Application No. 13624/88
by F. et al.
against Turkey
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 11 July 1991, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
J.A. FROWEIN
S. TRECHSEL
F. ERMACORA
G. SPERDUTI
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G. H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ RUIZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 19 February
1988 by F. et al against the Netherlands and registered on 19 February
1988 under file No. 13624/88;
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 applicants are 34 Kurds of Iranian nationality.
The application was introduced through Mr. W.J. van Bennekom, a
lawyer practising in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. He initially acted
at the request of two relatives of two of the applicants, who are
both Kurdish refugees of former Iranian nationality residing in the
Netherlands. On 8 November 1988 the lawyer submitted a general
form of authority which included the names of 24 of the 34 applicants.
The original document in Farsi is accompanied by an informal and
uncertified translation into Dutch.
The facts may be summarised as follows:
The applicants have stated that they fled Iran in two groups.
The first group arrived in Turkey on 14 January 1988, the second group
on 9 February 1988. The male members of both groups have belonged to
and were active for many years in the Kurdistan Democratic Party of
Iran (K.D.P.I.). This is a prohibited political party in Iran and a
so-called "enemy of the Islamic Republic of Iran". Several applicants
have held important staff functions within the party.
The applicants identified themselves as Kurds seeking asylum
in Turkey. However no Turkish authority acknowledged their request
for asylum and they were not granted any form of hearing on their
motives for fleeing Iran. The first group was initially detained in a
military camp in Semdinli and moved some time later to a camp at
Benauwk. The second group was detained in a military camp in Semdinli
immediately upon arrival.
The Government stated on 1 May 1988 that 18 of the applicants
had been identified.
In the applicants' subsequent submissions it is stated that
nine of the applicants have effectively been deported by Turkey to
Iran some time in March 1988.
On 8 November 1988 the Government stated that in total 25 of
the applicants had been identified and were allowed to stay in Turkey,
but that no information was available whether the nine allegedly
deported applicants had ever entered Turkey.
COMPLAINTS
1. In their initial application the applicants expressed the fear
that they would be deported to Iran, where they would risk being
arrested and possibly executed for having belonged to a prohibited
political party and having actually exercised political activities
regarded as hostile to the country, and that this caused a feeling of
insecurity. They invoke Article 3 of the Convention.
2. In their subsequent submissions the applicants also complained
of having been detained in Turkey, whereas this detention was not in
accordance with a procedure prescribed by law. The applicants invoke
Article 5 para. 1 (f) of the Convention.
3. Nine applicants complain that they have effectively been
deported by Turkey to Iran, where they stand great risk of being
tortured and/or executed for having exercised prohibited political
activities in Iran. They complain under Article 3 of the Convention,
that Turkey, by deporting them, has subjected them to inhuman
treatment.
4. The applicants complain furthermore that they had no
opportunity to have their complaints examined by a court. They invoke
Article 6 para. 1 or, alternatively, Article 13 of the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced and registered on 19 February
1988. On the same day the Acting President of the Commission decided
to apply Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.
On 2 March 1988 the Commission decided not to prolong the
indication under Rule 36, to adjourn the case and to request the
parties to submit further information.
The applicants' representative submitted information on 25
February, 29 April and 15 September 1988. The respondent Government
submitted information on 25 February and 1 May 1988.
On 14 October 1988, the Commission decided to seek
clarification on the facts in accordance with Rule 42 para. 2 (a) (old
version) and to adjourn the case.
The respondent Government submitted further information on the
facts on 8 November 1988. The applicants' representative submitted
comments on the Government's information by letter of 2 January 1989.
On 4 February 1991, the applicants' representative was
informed that the application would be examined in April 1991 and was
invited to submit information on the current situation of the
applicants, on which question no reply has been received.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
Having regard to Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention, the
Commission notes that no further communication has been received from
the applicants and that they have not substantiated their complaints.
In these circumstances the Commission can not continue the examination
of the case.
For these reasons, the Commission by a majority
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy