SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 32457/96
by Suat ÖZALP and Others
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 31 August 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrA. Kovler, judges,
MrF. Gölcüklü, ad hoc judge,
andMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 4 March 1996 and registered on 30 July 1996,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, whose names appear in the annex, are Turkish citizens and resident in Diyarbakır. They are represented before the Court by Mr Sezgin Tanrıkulu and Mr Emin Aktar, lawyers practising in Diyarbakır.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
A.The circumstances of the case
1.The applicants’ version of the facts
The applicants are the wife and the children of the deceased Cavit Özalp. Until 1994 the Özalp family resided in the Serçeler village in the Bismil district in the province of Diyarbakır.
In 1990 the gendarmes from the Bitlis District Gendarme Command began to pressurise the Özalp family and the Serçeler villagers. On several occasions the villagers, including Cavit Özalp, were taken into custody, beaten, insulted and tortured by the gendarmes.
In spring 1994 the gendarmes attacked the applicants’ house. They threw missiles and burnt down the house. Following this event the Bismil Gendarme Commander met Cavit Özalp and asked him if he would be a village guard. The commander told him to leave the village when he refused. The family moved to Diyarbakır. Their house and fields were given to the village guards who had moved there from other villages. All the villagers were forced to leave the village because they refused to be village guards.
On 21 August 1995 Hacı Özalp, Cavit Özalp's son, went to Bismil in order to see the family’s fields. In Bismil soldiers stopped him and asked if Cavit Özalp was his father. They started to beat him and took him to the gendarme command. He was tortured to make him confess to his father’s whereabouts. Hacı told them where his father was.
On 24 August 1995 Cavit Özalp was arrested in an office of the Akyıl Company on İnanoğlu Street in Diyarbakır and was later taken into custody. On the same day, at about 9.00 p.m., Hacı saw his father in custody but was not allowed to speak to him.
On 26 August 1995 Hacı was released. On the same day, while he was in Bismil, he was informed by an acquaintance about an incident in the Kamberli village. Hacı went to Kamberli where a villager called Vehyedin told him that his father was dead and that security forces had arrived in the village that morning and had taken Hasip, a member of the village assembly (köy azası), to the place where Cavit’s body was. Vehyedin further told Hacı that the soldiers took his aunt to the same place. However, they did not show the body to Hacı’s aunt. In the meantime, the muhtar of Kamberli village, Kütbedin, went to the place where Cavit’s body was and saw that Hasip was digging a shelter in order to give the impression that Cavit had died in an explosion while showing the soldiers the terrorists’ shelter.
On the same day two police officers visited Cavit’s house in Diyarbakır and told Hacı’s uncle that Cavit had died.
On 5 February 1996 the applicants’ representatives filed a petition with the office of the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court. It is stated in this petition that the office of the public prosecutor at the State Security Court had launched an investigation into the death of Cavit Özalp under investigation file no. 1995/3657. The same office had also previously issued a decision not to prosecute pursuant to decision no. 1995/724 (takipsizlik kararı). The applicants’ representatives requested a copy of the arrest and autopsy reports as well as the prosecutor’s decision.
The public prosecutor No. 18788 noted on the bottom of the petition the following:
“It has been decided [by this office] that no prosecution should be brought about the death of Cevat Özalp[1] pursuant to Article 96 of the Turkish Criminal Code. The investigations in order to apprehend the co-activists of Cevat Özalp are still ongoing. A copy of the investigation file could not have been given [to the representatives] in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Constitution, as it would constitute disclosure of the content and the subject matter of the investigation file.” 2.The Government’s version of the facts On 24 August 1995 Cavit Özalp was taken into custody by the gendarmes from the Bismil Gendarme District Command on suspicion of membership of the PKK. He was suspected of aiding and abetting the PKK terrorists. On an unspecified date Cavit Özalp gave a statement to the gendarmes. He stated that the PKK terrorists were occasionally staying in his house and that he was providing them with food and military equipment such as weapons, clothes and medicine. He further stated that he dug a shelter with the terrorists on the slopes of a hill near the Pamuk River in the Sarıhüseyin hamlet attached to the Serçeler village in order to hide some equipment. On 24 August 1995 Cavit Özalp was seen by Dr Haydar Yaşa. According to the medical report prepared by Dr Yaşa, there were no signs of beating or injuries consistent with the use of force on the body of Cavit Özalp. On 26 August 1995 at 4.00 a.m. the gendarmes conducted a search in order to find out the location of the shelter, mentioned by Cavit Özalp in his statement. Cavit guided the soldiers to the shelter near the Şedat road in the Kamberli village. The soldiers asked him to open the cover of the shelter. As he opened the cover, the soldiers witnessed a big explosion, which tore Cavit’s body into pieces. The explosives had been placed in the entrance to the shelter by the other members of the PKK. The soldiers found weapons, medical equipment and clothes in the shelter. They reported the incident to the Bismil Public Prosecutor. On the same date an on-site examination was conducted by the Bismil Public Prosecutor, Mehmet Önal, and Dr Şenol Gedik. According to the examination both Cavit's legs were severed as a result of the explosion. No signs of injuries were observed on the dismembered body. Dr Gedik decided that it was unnecessary to conduct a further autopsy on the body. Cavit’s corpse was given to Hasip Yılmaz, a member of the Kamberli village assembly. On 14 November 1995 the Bismil Public Prosecutor Hüseyin Karagöl issued a decision of non-jurisdiction (görevsizlik kararı). The prosecutor accused the non-commissioned officer, İlhan Yücel, of failing to take the necessary precautions when Cavit had been asked to open the cover of the shelter and of causing Cavit Özalp’s death through negligence. However, the prosecutor decided to transfer the case file to the District Administrative Council as his office was not competent to prosecute the incident pursuant to Article 15 of Law No. 3713. On 24 November 1995 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court decided that no prosecution should be brought against Cavit Özalp (takipsizlik karari) on account of his membership of the PKK as he died on 26 August 1995. On 15 January 1996 statements were taken from non-commissioned officers İlhan Yücel, Yılmaz Öztiryaki and Ömer Karabaş in the course of the proceedings before the District Administrative Council. The officers stated that Cavit Özalp had been taken into custody on suspicion of membership of the PKK. He had confessed that he had been aiding and abetting the terrorists, providing them with food, clothes, weapons and medical equipment. He had mentioned a shelter which was used by the terrorists. He had been asked to show the location of this shelter after the necessary precautions had been taken. However, he died as a result of the explosion while opening the shelter. Medical equipment and clothes were found in the shelter. On 23 January 1996 Major Yunus Nebioğlu, in his capacity of investigator (muhakkik), drafted a recommendation report (fezleke) in which it is stated that in the light of the statements taken and the relevant evidence in the case file it was observed that the security forces took the necessary precautions before Cavit Özalp opened the cover of the shelter. The report further stated: “Having regard to the fact that Cavit Özalp had confessed that he had dug a shelter [with the other terrorists] it was presumed that he could have known the place of the shelter and that he could have safely opened its cover himself. After the necessary safety measures had been taken he had been asked to open the cover. However, he had died in an explosion. The explosives had been previously placed there by the terrorists. Neither the security forces nor Cavit Özalp had noticed the explosives”. Major Nebioğlu concluded that the security forces had performed their duty with diligence and recommended that no prosecution be brought against the members of the security forces. On 28 February 1996 the Bismil District Administrative Council issued a decision stating that no prosecution should be brought against the members of the security forces. In its view, Cavit Özalp had died as a result of the explosion and that the members of the security forces had performed their duty with diligence. On 2 April 1996 the Diyarbakir District Administrative Court (Bölge İdare Mahkemesi) upheld the decision of the Bismil District Administrative Council. B.Relevant domestic law and practice 1.Criminal law and procedure Under the Turkish Criminal Code (Türk Ceza Kanunu) unlawful deprivation of liberty (Article 179 generally, Article 181 in respect of civil servants), coercion through force or threats (Article 188), arson (Articles 369-372), aggravated arson if human life is endangered (Article 382), unintentional arson by carelessness, negligence or inexperience (Article 383), all forms of intentional homicide (Articles 448-455), unintentional homicide (Articles 452 and 459), intentional infliction of damage to someone’s property (Articles 516 and 517) and to harm or kill arbitrarily another person’s animal (Article 521) constitute criminal offences. For all these offences complaints may be lodged, pursuant to Articles 151 and 153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemeleri Usulü Kanunu), with the public prosecutor or the local administrative authorities. Under Article 235 of the Criminal Code, any public official who fails to report to the police or a public prosecutor’s office an offence of which he has become aware in the course of his duty is liable to imprisonment. The public prosecutor and the police have a duty to investigate crimes reported to them, the former deciding whether a prosecution should be initiated, pursuant to Article 148 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A complainant may appeal against the decision of the public prosecutor not to institute criminal proceedings. If a suspect is a member of the armed forces, the applicable law is determined by the nature of the offence. If it concerns a “military offence” under the Military Criminal Code (Law no. 1632), the criminal proceedings are in principle conducted in accordance with Law no. 353 on the establishment of courts martial and the pertaining rules of criminal procedure. Where a member of the armed forces has been accused of an ordinary offence, it is normally the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure which apply (see Article 145 § 1 of the Constitution and sections 9-14 of Law no. 353). 2.State of Emergency Since approximately 1985, serious disturbances have raged in the south-east part of Turkey between security forces and members of the PKK. This confrontation has, according to the Government, claimed the lives of thousands of civilians and members of the security forces. Two principal decrees relating to the south-eastern region have been made under the Law on the State of Emergency (Law no. 2935, 25 October 1983). The first, Decree no. 285 (10 July 1987), established a State of Emergency Regional Governorate in ten of the eleven provinces of south-eastern Turkey, including the Province of Tunceli. Under Article 4(b) and (d) of the Decree, all private and public security forces and the Gendarme Public Peace Command are at the disposal of the Regional Governor. The second, Decree no. 430 (16 December 1990), reinforced the powers of the Regional Governor, for example to order transfers out of the region of public officials and employees, including judges and prosecutors, and provided in Article 8: “No criminal, financial or legal responsibility may be claimed against the State of Emergency Regional Governor or a Provincial Governor within a state of emergency region in respect of their decisions or acts connected with the exercise of the powers entrusted to them by this decree, and no application shall be made to any judicial authority to this end. This is without prejudice to the rights of an individual to claim indemnity from the State for damage suffered by them without justification.” 3.Prosecution for terrorist offences and offences allegedly committed by members of the security forces Under section 3 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713 of 12 April 1991), the offence defined in Article 168 of the Criminal Code is classified as a “terrorist act”. Under section 4, the offence defined in Article 169 of the same Code is classified in the category of “acts committed to further the purposes of terrorism”. Pursuant to section 9 (a) of Law no. 2845 on the Procedure in the State Security Courts, public prosecutors are deprived of jurisdiction in cases of alleged terrorist offences in favour of a separate system of State Security prosecutors and courts established throughout Turkey. Only these courts are competent to try cases involving the offences defined in Articles 168 and 169 of the Criminal Code. Public prosecutors are also deprived of jurisdiction with regard to offences alleged against members of the security forces in the State of Emergency Region. Article 4 § 1 of the Decree no. 285 provides that all security forces under the command of the Regional Governor shall be subject, in respect of acts performed in the course of their duties, to the Law on Proceedings on the Prosecution of Civil Servants. Thus, any prosecutor who receives a complaint alleging a criminal act by a member of the security forces must issue a decision of non-jurisdiction and, depending on the suspect’s status, transfer the file to either the District or the Provincial Administrative Council (İlçe or İl idare kurulu). These councils are made up of civil servants and are chaired by the District or Provincial Governor. They conduct the preliminary investigation and decide whether or not to prosecute. (These councils have been criticised for their lack of legal knowledge, as well as for being easily influenced by the District or Provincial Governors, who also head the security forces). An appeal against a decision by a District Administrative Council lies with the Regional Administrative Court (Bölge İdare Mahkemesi). If a decision not to prosecute is taken, the case is automatically referred to that court. An appeal against a decision taken by a Provincial Administrative Council lies with the Council of State (Danıştay). If a decision not to prosecute is taken, the case is automatically referred to the Council of State. If a decision to prosecute has been taken, the case is referred to the public prosecutor for further action. 4.Constitutional provisions on administrative liability Article 125 of the Turkish Constitution provides as follows: “All acts and decisions of the Administration are subject to judicial review ... The Administration shall be liable for damage caused by its own acts and measures.” This provision is not subject to any restrictions even in a state of emergency or war. The latter requirement of the provision does not necessarily require proof of the existence of any fault on the part of the Administration, whose liability is of an absolute, objective nature, based on the theory of “social risk”. Thus, the Administration may indemnify people who have suffered damage from acts committed by unknown or terrorist authors when the State may be said to have failed in its duty to maintain public order and safety, or in its duty to safeguard individual life and property. Under section 13 of Law no. 2577 on administrative proceedings, anyone who has sustained damage as a result of an act by the authorities may, within one year after the alleged act was committed, claim compensation from them. If the claim is rejected in whole or in part or if no reply is received within sixty days, the victim may bring proceedings before the administrative courts, whose proceedings are in writing. 5. Civil law provisions Any illegal act by civil servants, be it a crime or a tort, which causes material or moral damage may be the subject of a claim for compensation before the ordinary civil courts. Pursuant to Article 41 of the Code of Civil Obligations (Borçlar Kanunu), an injured person may file a claim for compensation against an alleged perpetrator who has caused damage in an unlawful manner whether wilfully, negligently or imprudently. Pecuniary loss may be compensated by the civil courts pursuant to Article 46 of the Code of Civil Obligations and non-pecuniary or moral damages awarded under Article 47 of this Code. The civil courts are not bound by the findings of a criminal court as to a defendant’s liability (Article 53). However, under section 13 of Law no. 657 on State employees, anyone who has sustained loss as a result of the exercise of official duties by a civil servant may, in principle, only bring an action against the public authority in whose service the civil servant concerned works and not directly against the civil servant (Article 129 § 5 of the Constitution and Articles 55 and 100 of the Code of Civil Obligations). If, however, the act is found to be illegal or tortious and, consequently, is no longer considered as an “administrative” act or deed, the civil courts may allow a claim for damages against the official concerned, without prejudice to the victim’s right to bring an action against the authority on the basis of its joint liability as the official’s employer (Article 50 of the Code of Civil Obligations). COMPLAINTS The applicants complain of violations of Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 1.The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that the security forces deliberately killed Cavit Özalp while he was in custody. 2.The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that Cavit Özalp was tortured while in custody. They allege that Cavit’s son, Hacı Özalp, had witnessed the torture in custody. 3.The applicants complain under Article 5 of the Convention that Cavit Özalp was deprived of his right to liberty and security since he was unlawfully detained and that he and his family were not informed of the reasons for his arrest. They further complain that Cavit Özalp was deprived of his right to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. 4.The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that they were deprived of their right of access to a court in respect of the death of Cavit Özalp. The applicants refer to the response of the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court. 5.The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that they were forced to leave their village due to pressure exerted by the gendarmes. 6.The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they were denied the enjoyment of their property rights, as they cannot harvest their crops. THE LAW The application concerns the killing of Cavit Özalp and the forced evacuation of the applicants’ village by the security forces. The applicants invoke Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. A.The Government’s preliminary objections 1.Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies The Government submit that the applicants have failed to exhaust domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The Government submit that it would have been possible for the applicants to seek redress before the administrative courts under Article 125 of the Constitution. Under Turkish administrative law the State’s liability to pay compensation can be engaged, firstly, where the agents of the State are at fault. The State can subsequently recover the compensation paid from those responsible for the harm caused. Secondly, the State cannot escape liability to pay compensation in respect of damage shown to have been caused by its agents or to have occurred in connection with the provision of security. In this regard, the Government indicated that the administrative courts had awarded compensation in many cases involving death, injury or damage to property. The Government submit in the alternative that the applicant could also have lodged a civil action for redress for damage sustained through illegal acts or patently unlawful conduct on the part of the State’s agents. In this respect the Government observe that the applicants did not avail themselves of any of these remedies in domestic law. Furthermore, the applicants failed to provide any evidence that there were insurmountable obstacles to take proceedings before the Turkish courts. In reply, the applicants submit that the remedies suggested by the Government concern compensation awarded by the domestic courts in cases involving death, injury or damage to property caused by State agents. However, the killing of Cavit Özalp constitutes a criminal offence under Turkish Law. The applicants maintain that the domestic authorities have a duty to investigate the incident and bring those responsible before the domestic courts. The Court has first examined this objection in relation to the applicants’ complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. In respect of the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention the Court is of the view that this complaint is closely linked to the complaint under Article 2 of the Convention. The Court considers that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies referred to in Article 35 of the Convention obliges applicants to use the remedies that are normally available and sufficient in the domestic legal system to enable them to obtain redress for the breaches alleged. The existence of the remedies must be sufficiently certain, in practice as well as in theory, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. Article 35 also requires that the complaints intended to be made subsequently to the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law, but not that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (cf. Yaşa v. Turkey judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2431§ 71). As regards a civil action for redress for damage sustained through illegal acts or patently unlawful conduct on part of State agents, the Court recalls that a plaintiff to such an action must, in addition to establishing a causal link between the tort and the damage he has sustained, identify the person believed to have committed the tort (cf. Yaşa v. Turkey judgment, loc. cit., § 73). In the instant case, the Bismil public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the non-commissioned officer, İlhan Yücel, who allegedly acted negligently and caused Cavit Özalp’s death. However, the Bismil District Administrative Council found that no prosecution should be brought against the three non-commissioned officers since they had performed their duty with diligence. In these circumstances the Court considers that any civil action by the applicants against the non-commissioned officers would have had no prospects of success. Secondly, as regards the administrative-law action provided in Article 125 of the Constitution, the Court notes that this was a remedy based on the strict liability of the State, in particular for the illegal acts of its agents, whose identification was not, by definition, a prerequisite to bringing such an action. However, the investigations which the Contracting States were obliged by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention to conduct in cases of fatal assault or allegations of torture had to be able to lead to the identification and punishment of those responsible. That obligation accordingly could not be satisfied merely by awarding damages. Otherwise, if an action based on the State’s strict liability were to be considered a legal action that had to be exhausted in respect of complaints under Articles 2 and 3, the State’s obligation to seek those guilty of fatal assault might thereby disappear (see, Oğur v. Turkey no. 21594/93, § 66, ECHR 1999 and the Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998, p. 3290, § 102). Consequently, the Court finds that the applicants were not required to bring the civil and administrative proceedings suggested by the Government. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the Government’s preliminary objection of non-exhaustion should be dismissed in so far as it concerns Articles 2, 3 and 6 of the Convention. The Court does not find it necessary to examine the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion in relation to Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention because these complaints are in any event inadmissible for the following reasons. 2.Six-months rule The applicants submit that they are still prevented from using their property in the Serçeler village. They claim that the continuous denial of access to property must be regarded as an interference with their rights under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Article 8 of the Convention provides: “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which provides to the extent relevant: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.” The Government submit that the applicants have failed to lodge these complaints within the time limit set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They observe that the applicants did not indicate a precise date on which their house was allegedly destroyed by security forces. In the present case, the Court considers that assuming that there were no effective remedies, the applicants would then have been required to submit their complaints to the Court within the six months period from the date of the acts complained of or from the date on which the applicants can be considered to have known that they were prevented from harvesting their crops. The Court notes that the acts complained of took place in spring 1994, whereas the application was introduced with the Commission on 4 March 1996. Even assuming that the six months period begins from the date on which the applicants can be considered to have known that they were prevented from harvesting their crops (for example, 21 August 1995) these complaints must still be declared inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-months rule. Furthermore, there are no special circumstances which might have absolved the applicants from observing the time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. The applicants invoke Article 5 of the Convention and allege that Cavit Özalp was deprived of his right to liberty and security since he was unlawfully detained and that he and his family were not informed of the reasons for his arrest. They further allege that Cavit Özalp was deprived of his right to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. The Court observes that Cavit Özalp was taken into custody on 24 August 1995 and died on 26 August 1995. The applicants were informed of Cavit Özalp’s death at the end of August. Since the application was lodged with the Commission on 4 March 1996 the complaints under this head must be rejected for failure to respect the six-months’ rule provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. B.Merits 1.Alleged violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention The applicants submit that Cavit Özalp had been deliberately killed by the security forces. They point out that the Government have failed to submit the arrest report which should have been drafted when Cavit was taken into custody. According to the applicants, this supports their argument that Cavit had been unlawfully taken into custody. The applicants further submit that Cavit Özalp had been tortured while in custody. The Government maintain that Cavit Özalp died in an explosion while he was opening the cover of the shelter and that the security forces acted diligently in protecting his life. The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions that this part of the application raises complex issues of law and fact under the Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits of the application. The Court concludes, therefore, that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established. 2.Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention The applicants claim that they were deprived of their right to access to a court. They submit that their application with the office of the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court in order to obtain a copy of the investigation file was refused. The Government make no submissions on this complaint. The Court considers that the essence of the applicants’ complaint under this head is closely linked to the requirement imposed on the respondent State under Article 2 of the Convention to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding Cavit Özalp’s death. It should therefore also be declared admissible. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits, the applicants’ complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 6 of the Convention; DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application. Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis LIST OF APPLICANTS 1.Makbule Özalp, born in 1955 and wife of Cavit Özalp 2.Suat Özalp, born in 1975 and son of Cavit Özalp 3.Hacı Özalp, born in 1977 and son of Cavit Özalp 4.Sercan Özalp, born in 1979 and daughter of Cavit Özalp 5.Gülcan Özalp, born in 1981 and daughter of Cavit Özalp 6.Mehmet Özalp, born in 1985 and son of Cavit Özalp 7.Osman Özalp, born in 1988 and son of Cavit Özalp [1] Cavit’s name is spelled out as Cevat in the public prosecutor’s note.
RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy