AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 30846/96
by idris ANIK
against Turkey
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 4 March 1998, the following members being present:
MM J.-C. GEUS, President
M.A. NOWICKI
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
Mrs G.H. THUNE
MM F. MARTINEZ
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
A. ARABADJIEV
Ms M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 15 December 1995
by idris ANIK against Turkey and registered on 26 March 1996 under file
No. 30846/96;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, born in Sirnak, is a Turkish citizen resident in
Diyarbakir. He is represented before the Commission by Mr Hasip Kaplan
and Ms Merih Acar, lawyers practising in istanbul.
The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may
be summarised as follows.
On 28 March 1992 the applicant's daughter, B.A., was arrested and
taken into custody at the Security Directorate of Sirnak. She was
allegedly subjected to torture and later shot dead while in detention.
On 1 April 1992 the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the
Public Prosecutor of Sirnak against the security forces.
On 26 May 1992 the Public Prosecutor discharged the security
forces and terminated the proceedings on the grounds that there was no
evidence substantiating torture and as it appeared that the applicant's
daughter had committed suicide in her cell with a police rifle which
had been forgotten there.
On 28 May 1992 the decision of the Public Prosecutor not to
commit for trial was served on the applicant. On 12 June 1992 the
decision became final since no objection was raised against it.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains that his daughter was arrested on
28 March 1992 and killed while she was in police custody. He alleges
that his daughter's right to life and her right to security of person
have been violated in contravention of Articles 2 and 5 of the
Convention.
2. The applicant further submits that Articles 6 and 13 of the
Convention have been violated since there were no effective remedies
in domestic law.
3. Relying on the same facts, the applicant also submits that
Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention have been violated.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 15 December 1995 and registered
on 26 March 1996.
On 21 November 1997 the Commission, pursuant to Article 47
para. 2 (a) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to invite the respondent
Government to submit information with regard to the date on which the
Sirnak Public Prosecutor's decision dated 26 May 1992 not to commit for
trial was served on the applicant.
The Government's replied on 5 January 1998. They sent a document,
attached to their letter, which substantiates that the Sirnak Public
Prosecutor's decision was served on the applicant on 28 May 1992.
THE LAW
The applicant complains of the killing of his daughter by
security forces while in detention. He invokes Articles 2 (Art. 2) (the
right to life), 5 (Art. 5) (the right to security of person), 6
(Art. 6) (the right of access to a court), 13 (Art. 13) (the right to
effective remedies for Convention breaches), 14 (Art. 14) (the
prohibition of discrimination) and 18 (Art. 18) of the Convention (the
prohibition to impose restrictions authorised by the Convention for
ulterior purposes).
However, the Commission is not required to determine whether or
not the facts alleged by the applicant in the present case disclose any
appearance of a violation of the above provisions of the Convention as
the applicant has failed to submit his complaints to the Commission
within the six months time limit prescribed by Article 26 (Art. 26) of
the Convention.
The Commission notes that in the present case the Public
Prosecutor of Sirnak discharged the security forces and terminated the
proceedings on 26 May 1992. On 28 May 1992 the decision was served on
the applicant.
The application filed with the Commission on 15 December 1995
must therefore be considered as having been introduced after the expiry
of the six months time limit prescribed by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the
Convention and must accordingly be declared inadmissible under Article
27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.-T. SCHOEPFER J.-C. GEUS
Secretary President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy