CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE BRATZA

In the case of Protopapa v. Turkey (no. 16084/90, 24 February 2009), I voted with the other members of the Chamber in relation to all of the Convention complaints of the applicant save that under Article 13 which, for the reasons explained in my Partly Dissenting Opinion, I found had been violated.

The applicant ' s complaint under Article 13 in the present case is substantially the same as that of the applicant in the Protopapa case. While I continue to entertain the doubts which I expressed in that case as to whether there were any remedies which could be regarded as practical or effective and which offered the applicant any realistic prospects of success, in deference to the majority opinion in the Protopapa judgment, which has now become final, I have joined the other members of the Chamber in finding no violation of Article 13.

PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KARAKA Åž

Unlike the majority, I consider that the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies raised by the Government should not have been rejected. Consequently, I cannot agree with the finding of violation s of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 8 of the Convention, for the same reasons as those mentioned in my dissenting opinion in the case of Gavriel v. Turk ey ( no. 41355/98, 20 January 2009) .

I voted also against the finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The majority found it established that the applicant had suffered injury as a result of a powerful blow to the head by a Turkish or Turkish-Cypriot police officer. In reaching this conclusion, it relied on the applicant ' s account of events and a medical report obtained by him ten days after the alleged incident.

In my view there is no evidence, other than the applicant ' s account of events, that the alleged ill-treatment was inflicted by a Turkish or Turkish ‑ Cypriot police officer . Nor is there an y independent and impartial eye witness to confirm the applicant ' s version of events. In previous similar cases where the applicants alleged that they had been assaulted by Turkish soldiers or police officers , their allegations were supported by independent reports or eyewitness statements given by United Natio ns personnel (see in this respect, Kakoulli and Others v. Turkey , no. 38595/97, §§ 37-49, 22 November 2005; Isaak v. Turkey , no. 44587/98, §§ 28-33, 24 June 2008 ; and Solomou and Others v. Turkey , no. 36832/97, §§ 16-20, 24 June 2008).

Furthermore, the applicant failed to furnish the Court with any other evidence in support of his allegations, such as independent reports, photographs or video footage of the incident. Again, in the above-mentioned cases, the applicants ' allegations were backed up by such evidence (see Kakoulli and Others , §§ 51-57; Isaak , §§ 42-58 ; and Solomou and Others , §§ 28-36 , all cited above ) and the Court relied on that evidence in the establishment of the facts of those cases.

As regards the medical report submitted by the applicant, I consider that, given the lapse of ten days between the alleg ed incident and the date of the report, it is not possible to establish a causal link. Accordingly, the evidence before the Court does not enable it to hold beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was subject to ill- treatment by the Turkish or Turkish-Cypriot police.