PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SAJÓ

I agree with all the conclusions reached in this judgment except with regard to the finding of a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Court found that the applicants c ould not be considered victims for the purposes of Articles 2 and 3. The applicants had failed to submit a proper application to the Istanbul Administrative Court. Moreover, A.A. had brought a case before the Supreme Administrative Court, which had decided to stay the execution of his deportation and provided a remedy. The application is , therefore, inadmissible, and in view of the outcome of the domestic proce edings it is not clear that there is no remedy for the purposes of Article 13 in similar situations.

[1] 1. It appears that in the case of fourth and fifth applicants the revocation decisions of the Ankara Administrative Court were preceded by interim decisions for the suspension of the enforcement of the deportation orders, which prompted the administration to grant these applicants residence permits without waiting for the decisions on the merits.

[2] 2. The full report may be consulted at the following address:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA17/050/2008/en/83b26dc5-0008-11dd-b092-bdb020617d3d/asa170502008eng.html