Murat is shorter than the body of the Şahin .

87 . It was established that Mr Orhan Ceylan had no connection with the incident and consequently, no statement was taken from him. S tatements were taken from him at a later stag e. He retired from the Turkish armed f orces on 25 September 1995 when he was a colonel. He consulted Mr Hüseyin Demirci and his lawyers in order to file a case against Hürriyet and Aktüel.

88 . Mrs İlkay Adalı did not make a statement that she wanted to file a complaint against M r Demirci and Mr Ceylan. The allegation that Mr Demirci was a suspect was made by a woman who called the head of the Nicosia Judicial Branch, Mr Özkum. She did not reveal her identity.

After asssesing this information, the Judicial Police Director, Mr Mehmet Özdamar, took statements from Mr Demirci. Mr Özdamar stated that the information had been relayed to Mr Özkum. An investigation was carried out by the “TRNC” Telecommunications Department. It was established that the system did not allow the identity of a caller to be ascertained unless prior notice had been given. Nevertheless, Mrs Adalı made a request for her calls to be monitored and her request was fulfilled. It was further established that Mr Hüseyin Demirci had never been suspect ed of a murder. Furthermore, the allegation that Mr Demirci fired a weapon in Nicosia State Hospital was inaccurate.

89 . It was established that the telephone number 0392 727 7806 was the number of a public phone in the city of Lefke .

90 . Mr Musa Öneral, who was helping Mrs Adalı to repair her house, stated that on 5 September 2002 at around 9.30 p.m. he had heard the sound of leaking water coming from the water tank in Mrs Adalı ' s garden and had gone into the garden. It was established that Mrs Adalı had seen him whilst leaving the garden. Mrs İlkay Adalı made a statement concerning this incident without filing a complaint against Mr Öneral.

91 . Mrs İlkay Adalı found the corpse of her dog, Tin Tin , in a vacant plot in her neighbourhood at around 9 a.m. on 6 September 2002 . The dog had been out between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. The autopsy established that the dog ' s right rear leg and right ribs had been broken and that an excessive haemorrhage had been caused by trauma. The cause of death was established as haemorrhage due to trauma. Dr Mehmet İsfendiyaroğlu, the veterinary surgeon, maintained that he could not indicate the cause of the trauma from a medical point of view. He was therefore unable to determine whether the dog ' s death had been cause d by torture or a car accident.

92 . Mr Kutlu Adalı was not a member of the Civil Defence Organisation. He was conscripted as a member of the Civil Defence Service in accorda nce with the Civil Defence Act (n o. 3/1972 ) . He was discharged from the service on 1 January 1995 .

93 . Refik Öztümen was not a relative of Güler Özgencil, contrary to Mrs Adalı ' s claim. When he was the chief of the Yenişehir police station and subsequently the head of the Judicial Branch of the Nicosia Directorate of Police he met Mrs Adalı several times in connection with the murder of Mr Kutlu Adalı. Mr Öztümen did not use an intermediary to have these meetings. The requests for the interviews were made by Mrs Adalı. While Mr Öztümen was the chief of the Yenişehir police station the investigating officer was Mr Ahmet Soyalan, who was responsible for monitoring the case-file. The claim concerning the closure of the case-file was a deliberate lie put forward by Mrs İlkay Adalı. A case file on a murder could not be closed unless the perpetrator of the offence had been identified and prosecuted. The case file was still open.

94 . On the day of the incident the police officers entered Mr Kutlu Adalı ' s house through the open door with the elected executive officer (muhtarı) of the Kızılay neighbourhood, in order to establish whether there was any evidence concerning the murder and whether the belongings of the Adalı family had been damaged. The belongings of the family were definitely not moved elsewhere and the police officers inspected the house as part of their duties .

95 . Mr Ziya Kasaboğlu was born in İnönü and moved to Nicosia when his parents died. He was brought up by his brother and married in Nicosia . Mr Kasaboğlu did not retire from the police force, but from the security forces command. On the night of the incident he was in the snack shop which belonged to his wife , located in Şehit Ecvet Yusuf Street . It was established that, at around 11 p.m. , Kutlu Adalı went to the snack shop and bought some snacks. After Mr Kasaboğlu closed the shop he went to the house of his mother-in-law at number 5 Akalan Street . While he was passing by Mr Kutlu Adalı ' s neighbourhood he saw a crowd and learned that Mr Adalı had been killed. It was further established that on the night of the incident Mr Kasaboğlu did not phone anybody from Kutlu Adalı ' s family, that he did not know any member s of his family and that he did not call the police command. Finally, Mrs İlkay Adalı did not call him to propose a meet ing .

96 . Altay Sayıl attended the funeral of Kutlu Adalı. Mr Sayıl and his wife also attended a religious ceremony at the Adalı family ' s house. Mr Sayıl stated that on 9 or 10 July 1996 he had gone to İlkay Adalı ' s house at her invitation in order to pay his condolences, that he had stayed there for around 25 minutes, and that on his arrival the dog had barked once or twice as usual. He stated that a few days after his visit an article had been published in one of the Turkish newspapers, in which Mrs Adalı had suggested that he had taken Mr Adalı out of his house on the night of the incident. Mr Sayıl denied Mrs Adalı ' s allegation. He maintained that he had been saddened by the allegation and that he had never called her again.

97 . Mr Alp Aydınova worked at the post office as the director. Following the complaints made by Mrs Adalı that her letters had been opened and that they had not been put in the mail box but had been pushed under the door, he called the postman working in her area and inquired into the complaints. It was understood that the letters to Mrs Adalı had been delivered without any delay and that despite the dog being at home, the letters had been pushed under the door in order to keep them safe as the mailbox in front of the house did not have a lock mechanism. It was further established that on 16 May 2002 a letter had been sent from London t o the applicant with a postcode for Nicosia , Cyprus , instead of Mersin , Turkey . Consequently, the letter was directed to the Greek Cypriot section and was eventually sent to the “TRNC” post office by the Greek Cypriot post office. Upon the examination of the letter, it was observed that it had not been subjected to the normal mailing procedure as it had not been totally moisturi s ed. After receiving the letter on 24 May 2002 , Mr Aydınova went to the house of Mrs Adalı to show her the state of the letter and to answer her questions promptly.

98 . The following account was given by Mr Hüseyin Demirci. On 6 July 1996 Mr Demirci had dinner with Mustafa Asilhan, the second deputy to the chief of police and after the dinner he took Mr Asilhan to his house in his car, a Fiat 132 with the registration number DK 598. He then went to his house in Nicosia . Mr Demirci denied having ever killed anybody in his life and had never been accused of murder before a court despite the allegations. His sky-blue- coloured Fiat 132 had never been painted black. He had not lent his car to anyone. Mr Demirci met Mr Sayıl at the Dr Fazıl Küçük Museum after the murder of Mr Adalı. Mr Demirci was one of the founders of the Nationalist Justice Party (Milliyetçi Adalet Partisi) and was a nationalist. He was not a member of the Civil Defence Organisation, but had been enlisted for duty in the Civil Defence Service on 1 January 2002 in accordance with the Civil Defence Act (no. 3/1972). Mr Demirci wore trousers which lo oked like a military uniform . He had bought them at the market place and used them when he did construction work on his house. He denied the claim that he had given military training in the village of İnönü where he resided. He was aware of the fact that he would be prosecuted if he had given military training. Mr Demirci did not receive any monthly salary from the State. He called Mrs Adalı three or four months after the murder of Mr Adalı as he had been informed by the police that she wanted to meet him at the police station. He talked to her for around twenty five minutes. Mrs Adalı asked him whether he had any connection with the murder. He told Mrs Adalı that he had not known Mr Adalı and that at the time of the incident he had been in his house in İnönü. Mrs Adalı alleged that he had raised the walls of his garden to forty feet and that he could not go out of his house through fear. Mr Demirci told Mrs Adalı that she could record his house with a video camera so that she would believe him. He further stated that he had not lied on the telephone about being tried and convicted of murder. His car had not been set on fire and had not been painted any colour other than blue. He denied the allegations that he had health problem s , that he had opened fire in Nicosia State Hospital , that he had been sent to Ankara for treatment and that he had been questioned by a commanding officer in connection with these lies.

99 . It was established that Mr Demirci ' s vehicle with the registration no. DK 598 was blue and a photograph of the vehicle had been taken. Mr ErdoÄŸan Serdenak examined the vehicle and established that only the corroded parts had been painted blue and that the v ehicle had never been painted black.

100 . A plastic surgery examination was carried out by Dr Adem Ademoğulları, who concluded that there was no trace of burn s on Mr Demirci ' s body . Furthermore, there was no record at Nicosia State Hospital indicating that Mr Demirci had opened fire in the hospital. He had not been sent abroad for medical treatment since 1996. He had not been admitted to any hospital as a result of injuries caused by burning.

101 . It was further established that Mr Demirci did not receive any monthly salary from the State, that he had owned a Fiat 132 make blue vehicle with the registration number DK 598 since 12 February 1996 and that he had not own ed any other vehicle.

102 . On an unspecified date Mustafa Asilhan invited Mr Hüseyin Demirci to his daughter ' s wedding , which was held on 5 July 1996 . On the same day, Mr Demirci invited Mr Asilhan to dinner. On 6 July 1996 Mr Demirci went to Nicosia and called Mr Asilhan between 6.30 and 7 p.m. They had dinner in the restaurant belonging to the Gemikonağı Municipality . During the dinner, Mr Muharrem Göç was also with them until 9 p.m. After he had left, Mr Demirci and Mr Asilhan continued their meal and after having spent 3-4 hours in the restaurant they left and went to Nicosia . Mr Demirci took Mr Asilhan to his house. On the same evening, Mr Asilhan learned that Mr Adalı had been killed. He then went to the police to receive detailed information concerning the murder.

103 . In August 2001 Mrs İlkay Adalı visited the Presid ential Press Advise r, Mr Orbay Deliceırmak, and asked whether the President wished to buy copies of the CD named “Sounds of your footsteps on the stairs”. Mr Deliceırmak took a sample copy of the CD to the President after the applicant had left his office. The President gave Mr Deliceırmak authority to buy a number of copies of the CD. After a while Mrs Adalı and her daughter went to Mr Deliceırmak ' s office. He told them that the President wanted to buy copies of the CD for the sum of TRL 200,000,000 and received ten copies. It was established that Mr Deliceırmak took Mrs Adalı to the office of Mr Tansel Çağış, the “TRNC” Presidential Director and Chief Treasurer, and returned to his office. It was further established that the allegations that the President had wished to see Mrs Adalı in order to talk about her application before the European Court of Human Rights and that Mr Deliceırmak had taken Mrs Adalı and her daughter to the President ' s office were not accurate.

104 . In August 2001 Mr Deliceırmak went to the office of Mr Çağış with Mrs Adalı. He told Mr Çağış that, with the President ' s approval, he would buy ten copies of the CD entitled “Sounds of your footsteps on the stairs”. Mr Deliceırmak instructed Mr Çağış to sta rt the procedure for payment. Mrs Adalı was requested to come back later to collect the money. At a later stage Mrs Adalı received TRL 210,000,000. Mr Çağış did not take Mrs Adalı to his office or tell her that unless she withdrew her application to the Court she would be apprehended by the police. Furthermore, it was established that Mr Çağış was not a relative of the chief of police , Mr Erdem Demirbağ.

105 . Mrs Adalı claimed that she had been urged to withdraw her application to the European Court of Human Rights when she had been in the President ' s office. The investigation into this allegation revealed that there had not been any pressure on Mrs Adalı. On the contrary, she sent a petition to the President stating that in exchange for material benefits she might withdraw her application to the European Court of Human Rights. This letter demonstrated the fact that she had brought her application in order to receive material benefits but not to secure the rights of a deceased person.

106 . It was established that the allegation that a statement had not been taken from Fatoş Efe, who resided in Akasya Street , was inaccurate as the real name of Fatoş Efe was Fatoş Yöney and a statement had been taken from her on 7 July 1996 . Her husband, Mr Ali Yöney, was also at home at the relevant time and was asked to testify. It was deemed unnecessary to take a statement from Ayten Eruman since she resided in the same house as Mr Ali Yöney and Mrs Fatoş Yöney. Behiye Ahmet Kodal, who resided at 3 Akasya Street in Kızılay, left her house along with her grandson and her son as she was disturbed after hearing the gun shots. It was established that she had gone back to her house in the afternoon of 7 July 1996 . No statement was taken from her at the time of the incident since she was not in her house. Her statement was taken at a later stage.

(b) Letter from the chief public prosecutor of the “TRNC” to the Head of the Directorate of Police, dated 16 October 2002

107 . The chief public prosecutor requested Chief Inspector Ahmet Soyalan to contact Mr Zaim M. Necatigil and asked for a supplementary investigation to be conducted in the light of the allegations made before the European Court of Human Rights.

(c) The records concerning the entry of Begum Shahida Jamal Khan, Farhat Jamal Khan and Mehmet Özbay to the “TRNC”

108 . The records show the dates of entry and departure of Begum Shahida Jamal Khan, Farhat Jamal Khan and Mehmet Özbay to and from the “TRNC”.

(d) Letters dated 19 August 2001 and 25 October 2001 from the applicant to the President of the “TRNC”

109 . In her letter of 19 August 2001 the applicant requested the President, as the head of S tate, to provide employment for her two children Kut Adalı and Er Adalı, to award compensation to the Adalı family, to declare Kutlu Adalı a press martyr and to honour him, to allocate a building to the Kutlu Adalı F oundation and to help set up a library with the thirty-five thousand books belonging to Kutlu Adalı. She undertook to withdraw her application immediately if her requests were fulfilled.

110 . In her letter of 25 October 2001 the applicant requested the S tate to p rovide her and her daughter with air tickets to and from Istanbul to attend the TÃœYAP Book Fair. Further to the applicant ' s request, the President asked the relevant aut horities to supply an Istanbul- Ercan return ticket to the applicant.

(e) Letter from the head of the Police Rapid Response Unit to the team commanders

111 . In a letter dated 12 February 1996 Mr Erdal Emanet, the head of the Police Rapid Response Unit, informed t he commanders of the patrol teams about the new regulations concerning patrolling and the patrolling route.

(f) Letter from the investigating officer to Nicosia State Hosp ital and note from Dr Adem Ademoğulları dated 23 October 2002

112 . On 23 October 2002 Mr Ahmet Soyalan, the investigating officer, requested the hospital authorities to conduct a medical examination on Mr Hüseyin Demirci and report whether there were any burn marks on his body. On the same day, Dr Adem Ademoğulları, following an examination, reporte d that there had been no burn related traces or mark s on the body of Mr Hüseyin Demirci.

(g) Letter from the Head of the Directorate of Police to the Ministry of Health and Social Assistance and the reply from the Medical Director of the Nicosia State Hospital, dated 23 October 2002

113 . The Head of the Directorate of Police, Mr Erdem Demirbağ, requested the Ministry to send a report concerning the allegations that Mr Hüseyin Demirci had opened fire in Nicosia State Hospital in the period between 1 January 1996 and 8 October 2002 and that Mr Huseyin Demirci had been sent to Ankara for the treatment of burns on his body.

114 . The Medical Director of the Nicosia State Hospital reported that Mr Hüseyin Demirci had been admitted to the hospital on 22 February 1997 and treated until 25 February 1997 . He further reported that there had not been any complaint or information concerning the alleged firing of shots in the hospital building and that no such allegation had been brought to the attention of the hospital admin istration.

(h) L etter dated 16 October 2002 from the C ivil Defence Regional Director

115 . The Civil Defence Regional Director, Mr Mehmet Yılmabaşar, stated that on 1 January 2002 Mr Hüseyin Demirci had been enlisted in the Civil Defence Service in accordance with the amended Civil Defence Act (no. 3/1972).

(i) Witness statements

(i) Mr Orbay Deliceırmak ' s statement dated 17 October 2002

116 . Mr Orbay Deliceırmak, who w as the presidential press advise r of the “TRNC” at the time of his statement , stated that in August 2001 the applicant had visited him in his office and had asked whether the President would buy copies of the CD named “Sounds of your footsteps on the stairs”. Mr Deliceırmak submitted that he had then taken a sample copy of the CD to the President after the applicant had left his office. He contended that a few days after the applicant had visited his office, the President had given instructions to purchase a number of copies of the CD released by the applicant for two hundred million Turkish liras. Soon after, the applicant visited Mr Deliceırmak again and asked whether the President would purchase the CDs. The witness stated that when he had told the applicant that the President had agreed to buy , she had left ten copies of the CD. Mr Deliceırmak then took the applicant to the office of the director in order for her to collect the money. The allegation that the President wanted to see the applicant and talk about the case before the European Court of Human Rights was untrue. Mr Deliceırmak stated that the President had been interested in the CDs. He further submitted that he had never gone to the President ' s office with Ms İlkay Adalı and her daughte r . He noted that when the President wanted to receive persons in private the relevant steps were taken out by the d irector of his private office.

(ii) Mr Altay Sayıl ' s statement dated 17 October 2002

117 . Mr Altay Sayıl stated that his statement taken on 11 July 1996 by the police was correct. He submitted that the applicant ' s allegations concerning him were false. In particular, the applicant ' s claim that he had taken Mr Adalı out on the night of the murder was false. The witness averred that after the incident he had gone to the applicant ' s house twice. He had also attended the funeral. He did not have a black car but had a green B eetle- type Volkswagen and a Vauxhall C resta make car with a silver ‑ c olour ed top and a black band around the side , which he used only at car shows. He further alleged that the applicant had attended the retired police officers ' evening on 4 July 1996 , had read a poem there and had submitted her handwritten poem.

118 . Mr Altay Sayıl stated that he had not had any connection with Mr Hüseyin Demirci despite the applicant ' s claim. He contended that he had met Mr Demirci two or three months after the incident at the Dr Fazıl Küçük Museum. At the time of Mr Adalı ' s murder he had not known Mr Demirci. He submitted that, as he was a researcher and a writer, he had friends within artistic circles. His friendship wi th Mr Adalı had been a ten-year -long friendship , as could be seen in the article “Crickets and Ants” written by Mr Adalı on 28 May 1985 in the newspaper Ortam . He provided a copy of this newspaper article and a handwritten copy of the applicant ' s poem, read out on 4 July 1996 to the police.

(iii) The applicant ' s statement dated 6 September 2002 and the report by the veterinary surgeon

119 . The applicant stated that on 5 September 2002 at around 9 p.m. she had seen Mr Musa Öneral walking in her garden from the back towards the front of the house. When she asked him what he was doing, Mr Öneral told her that he had come to have a look at the water tank. She submitted that on 6 September 2002 she had let their dog, Tin Tin , out at 6 a.m. Since the dog did not return until 9 a.m. she went out to find it. She stated that she had found the body of the dog in a vacant garden across the street in front of their house. The bone of the right leg was protruding. She submitted that following an autopsy she had been told that the death of the dog had been caused by blows. She maintained that she did not know whether their dog had been run over by a car or killed by someone. She did not know whether Mr Öneral had a ny connection with the incident. She submitted that she did not wish to make a complaint concerning the incident and would not want to take a case against Mr Öneral. She contended that all her family wanted was for the incident to be not ed by the police and that they did not want to be harassed.

120 . On 6 September 2002 Mehmet Ä°sfandiyaroÄŸlu, a veterinary surgeon, drafted a report which stated that a trauma-connected fracture of the right hind foot, fractures of the right ribs and severe internal bleeding had been observed on the body of the applicant ' s dog.

(iv) Mr Musa Öneral ' s statement dated 6 September 2002

121 . The witness stated that on 5 September 2002 he had gone out for his daily walk for the treatment of his illness, diabetes . At around 9.30 p.m. , while he was passing by the applicant ' s house , he heard the sound of running water coming from the water tank next to the applicant ' s house. He went to see whether there was a leakage from the tank. He submitted that he did not want to disturb the applicant and her family. While he was leaving Mrs Adalı asked him who he was. He replied that he had been there to have a look at the water tank. He contended that he ha d not rung the applicant ' s door bell as he did not want to disturb her . He learned from the police officer who took his statement that the dog was dead and contended that he had no knowledge of the incident.

(v) Mr Ali Rıza Görgüner ' s statement dated 18 October 2002

122 . Mr Ali Rıza Görgüner stated that he had been the elected executive officer (mahalle muhtarı) of the Kızılay neighbourhood since 1974. He submitted that on 6 July 1996 after the corpse of Mr Adalı had been found, he had gone into the house of the Adalı family with police officers. They wanted to see whether anything had happened to the applicant and her children. They could not find anyone in the house. Mr Görgüner stated that the police officers had then carried out a search of the house in order to find evidence concerning the murder without moving the belongings of the residents of the house elsewhere . He maintained that he could only remember the name of the commanding officer. He submitted that the applicant ' s allegations that the police officers had spread her belongings around and that they had opened six locked cupboards in order to find a letter from a fascist organisation was not accurate. He stated that the police officers had glanced around and had done their duty in his presence.

(vi) Mr Mustafa Asilhan ' s statement dated 18 October 2002

123 . The witness was the second deputy to the Head of the Directorate of Police of the “TRNC” at the time of the killing of Mr Adalı. He stated that he had met Mr Hüseyin Demirci in 1970. He submitted that he had gone for dinner with Mr Demirci on 6 July 1996 after Mr Demirci had picked him u p from his house at around 6.30– 7 p.m. He maintained that they had gone to the restaurant belonging to the Gemikonağı Municipality . He stated that they had seen Mr Muharrem Göç and had invited him to their table. Mr Göç stayed with them until 9 p . m. and then left as he was on duty. The witness s tated that after spending three to four hours in the restaurant they had left to go to Nicosia and that he had learned about the murder of Mr Adalı the same night when he had received a call on the police telephone.

(vii) Mr Orhan Ceylan ' s statement dated 18 October 2002

124 . The witness, who was a retired colonel at the time of Mr Adalı ' s murder, stated that he had read the articles in the Hürriyet newspaper and the Aktüel magazine which had left him and Mr Hüseyin Demirci under suspicion. He submitted that he had realised that the title “Colonel Orhan” had referred to him as a friend of Mr Demirci. He had given authorisation to his lawyer to initiate legal proceedings against Hürriyet and Aktüel. He finally added that he had met Mr Demirci in 1994 during his term of offi ce as the c ommander of the Military Central Office in Nicosia .

(viii) Mr Hüseyin Demirci ' s statement dated 18 October 2002 and supporting documents

125 . Mr Hüseyin Demirci stated that he had already given a statement to the police on 11 July 1996 concerning the death of Kutlu Adalı. He said that his statement of 11 July 1996 was correct. He stated that he had learned of the allegations against him made by İlkay Adalı in her application to the European Court of Human Rights on 18 October 2002 .

126 . He stated that on the night of the incident he had had dinner with Mr Mustafa Asilhan . Mr Asilhan had come to his house to give him an invitation for his daughter ' s wedding and during their conversation they had decided to have a dinner together one night .

127 . On 5 July 1996 he attended Mr Asilhan ' s daughter ' s wedding and after congratulating Mr Asilhan, he invited the latter for dinner the following day. Mr Asilhan asked him to call him the following day at around 7 p.m. The witness rang Mr. Asilhan, who described the location of his home. He contended that around 6.30-7 p.m. he had gone to Mr Asilhan ' s house in his c ar, which was a Fiat 132 of sky- blue colour.

128 . Mr Hüseyin Demirci further submitted that he had picked up Mr Asilhan from his home and that they had gone towards Güzelyurt , passing through Gemikonağı. They finally went to a place called either Municipal Beach or Municipal Café. He said that this was a public place and that there were many people and families there. He stated that they had stayed there around three hours eating and drinking. He claimed that he had not seen anyone whom he knew throughout all this time. He contended that he had been introduced by Mr Asilhan to a person who had been passing by and whose name he did not remember but who m he knew to be a policeman. He stated that this person had been with them for a while and that Mr Asilhan had paid the bill.

129 . The witness stated that around 10 p.m. they had left the place to go to Nicosia . He contended that he had not looked at his watch at that time but he guessed that it had been around 10 p.m. After taking Mr Asilhan to his house, he went directly to his own house in his village and slept. He submitted that his parents were old and were already asleep . He further contend ed that they did not lock their doors and that , therefore, he did not have a separate key to the house.

130 . Mr Hüseyin Demirci stated that he had not known Mr Kutlu Adalı in person and that he had read in a newspaper that Mr Adalı had been shot dead . He submitted that he had had no idea of who he was or of his profession. He learned, after reading articles on Mr Adalı ' s life in newspapers, that Mr Adalı had been a journalist working for the Yeni Düzen newspaper. He maintained that he had neither any connection with nor any knowledge of the death of Mr Adalı.

131 . He stated that he was forty-eight years old and that he had never killed anyone in his life. He claimed that the allegation that he had killed someone seven years ago and had been acquitted was totally invented and a lie. He submitted that had there been such an event, this would have been seen in police files and court records.

132 . Mr Hüseyin Demirci affirmed that his car was a Fiat 132, an Italian make with its factory colour of sky blue and not a Murat . He further asserted that he had never had a car which was black and that his car had never been painted black.

133 . Mr Hüseyin Demirci denied the allegations that he had given his car to Mr Altay Sayıl or to anyone else. He stated that he would never lend his car to anyone as he had principles concerning this issue. He did not know Altay Sayıl previously and had only learned of his name when h is name had figured in the newspaper s after Mr Adalı ' s death. He submitted that one day he had gone to the Halkın Sesi newspaper office and during a conversation he had learned that Mr Altay Sayıl worked at the Dr Fazıl Küçük Museum. According to Mr Hüseyin Demirci , it was only when he went to the museum and introduced himself to the person who was there that he learned that this person was Altay Sayıl.

134 . Mr Hüseyin Demirci accepted that he was a nationalist. He pointed out that his name was the eleventh on the list of founders of the (Nationalist Justice Party) Milliyetçi Adalet Partisi . He stated that at the time of the incident he had had no relationship with the Civil Defence Organisation. He stated that it had been in 2002 that he had been conscripted, pursuant to the law, as a member of the Geçitkale Regional Civil Defence Organisation. He further stated that he had some times worn camouflaged military-style trousers while doing construction work or similar manual work at home. He denied the allegations that he was conducting military training in his village. He asserted that military training took place in military barracks under the supervision of the relevant commander . He added that if anyone attempted to conduct military training by themselves outside the barracks, the police would commence a legal investigation in respect of that person. He also emphasised that he did n ot receive any salary from the security f orces.

135 . He stated that he did not remember the exact date but that around three or four months after the incident he had received a phone call from the police , who informed him that Mrs İlkay Adalı was at the police station and that she wanted to speak to him. He contended that he had then called the number which Mrs İlkay Adalı had left with the police and had spoken for about twenty-five minutes with her. Mrs İlkay Adalı asked him if he had been involved in the killing of her husband and he told her that he had not know n her husband and had been at home at the time of the in cident. He further stated that İlkay Adalı had alleged that he had raised the walls around his house to forty feet and that he was frightened to go out. He had told her that he lived in the village of İnönü and that she could come any time with a camera or video camera to record his house and that if he was not there she could have a coffee with his parents. Mr Hüseyin Demirci stated that he had intended in this way to avoid that she believed in other persons ' lies . He contended that during this telephone conversation he had not lied or said that he h ad been tried and acquitted in a murder case.

136 . In his statement Mr Demirci submitted that he acquired his car in February 1996 and that since then he had been using the same car with the same colour and number plate . His car had never been burnt by anyone, nor had any one ever attempted to burn it . He contended that as could be seen , he was healthy and did not have any burn marks on his body. He asserted that he had never been to hospital or received any treatment as alleged. He further denied the allegations that he had fired shot s with a gun in a hospital. He pointed out that if he had made such a n error there would have been a legal investigation in relation to it . He contended that he had never been brought before a commander and had never been warned in respect of such an event because all these allegations were lies and the product of imagination. He further submitted that contrary to the allegations , he had never been sent to Ankara for treatment by the Turkish military f orces.

137 . He reiterated his previous statements concerning the colour of his car. He submitted that he had never changed the colour of his car , nor had he ever had the intention of doing so. He denied the allegation that he had had his car painted black in a military garage prior to the killing. He claimed that this allegation was also a lie and the product of imagination. He submitted that after the murder, a newspaper published in Turkey had printed some articles claiming that he and Colonel Orhan had committed the murder. Some parts of these articles were re printed in other newspapers and Aktüel magazine. He stated that both he and Colonel Orhan had contacted their lawyer in order to sue the newspaper and that his lawyer had told him that he would take care of the matter . Mr Hüseyin Demirci stated that his lawyer had full authority in this matter. He said that he had known Orhan Ceyhan since 1994 , when he had been the commanding o fficer of the Nicosia General Directorate and that they had been friends since that time. He lastly stated that all these al legations were lies and slander and that he did not understand why there was such slander against him.

138 . Mr Hüseyin Demirci submitted a copy of the invitation dated 5 July 1996 to Mr Asilhan ' s daughter ' s wedding . He further submitted a copy of the record s of his car as registered at the “TRNC ” Motor Vehicle Records Office .

(ix) ErdoÄŸan Serdenak ' s statement dated 23 October 2002

139 . Mr Erdoğan Serdenak, who worked in an automobile company as the service director at the time of his statement , testified concerning the car belonging to Mr Hüseyin Demirci and the differences between the Şahin and Murat make cars.

(x) Lema Ayhun ' s statement dated 23 October 2002

140 . The witness was an official working at the Motor Vehicle Record Office in Nicosia . He submi tted that the 1978 model saloon- type Fiat 132 vehicle had been built in Italy and was registered in the name of Mr Hüseyin Demirci. He further stated that the registration number of the car was DK 598 and that it was a blue vehicle. He added that Mr Demirci did not have any other vehicles registered in his name.

(xi) Fatma Bilen Görener ' s statement dated 23 October 2002

141 . The witness worked as head of the account s branch of the Treasury and Accounts Department at the Ministry of State responsible for the “TRNC” Economy. She stated that she had examined the records at her office at the request of the police and had established that Mr Hüseyin Demirci did not receive any monthly salary, pension, social welfare disability benefit, labourer ' s wage, martyr ' s family benefit, disabled veteran ' s benefit or disability allowance from her office.

(xii) Ahmet AydoÄŸdu ' s statement dated 23 October 2002

142 . Deputy Inspector Ahmet Aydoğdu, who was working at the Immigration Department attached to the General Directorate of Police, stated that he had carried out a computer check and had not found a record of any person called Abdullah Çatlı entering or leaving the “TRNC” between 1 January 1991 and 6 July 1996 .

(xiii) Ahmet Åžensoy ' s statement dated 25 October 2002

143 . The witness was working at the Telecommunication Department attached to the Ministry of Public Works and Communications as an engineer at the time of his statement . He stated that in the telephone system, in order to ascertain the number calling a particular number, it was necessary to make an application for the monitoring of incoming calls . He submitted that it was therefore not possible to establish the identity of the unidentified caller who called the Kıbrıs newspaper on 7 July 1996 .

(xiv) Yusuf Özkum ' s statement dated 25 October 2002

144 . The witness was the head of the Judicial Branch of the Nicosia Directorate of Police. He submitted that approximately one week after the murder of Kutlu Adalı a woman had called and told him that Mr Hüseyin Demirci had killed Mr Adalı. He stated that he had then brought this information to the attention of the Judicial Police Director, Mr Mehmet Özdamar. He added that he did not know who this woman was and that he had never met Mrs Adalı.

(xv) Eybil Efendi ' s statement dated 25 October 2002

145 . The witness, who was serving as the team leader in the police rapid response unit in Nicosia on 6 July 1996 , submitted that they had heard gunshots while they were patrolling with the team ' s Land Rover brand vehicle around the area where important persons lived. They immediately went to the scene of the incident, where they saw a man lying on the street, whose name he later learned was Kutlu Adalı. Having seen the deceased ' s jacket covered in blood and the cartridges around the body, the witness realised that Mr Adalı had been shot. Mr Efendi stated that he had reported the incident to the police centre by radio and had secured the area. He averred that the Judicial Branch officers and the officers from the Yenişehir police station had arrived at the scene of the incident and initiated the appropriate procedure. He finally stated that his team had taken the corpse to the morgue at Nicosia State Hospital in their Land R over.

(xvi) Ayten Eruman ' s statement dated 28 October 2002

146 . The witness resided in the same neighbourhood as the applicant. She stated that on the night that Mr Adalı had been killed she had been at home with her daughter and her son-in-law. She submitted that at around 11.30 p.m. they had heard gunshots and that within a few minutes her daughter Fatoş Güney had gone out. She stated that she had not go ne out herself that night. She added that her daughter was known as “Fatoş Efe” and that she herself was known as “Ayten Efe” but her real surname was “Eruman”.

(xvii) Behiye Ahmet Kodal ' s statement dated 28 October 2002

147 . The witness, who was a neighbour of the applicant, stated that on 6 July 1996 she had been at home with her grandson. After she had heard gunshots she had called her son and had asked him to pick her and her grandson up. Her son then came to her house and took them to his house. On their way they saw a crowd gathered in front of the applicant ' s house. She submitted that her son had not come from the direction of where Mr Adalı had been killed. She maintained that sh e had returned to her house on 7 July 1996 in the afternoon and she had heard then that Mr Adalı had been murdered.

(xviii) Mehmet YaÅŸar Kodal ' s statement dated 28 October 2002

148 . The witness is the son of Ms Behiye Ahmet Kodal. He submitted that his mother had called him on 6 July 1996 and had asked him to collect her and his son, as his son had been crying. He stated that he had then collected his mother and his son and taken them to his house. He averred that he had used the street on the other side of the road from Mr Adalı ' s house to leave the neighbourhood. He stated that he had learned about the killing of Mr Adalı when he arrived at the neighbourhood. He lastly stated that he had moved to his mother ' s house four years prior to his statement .

(xix) Mehmet Ä°sfandiyaroÄŸlu ' s statement dated 28 October 2002

149 . The witness, a senior veterinary surgeon, stated that on 6 September 2002 he had carried out an autopsy on the applicant ' s dog. He stated that subsequent to the autopsy he had established that the right rear leg had been broken, the ribs on the right hand side had been broken and there had been severe haemorrhage. He found that the cause of the death was haemorrhage caused by a trauma. He denied having made a comment that the the dog ' s death had been caused by torture or a car accident. He maintained that, from a medical point of view, he could not determine the cause of the trauma.

(xx) Ziya KasaboÄŸlu ' s statement dated 21 October 2002

150 . The witness was a retired policeman who had a snack shop in the applicant ' s neighbourhood. He stated that on 6 July 1996 at around 10 p.m. Mr Adalı had come to his shop, asked for some snacks, bought them and left. He stated that after around 45 minutes he had left the shop and had walked towards Akalan Street . When he arrived at the applicant ' s street he saw a crowd and the policemen. He learned that Mr Adalı had been killed. He then went to the house of his mother-in-law. The witness stated that he had not called anyone from the Adalı family or the police and that he did not know any of the family members. He further submitted that Mrs Adalı had not called him. He finally maintained that he had not stayed in the village of İnönü , where he was originally from, even for one night, after the murder of Mr Adalı. He stated that an allegation that he settled in İnönü after the murder was a lie.

(xxi) Alp Aydınova ' s statement dated 21 October 2002

151 . The witness worked as the Director of the Post Office attached to the Ministry of Public Works and Communication at the time of his statement . He stated that in 2001 Mrs Adalı had complained that her letters had been opened and that they had not been put in the mailbox but pushed under the door. He submitted that he had talked to the postman in charge in the applicant ' s neighbourhood. The postman denied the applicant ' s allegations and stated that he had pushed the letters under the door, despite the presence of the dog, so that the letters would not be retrieved by anyone else. The witness submitted that given the applicant ' s complaints, the personnel had been more careful with letters addressed to her. He maintained that on 16 May 2002 a letter had been sent from London to the applicant with a postcode for Nicosia , Cyprus , instead of Mersin , Turkey . Consequently, the letter was directed to the Greek Cypriot section and was eventually sent to the “TRNC” post office by the Greek Cypriot post office. Mr Aydınova averred that the letter had not been sealed and that there had been a blue air m ail sticker instead, which had been the same as the one on the front of the envelope. The sticker had the same Royal Mail title printed on it. He stated that after receiving it on 24 May 2002 he had gone to the applicant ' s house to show her the state of the letter and to answer her questions promptly. When the applicant saw the letter she told Mr Aydınova that the letter was from her lawyer and that she knew the content of the letter as it had been faxed before. Mr Aydınova told the applicant that they had carried out an investigation into her complaints and found that her allegations were not true. He further told her that the personnel were even more sensitive with her letters.

(xxii) Tansel Çağış ' s statement dated 17 October 2002

152 . The witness worked as the “TRNC” Presidential Director and Chief Treasurer. He stated that in August 2001 , while he was in his office Mrs Adalı had come into his office with Mr Deliceırmak. Mr Deliceırmak told the witness that the President had approved the purchase of ten CDs entitled “Sounds of your footsteps on the stairs”. Mr Çağış then started the relevant procedure and told Mrs Adalı to go back and collect her money shortly after. The CDs were purchased for T R L 210,000,000. He stated that he had not seen the applicant when she had collect ed the money. He further denied the claim that he had had a conversation with the applicant or her daughter and the allegation that he had told her that he would have her apprehended unless she withdrew her case before the European Court of Human Rights. The witness maintained that he had no relationship whatsoever with Mr Erdem Demirbağ. He further submitted that on 13 Aug ust 2001 he had received a hand written petition, which he believed to have been written by Mrs Adalı and which was entitled “Kutlu Adalı Charity Foundation”. He handed over a copy of this petition to the police.

4. Documents requested by the Court from the Government following the hearing of 8 October 2002

(a) Documents relating to the investigation into the Saint Barnabas incident

(i) Statements given by YaÅŸar Acu and Mustafa Alibaba, dated 15 March 1996

153 . The witnesses, who at the relevant time were night watchmen, submitted that on 14 March 1996 at around 7 p.m. a squad of soldiers and a colonel had arrived at the St Barnabas Museum. The colonel told the witnesses that his name was “Koparır” and that they would carry out a small exercise. He then asked them to go inside the museum. When the witnesses went inside the building, first a Toros model Renault 12 non-military car and then three other non ‑ military cars arrived. They all went towards the small church. T he witnesses submitted that the cars had left at around 11 p.m. The witnesses then informed the patrolli ng officer and checked the small church with him . They could not see anything. The next morning , they went to the church again. They found that two stones had been removed and dumped outside. They also saw four cartloads of dumped soil. They stated that they had reported the incident to the department director later the same morning.

(ii) Statements by Åžinasi Koru dated 15 March 1996

154 . The witness was on duty at the telephone control office in the Alasya ruins on 14 March 1996 at 11 p.m. He stated that the night watch men at St Barnabas had called him and asked him to go to the St Barnabas Museum. He submitted that on his way to the museum at the Tuzla-Nicos ia intersection, he had seen a b lack Renault 21 with military plate s and two green Ford Transit vehicles. The guards informed him that twelve soldiers and a colonel had arrived there at around 7 p.m. and had explored the area. The witness stated that they had not informed the police since it might have been a military exercise as the nightwatch men had been told.

(iii ) Letter of 15 March 1996 from Nusret Mahirel to the Department of Antiquities and Museums in Nicosia

155 . Nusret Mahirel, the Head of the Regional Department of Antiquities and Museums , reiterated the version of facts stated by the two night watch men and submitted that he had reported the incident to the Directorate of Police in Famagusta . He further stated that subsequent to the on-site examination carried out by the Head of the Police Department in Famagusta and his talk t o the general s taff, they had been informed that the incident should not be exaggerated and that the investigation should not be taken further.

(iv) Letters dated 15 March 1996 from Mr Ali Kanlı to the Minister of Education and Culture

156 . In his first letter Mr Ali Kanlı, the directo r of the S t Barnabas Museum, expressed his concerns regarding the inc ident. He stated that the nightwatch men had been armed and that they might have attempted to use their weapons . He further stated that although the purpose had been to keep the operation secret, what had been done was likely to have the opposite effect. He f urther stated that as the nightwatch men had not been informed, on another occasion they might not be prepared reac t to malevolent persons wearing the same clothing and that this might endanger the safety of the antiquities in the museum.

157 . In the second letter Mr Ali Kanlı informed the Minister that an excavation had been carried out at the original entrance section (Dromos) which was situated to the north-east of the tomb under the small church housing the grave of St Barnabas and that some soil and two stones had been carried to the exterior courtyard and dumped there.

(v) Letter dated 18 March 1996 from the Minister of Education and Culture to the Chief Public Prosecutor ' s office in Nicosia

158 . The Minister informed the Chief Public Prosecutor that the incident, which had occurred in the area of the St Barnabas Mus eum constituted an offence and requested him to initiate legal proceedings.

(vi) Letter dated 18 March 1996 from the Chief Public Prosecutor to the Head of the Directorate of Police

159 . The Chief Public Prosecutor requested the Directorate of Police to initiate an investigation into the St Barnabas incident and to send the completed investigation file to his office.

(vii) Newsp aper articles concerning the S t Barnabas incident

160 . A statement by th e Prime Minister ' s office appeared in Kıbrıs newspaper on 20 March 1996 . According to this declaration, the security forces went to the S t Barnabas Museum after having received information and there was no damage i n the Museum. The Prime Minister ' s office further added that no action had been taken except to determine the accuracy of the information received.

161 . On 16 and 17 March 1996 two other articles appeared in Kıbrıs and Yenidüzen r espectively, concerning the S t Barnabas incident. The news coverage in these newspapers does not bear the name of the applicant ' s late husband, Mr Kutlu Adalı.

(b) Work schedule of the YeniÅŸehir Police Station dated 29 April 1998 (serial nos. 107 and 108)

162 . The Judicial Police Director, Mehmet Özdamar, requested the Chief Public Prosecutor to decide whether an inquest should be carried out. He stated that Kutlu Adalı had been shot dead by an unidentified person or persons at 11.35 p.m. on 6 July 1996 in Nicosia , at the intersection of Ardıç Street and Akasya Street , at a distance of 55 metres from his house. He submitted that the scene of the incident had been searched and that fourteen 9- mm used cartridges had been found and taken as evidence. He further stated that an autopsy had been carried out on the deceased ' s corpse and that the cause of death had been established as “disintegration of the internal organs, internal bleeding and cerebral haemorrhage as a result of injury caused by fire arms”. He stated that the investigation to date had not yielded any result capable of lead ing to the identification of the perpetrators.

( c ) Documents concerning the applicant ' s complaint dated 24 January 1997

(i) The applicant ' s complaint dated 24 January 1997

163 . The applicant made a statement at the YeniÅŸehir police station and submitted that a picture of her deceased husband had been stolen from her garden. She called for the person who had taken the picture to be captured.

(ii) R eport by Mr Fehim Selçuklu dated 16 March 1997 concerning the applicant ' s complaint about the theft of a framed photo of Mr Kutlu Adalı

164 . According to the report, on 24 January 1997 the applicant called the Yenişehir police station, reported that a framed picture of Mr Adalı which had been on her garden wall had been stolen and asked the police officer Fehim Selçuklu to go to her house. The police officer stated in his report that the investigation and inquiries into the complaint had not produced any result s and considered that the case file should be temporarily filed as an “unsolved case” given that there would not be any further development s .

(d) Documents concerning the applicant ' s complaint dated 5 May 1997

(i) The applicant ' s complaint dated 5 May 1997

165 . The applicant, in a petition lodged with the YeniÅŸehir police station, complained that on 5 May 1997 at around 2.30 p.m. she had noticed that the right-hand front tyre of her car had deflated. She submitted that the old style jack she kept in the boot at the rear of her car was stolen. She requested the police to patrol her neighbourhood more frequently.

(ii) Statement by Mr Yusuf Çocuk, dated 5 May 1997

166 . Mr Yusuf Çocuk, who repaired and sold tyres, examined the applicant ' s deflated tyre and stated that it had deflated because it was very old and worn . He further submitted that there was no sign of a point or sharp instrument having been used .

(iii) YeniÅŸehir Police Station ' s work schedule of 5 May 1997

167 . The chief of the Yenişehir police station noted the complaint and the findings of Mr Yusuf Çocuk and added that the applicant ' s request for frequent patrol s in her neighbourhood had been communicated to the relevant authorities. He considered it appropriate n ot to continue the proceedings.

(e) Documents concerning the applicant ' s complaint dated 9 August 2000

(i) T he applicant ' s statement dated 9 August 2000

168 . The applicant stated that on 8 August 2000 she had gone to a restaurant in Göçmenköy called Ercan Kebap Salonu with her daughter, Ms Kut Adalı. She submitted that after they had started eating, a man whose name she later learned was Ayhan Akkurt had come to the restaurant and said:

“I am a Denktaş follower. I belong to Ülkü Ocakları . They put the blame on Çatlı and he is a friend of mine. When he visited Cyprus under the name “Mehmet Özbay” he visited me. I was in prison with him. I also know Hüseyin Demirci. They blamed him, too. There is no such issue .”

169 . The applicant submitted that she had told Ayhan Akkurt that Mr Demirci had claimed that he would be killed for killing Kutlu Adalı. Ayhan Akkurt told the applicant not to follow Hüseyin Demirci and that they would talk about it later in private. She further claimed that when she had told Mr Akkurt that they would not be able to do any harm to Şener Levent, he had told her that was what she thought. She conte nded that she had told him that the Ülkü Ocakları had not sent a message of condolences, that Kutlu Adalı was the founder of the “Turkish Resistance Organisation” and that he had been more of a nationalist than them. She further told Mr Akkurt that Mr Denktaş had never helped them to get her daughter a job and that he had called Kut Adalı and asked whether she had made an application to the European Court of Human Rights. He told Ms Adalı that he would not employ her since she had made an application on such a minor matter. Ayhan Akkurt told Mrs Adalı that he would talk to her later. The applicant maintained that Mr Akkurt had been sitting and drinking at a table next to theirs. She stated that when leaving , Ms Kut Adalı told Mr Akkur t that he should replace his glasses with real ones in order to see the events through them. She contended that Mr Erca n Ergün and Mr Mehmet Kırmızı w ould have heard this conversation. She claimed that they had gone to their house with her daughter ' s car. On 9 August 2000 at around 11 a.m. she called Mr Osman Çolak and told her that Mr Akkurt had tried to threaten them using the name of “Ülkü Ocakları”. Mr Çolak told her that they did not have a member of that name and that she should inform the police immediately. She stated that after this conversation she had called the police and reported the incident. She did not file a complaint.

(ii) Kut Adalı ' s statement dated 9 August 2000

170 . Kut Adalı stated that she had gone to the Ercan Kebap Salonu on 8 August 2000 with her mother. She contended that half an hour after they had arrived there, a person, whose name she later discovered to be Ayhan Akkurt, had arrived at the restaurant. He sat down at a table with Ercan Kırmızı, who pointed out her mother and her to Mr Akkurt, introducing them as the wife and the daughter of Kutlu Adalı. They then started to have a conversation. Mr Akkurt told them that Kutlu Adalı had not been killed by Abdullah Çatlı, that he had served a prison sentence and that Hüseyin Demirci was a friend of his. Kut Adalı contended that she had told him to change his glasses and see the truth. She further maintained that Mr Akkurt had alleged to be a member of the “Ülkü Ocakları”. Kut Adalı stated that her mother had asked Mr Akkurt why her daughter was unemployed. Mr Akkurt told them that everybody was unemployed. Ms Kut Adalı told Mr Akkurt that she had lost her job following her father ' s death and that although Mr Denktaş had promised to find a job for her she was still unemployed. She stated that Mr Akkurt had asked Mrs Adalı for their address and that Mrs Adalı had given him a visit ing card on which their address and telephone number were mentioned.

(iii) Ayhan Akkurt ' s statement dated 9 August 2000

171 . Ayhan Akkurt stated that on 8 August 2000 at around 8.30 p.m. he had gone to the Ercan Cafeteria and sat with Ercan Ergün and Mehmet Kırmızı. He learned that the two women sitting next to them were the wife and daughter of Kutlu Adalı. Mr Ergün told the women that he was a follower of Mr Denktaş. Mrs Adalı told the witness that her daughter was unemployed although the S tate had promised to offer her a job. Mr Akkurt stated that he had told Mrs Adalı not to talk about such issues there. He contended that Mrs Adalı had given him her card. He then left the restaurant.

(iv) Ercan Ergün ' s statement dated 9 August 2000

172 . Ercan Ergün, the owner of the Ercan Cafeteria , which was located in Rauf Denktaş Street , contended that on 8 August 2000 at around 8 p.m. İlkay Adalı and Kut Adalı had come to his restaurant. After a while, Ayhan Akkurt arrived and sat at the table with him and his friend Mehmet Kırmızı, next to the Adalı family. He maintained that Ayhan Akkurt was drunk. Mr Akkurt, Mrs Adalı and Ms Adalı started having a conversation which he coud not hear. He thought that they were having a friendly conversation. However, after a certain point he heard them raising their tone of voice. Kut Adalı told her mother to leave and they left.

(v) Mr Mehmet Kırmızı ' s statement dated 9 August 2000

173 . Mr Mehmet Kırmızı stated that he had gone to the Ercan Cafeteria on 8 August 2000 at around 8 p.m. and had sat with Mr Ergün. He contended that after a while Mrs and Ms Adalı and, subsequently, Mr Akkurt had arrived. He maintained that Mr Akkurt had been intoxicated and had sat with them. He contended that he had heard Mr Akkurt saying to Mrs Adalı that he had known Abdullah Çatlı since he had been a student in Turkey . He stated that he had not heard the whole conversation since he had consumed alcohol. He finally maintained that when he had left he had seen Mr Akkurt and Mrs Adalı talking.

(f) Documents concerning the applicant ' s complaint dated 7 May 2001

(i) The applicant ' s complaint dated 7 May 2001

174 . The applicant complained that she had received a letter sent from the Diyarbakır province of Turkey . The letter contained offensive remarks about the applicant and the deceased Kutlu Adalı and accused them of betraying the Turkish nation. The applicant stated that the letter had been sent to the Yenidüzen newspaper. She contended that she had given statements before the “TRNC” Parliament concerning the murder of Kutlu Adalı and that she had requested the retrial of certain persons. She stated that those persons might have sent the letter. She requested the police to conduct an investigation concerning the letter.

(ii) Report by the police officer Mehmet Emin Babahan, dated 16 May 2001

175 . Mehmet Emin Babahan reported that following the investigation into the applicant ' s complaint , it was established that the letter had been sent from Diyarbakır since the postmark on the envelope had been printed by the Diyarbakır automatic postmarking machine. He further stated that the envelope had been returned to Mrs Adalı after the examination. He lastly contended that the “TRNC” Presidential Office had sent a letter to the Nicosia police department requesting that an investigation be conducted about an article titled “A threat from Diyarbakır ” which was published in Yenidüzen on 4 May 2001 .

(g) Documents concerning the applicant ' s complaint dated 16 September 2002

(i) The applicant ' s complaint dated 16 September 2002

176 . The applicant stated that on 14 September 2002 at 10.51 p.m. she had received a phone call from an unidentified caller who had told her the following:

“My name is Ali. I am calling the house of Kutlu Adalı. Tonight your destiny will be determined. We are coming.”

177 . After the man hang up, the applicant saw his number on her telephone, which was “7277806”. She then checked the previous numbers that she had received calls from and found out that this number had called her before. She stated that she wished to lodge a formal complaint about the matter.

(ii) Report by the police officer Erkan Karam, dated 5 October 2002

178 . Mr Erkan Karam reported that it was established that the number “7277806” was the number of a public card phone in Lefke, Gemikonağı . S tatements from two persons with the name of “Ali” were taken in a military establishment in Gemikonağı . These two persons stated that they did not know the applicant and had not called her. Mr Kar am then collected all the phone cards belonging to the privates in the establishment and sent them to the telephone administration. None of the cards matched the card from which a call had been made to the applicant ' s telephone number. He maintained that the investigations had failed to identify the owner of the card. He proposed to classify the investigation file as “unsolved”.

5. Other d ocuments

(a) Two letters dated 22 May 2002 and 3 June 2002 from the Government concerning the applicant ' s allegation that her mail was opened

179 . In their letter of 22 May 2002 the Government asserted that the applicant had not brought her allegation concerning the intereference with her correspondence to the attention of the “TRNC” authorities. They contended that if she had filed a complaint an investigation could have been initiated into her allegation.

180 . By a letter of 3 June 2002 the Government maintained that the the applicant ' s solicitors letter dated 15 April 2002 , addressed to the applicant, had been examined by the “TRNC” post office. It was established that the letter had been sent unsealed, except that an “air mail” adhesive label was affixed across the back flap to close the envelope. The Government contended that there had been another label on the front of the envelope and that both labels had borne the phrase “By air mail / par avion / British mail”. They stated that the labels must have b een issued by the British Post O ffice. They further maintained that the solicitors had not used the correct post code to send their letter to the applicant.

(b) President Rauf DenktaÅŸ ' s letter to the Court, dated 3 December 1998

181 . Mr Denktaş stated that he had kn own the Adalı family since the 1960 s. He maintained that the deceased Mr Adalı had worked as the President ' s private s ecretary and as Director of Registrations. After he had retired he started writing articles in an opposition newspaper, Yenidüzen, against the system in Cyprus and against Mr Denktaş. Mr Denktaş stated that he had a meeting with Kutlu Adalı ' s daughter, Kut Adalı , on 23 November 1998 , when she had visited him in his office to ask whether he would be able to help her to find a job. He told Ms Adalı that he would help after the elections. Mr Denktaş asserted that he had learned about İlkay Adalı ' s application to the European Court of Human Rights the following day. He noted that he had telephoned Kut Adalı and told her that she should not expect any favour s from him as long as her mother continued to harass them by her court actions.

(c) The Nicosia Family Court ' s decision of 2 April 1998 concerning the registration of the Kutlu Adalı Foundation

182 . On 2 April 1998 the Nicosia Family Court decided to register the Kutlu Adalı Foundation further to an application by eight persons, including the applicant.

(d) Letters addressed to the Court by the applicant and the respondent Government concerning the investigation commenced in respect of the applicant ' s daughter

(i) The applicant ' s representative ' s letter of 10 July 2003

183 . The applicant ' s representatives informed the Court that the “TRNC” authorities had stopped paying a scholarship to the applicant ' s daughter, Kut Adalı, and that she had been contacted by the “TRNC” police and requested to report to the police headquarters in order to give evidence about her cancelled scholarship. They contended that the applicant and her daughter feared that Kut Adalı would be arrested and that summoning her to the Police Headquarters was an attempt to intimidate the applicant because of her application to the Court. They requested the Court to contact the Government to demand an explanation for the conduct of the “TRNC” authorities.

(ii) L etter from the Government dated 12 August 2003

184 . The Government submitted that Kut Adalı had made a false statement concerning her family income in order to receive a scholarship and that her conduct constituted an offence under the Criminal Code of the “TRNC”. They maintained that the police investigation had been initiated in relation to Kut Adalı ' s false statement.

(iii) L etter from the applicant ' s representative dated 5 September 2003

185 . The applicant ' s representatives informed the Court that the applicant rejected any allegation that her daughter had made false statements.

(iv) L etter from t he Governmen t dated 17 October 2003

186 . The Government reiterated their statements of 12 August 2003 and maintained that the information concerning the allegation that Kut Adalı had made false statements required a police investigation.

(e) L etter from t h e applicant ' s representative dated 28 November 2003

187 . The applicant ' s representatives sent copies of newspaper articles published in Yenidüzen and informed the Court that according to these articles the Police General Directorate in the “TRNC” had been reported to have issued a series of statements concerning the death of Kutlu Adalı in the days before 3 October 2003 . They further submitted that Altay Sayıl had also made a statement.

188 . The applicant ' s representatives asserted that Bülent Onakoğlu, the Deputy Head of the Security and Intelligence Department had requested to meet the applicant in order to give her information concerning the killing of Mr Adalı. The applicant further reported that she had been harassed by unidentified callers and that the street lights in her street had stopped working every two days.

189 . They further maintained that close relatives of the applicant in the “TRNC” had been subjected to different types of pressure. In this connection, they maintained that the app licant ' s brother and the fiancé of the applicant ' s daughter had been dismissed from their jobs, that her sister had been telephoned by the “TRNC” Civil Defence Organisation and that she had been facing a trial. They further stated that the applicant ' s children ' s personal belongings, an identity card, keys, a mobile phone and a car had been stolen.

(f) Interview with the applicant published in Aktüel on 24 September 2003

190 . The applicant stated in the interview that the bullet shells recovered from the corpse of Kutlu Adalı had been taken to Turkey in order to be examined and that they had not been examined in the last seven years. She further alleged that Abdullah Çatlı had been in the “TRNC” on 6 July 1996 when Kutlu Adalı had been killed. In this connection, she contended that Abdullah Çatlı had used four different names during his stay in the “TRNC”. She further asserted that the evidence concerning the killing of her husband had been deliberately hidden.

(g) L etter from the Government dated 7 January 2004 and the accompanying documents

191 . The Government sent a copy of an interview with the applicant which had been published in Aktüel. They also sent copies of press releases made by the General Directorate of Police and the statements by Altay Sayıl and Yaşar Spor.

192 . According to the interview with the applicant , published in Aktüel on 24 September 2003 , Abdullah Çatlı was in the “TRNC” on the date of the murder of Mr Kutlu Adalı.

193 . On 27 September 2003 the General Directorate of Police of the “TRNC” made a press statement and announced that, according to the official records, at the relevant time neither Abdullah Çatlı nor anyone using the assumed name of Mehmet Özbay had been present in the “TRNC”. They maintained that on the basis of immigration records, Abdullah Çatlı had entered the “TRNC” on 11 July 1997 and departed on 13 July 1997 and that Mehmet Özbay had been in the “TRNC” between 26 April and 1 May 1996 .

194 . On 30 September 2003 the General Directorate of Police made a further press statement clarifying that the person with the name of Abdullah Çatlı who had been to the “TRNC” between 11 July and 13 July 1997 was not the same person as the Abdullah Çatlı who had died in the accident in Susurluk on 3 November 1996 .

195 . During the interview in Aktüel the applicant maintained that Mr Sayıl had gone to their house on the night of the killing of her husband. On 28 September 2003 Mr Sayıl sent an statement to Aktüel and to Afrika , which had reprinted the interview, and denied the allegations concerning him which had been published in the magazine. The applicant fu rther alleged that in 1996 the security forces c ommander, Mr Yaşar Spor, had advised her husband not to write articles against the “TRNC” authorities.

196 . On 8 October 2003 a correction submitted by Mr Yaşar Spor was published in Aktüel . He stated that he had left the “TRNC” in 1994 and that he had no connection with the incidents of 1996.

197 . In connection with the allegations made in the applicant ' s representatives ' letter of 28 November 2003, the Government asserted that the dismissal of the applicant ' s brother from his job had been due to inefficiency at work and that it was not possible to comment on the dismissal of th e applicant ' s daughter ' s fiancé since the employer had not been mentioned in the applicant ' s letter. They further contended that the applicant ' s sister had never been telephoned by the Civil Defence Organisation and that no person wit h the name Bülent Onakoğlu had ever worked in the “TRNC” police or the Civil Defence Organisation. They maintained that the applicant had made four complaints concerning her telephone line and that on each occasion the lines had been repaired. In relation to the applicant ' s allegation concerning the street lights, they stated that the street lights in the area had been out of order and repairs had been carried out in October and November 2003. They finally averred that the “TRNC” police had not received any complaint from the Adalı family regarding their allegations of thefts.

198 . The Government further contended that the statements made by the applicant in Aktüel were inaccurate, that Mr Adalı had been in possession of information about drug trafficking and money laundering and that he had received threats on account of this information. They highlighted the following passage from the interview:

“ Question : Adalı wrote that Cyprus was the c rossing point for secret organis ations and dirty money and drug traders. Was any information sought from him on this matter before the accident at Susurluk took place?

The applicant : Yes, it was. The j ournalist Çetin Yetkin came. They met at Saray Hotel. He obtained information from Kutlu. He recorded his voice on a cassette. Some of it was published in Hürriyet newspaper a few days after Kutlu died. We asked for the cassette to be returned. He said ' I am returning it immediately ' . The cassette arrived blank! Kutlu spoke a little, the rest was totally blank! We telephoned him. He said it had been erased. This was a lie.

Question : Could it have been erased by mistake?

The applicant : If he did not take it from the cassette, how was it possible to write the information in Hürriyet ? However, Adalı wrote down all the conversation in his own hand writing and there is a copy of it.

Question : In view of the threats it is said that he induced your children to establish their livelihood abroad. Did he ever talk about a possibility of being killed?

The applicant : It never crept into his mind. If so, he did not tell me. He is reported to have said to a friend of his, ' Could they per haps kill my wife and children? ' ”

199 . The Government maintained that this aspect of the case had been deliberately kept from the police by the applicant since she had wanted to prepare the ground for the allegation of a “political” motive. They asserted that the application by Mrs Adalı to the Court was politically motivated. For these reasons, the Gover nment requested the Court to re open the hearing of the case in order to hear evidence from the applicant and other relevant witnesses and to enable the Court to ascertain the facts.

[1] In its composition prior to 1 November 2004.