Introducción al problema en la secuencia de encendidos

Extra-judicial executions, which strike at the heart of the right to life, one of the funda- mental human rights, and have spread since the “Law to Fight Terrorism” entered into force (on 12 April 1991), continued at an increasing pace also in 1994. Throughout the year, a total of 129 people (32 of whom during house raids, while 97 during other incidents) lost their lives as a result of applications by security forces termed as “extra-judicial execution”, such as house and shop raids, fire opened on people disobeying stop warning or merely at random, execution of people who are captured alive, air raids by planes or helicopters. A considerable number of those killed were presented to the public as “members of illegal and separatist organizations” who clashed with the security forces or “criminals escaping from security forces”. Extra-judi-cial executions were mostly observed in Istanbul, Adana and in the Emergency State Region.

Extra-judicial executions never attracted the expected public attention. Statements of some eye-witnesses indicating “Security forces opened fire without any call to surrender.” and “These people were killed instead of being apprehended alive, or after being apprehended.” were not taken into consideration. Insensitivity towards such incidents expanded from single individuals to people in higher official positions. While an extra-judicial execution in Ger-many led the Federal Interior Minister, proclaiming his responsibility, to resign (*)_{, the govern-mental reaction in Turkey was to}

the contrary, which only encouraged new extra-judicial exe-cutions. Extra-judicial executions were deemed as legal acts, applauded and defended. Secu-rity forces who were involved in extra- judicial executions were rewarded. Those who brought up extra-judicial executions were criticized, condemned and exposed to various attacks.

The below table shows the extra-judicial executions during the last several years. The table indicates that the extra-judicial executions in Turkey increased in recent years to an ex-tent that they exceeded those during the 12 September post-coup period.

(*) _{Brigit Hogefeld and Wolfgang Grams, members of the outlawed Red Army Fac-tion (RAF), were}

involved in a clash with GSG-97 forces in Bad-Kleinen town of Mecklenburg Vorpommern province on 27 June 1993. Wolfgang Grams and a team member named Michael Newrzella were killed during the clash. An eye-witness who appeared in the course of the investigation about the incident explained that Grams had been killed by a shot to his head from close range. On the other hand, it was also alleged that the security officer who died in the incident was accidentally killed by his colleagues. The lawyer of the Grams family explained that he had been killed by a bullet to his temple, but the Interior Ministry denied all these allegations. However, the result of the autopsy on Grams affirmed the allegations. When it was revealed that Grams had been shot dead in the temple, the Federal Interior Minister Rudolf Seiters resigned on 4 July 1993.

1991 1992 1993 1994

Those killed during house and shop raids : 22 63 57 32 Those killed in gun fire opened on

demonstrators(excepttheNewrozincidents) : 32 26 20 None Those killed for disobeying stop warnings,

in randomly opened fire, or similar

events and after being apprehended alive : 44 103 109 97

TOTAL 98 192 186 129

Deaths caused by security forces, fit the definition of “extra-judicial (extra-legal) execu- tions” stated in the documents of the United Nations (*)_{. However, this situation has never been}

taken into consideration, and almost all of the extra-judicial execution incidents, despite the regulations stated in the United Nations documents, were not investigated in a sound manner. Instead of serious investigations, some practices and statements were observed which were bound to encourage the security forces. The trials which were opened were only for appearance. Defendants were generally acquitted in the trials, which continued for a long time. Sentences rarely given did not exceed one year or two years in prison. Generally, the sentences were not carried out due to suspensions or prescription.

For example; a sentence of 1 year, 1 month and 10 days in prison given to Bahar Öztürk who had shot and killed a young man named Ismail Metin fighting with his friends in the Kur-tuluş quarter of Ankara on 3 January 1992, when he had been Director of the Protection Department of Ankara Police Headquarters, was suspended by the Supreme Court at the end of 1994. Just after the incident, a trial was launched at the Ankara Heavy Penal Court No.5 against Bahar Öztürk, who was kept under arrest for 4 months. He was sentenced to 1 year 5 months and 10 days in prison on 4 May 1992 for causing the death of Ismail Metin, but the Supreme Court found the sentence too heavy and overturned it. Thereupon, Bahar Öztürk was prosecuted again and at that time was sentenced to 1 year 1 month and 10 days in prison on 8 February 1993, and the demand for suspension of the sentence was not accepted. Then, the case file was referred to the Supreme Court once more and the verdict was quashed on the demand of commuting the imprisonment into fine and reprieving. As a result of re-prosecution, the Heavy Penal Court, insisting on its previous verdict passed 1 year 1 month and 10 days in prison for Bahar Öztürk and rejected the demand for suspension. However, this verdict was not found appropriate by the Supreme Court and it was

(*) _{The United Nations published a manual in 1991 entitled “Manual on the Effective Prevention and}

Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions”. The manual aimed to complete the resolution on the “Principles on Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions”, which was adopted by the Economic and Social Council on 24 May 1989. In the manual the types of extra-legal executions are listed by the United Nations as follows; “political mur-ders”, “disappearances”, “deaths due to excessive violence by the security forces”, “executions without due judicial process” and “attempted massacres”. The manual attaches special importance to investiga-tions into such deaths and presents autopsy report examples. Important criteria for any investigation to be carried out are: It should be “carried out immediately”, “carried out impartially”, and “relatives of the victim should be protected and should participate in the investigation as a party”, “the investigation should be carried out by an independent body” and “the results of the investigation should be made public”.

decided to suspend the sentence. The sen-tence given to Öztürk will be lifted, if he does not commit another crime in 5 years.

Twelve security forces, who were prosecuted in connection with the house raid carried out in the Hasanpaşa quarter of Istanbul on 19 May 1991, which resulted in the killing of Ha-tice Dilek Aslan and Ismail Oral, were acquitted. The names of the security forces, who were prosecuted in the trial that ended at Kadıköy Heavy Penal Court No.1 on 16 June, are as follows: “Şefik Kul, Hasan Erdoğan, Abdullah Dindar, Ayhan Özkan, Nizamettin Özoğul, Mustafa Altınok, Özer Şahman, Mehmet Düzgün, Vasfi Kara, Hikmet Taşdelen, Ruhi Fırat and Süleyman Polat”. Hatice Dilek Aslan’s 9-year old son Özgür Cihan Aslan, who was a wit-ness in the hearing held on 21 October 1992, stated that he had awakened by gunshots he had heard on the night of the incident, and said: “Police officers wanted me to be dressed. After get-ting dressed, they brought me to the room with a television where my mother was. There, a po-lice officer was stepping on the head of my mother. Afterwards, they forced me to get on a car and took me away. Nobody fired while I was there. My mother was alive when I left the house.”

Twelve security forces prosecuted at the Usküdar Heavy Penal Court concerning the killing of two youths, Kayhan Tazeoğlu and Fatma Süzen in a police raid against a house in the Beylerbeyi quarter of Istanbul on 29 September 1992, were acquitted. The acquittal verdict was given on the grounds that the defendants had obeyed the orders and had had to use arms during the clash. The lawyers of Kayhan Tazeoğlu and Fatma Süzen said that the defendants, who had executed extra-judicially, had been protected at every stage of the prosecution and had been acquitted. The lawyers stated that they would forward the case to the European Human Rights Commission. The autopsy on the corpses revealed that Kayhan Tazeoğlu had been shot 25 times and Fatma Süzen 15 times. According to the autopsy report, all of the bullets were shot from very close, except 2 shots to Kayhan Tazeoğlu and one shot to Fatma Süzen, which were fired from a distance.

No conclusions were drawn during 1994 from the trial launched at the Istanbul Heavy Penal Court No.6 in connection with the simultaneous raids on three houses and a workplace in the Nişantaşı, Dikilitaş, Levent and Balmumcu quarters of Istanbul on the evening of 12 July 1991, in which 10 people, named Niyazi Aydın, Ibrahim Erdoğan, Hasan Eliuygun, Cavit Öz-kaya, Zeynep Eda Berk, Nazmi Türkcan, Yücel Şimşek, Ömer Coşkunırmak, Ibrahim Ilçi and Bilal Karakaya were killed. This case drew criticism from the lawyers (*) _{of the victims. The lawyers of}

the victims, who took the floor in the hearing on 1 June, stated that even if sentences were given to the defendants in accordance with the indictment, it would be meaningless, adding, “Delayed justice is injustice.” The lawyers pointed out that it had not been determined which police officer

(*) _{Lawyer Zerrin Sarı made an individual appeal to the European Human Rights Commission in 1993 on behalf}

of the victims, along with Sevgi Erdoğan, Hüseyin ŞimŞek, Nahit Özkaya, Hakkı Ilçi and Mahmut Eliuygun, the relatives of those murdered. The applicants pointed out that the killing of these 10 people was a case of extra-judicial execution, and they had been killed on purpose by policemen who raided the houses and the workplace. It was claimed that the garments of the victims should have been examined in order to find out the distance of shooting, but the police had burned them so that the garments could not be examined. The applicants asked the Commission to determine the responsibility of the Turkish state in the case, and to condemn it. The Commission, taking the case into consideration, asked the Turkish Go-vernment to submit related information. In its reply, the government stated that those killed had recip-rocated by opening fire on the call to “surrender” made by the security forces. The government demanded that the Commission reject the application, since there was a trial pending related to the case.

used which gun, that the clothes of the victims had lost, that no examina-tion had been made at the scene and that the court had not taken coercive decisions, and said that all of this was worrisome from the view of the law. They claimed that the court board pro-longed the prosecution period purposely in order to let way for prescription. Various prison sentences have been sought for the security forces prosecuted on charges of killing in a manner that made impossible to identify assailants. The trial in question was opened in 1992.

Following is information about the trials and investigations launched concerning extra- judicial executions in 1994:

A trial was launched against 10 security forces in connection with the killing of Revolu- tionary Left militant Ibrahim Yalçın, who fled in February 1993 from Istanbul Bayrampaşa Prison where he was held under arrest, by police in front of his house in Rahmanlar, Istanbul on the night of 23 April 1993. In the trial launched by the Istanbul Public Prosecution Office, various prison sentences were demanded for the security forces on charges of “killing deliber-ately”. Kısmet Şahin (the owner of the flat that Ibrahim Yalçın rented), who was a witness in the trial which began on 25 January at the Kartal Heavy Penal Court, said: “I did not hear any warning to surrender by police during the operation. The police claimed that there were bombs and arms in the house, but we saw neither arms nor bombs.” When Kısmet Şahin was asked whether there had been a guns in the hand of Ibrahim Yalçın, she answered “No. There were 4-5 meters between us, but I did not see any gun in his hand.” Other witnesses Emel Yılmaz and Dursun Şen, living in the same building where Ibrahim Yalçın’s flat is located, said they had not heard police officers had asked him to surrender. Ibrahim Yalçın’s lawyers, who took the corpse from the morgue reported that the body had 3 bullet wounds in the back and the shots had been fired at fatal points. They said: “This case shows that they opened fire from behind. This is an extra-judicial execution.”

The Istanbul Public Prosecution Office opened a trial against 9 security forces who par- ticipated in the police raid against a cafeteria in the Perpa Business Center in the Okmeydanı quarter of Istanbul on 13 August 1993, which resulted in the killing of 5 people. In the trial, the security forces were accused of having killed more than one person in a manner that made im- possible to identify the assailants and sentences of up to 30 years in prison were demanded for them. The names of the security forces, who were being prosecuted at the trial which started at the Istanbul Heavy Penal Court No.7 in November are as follows: “Ercüment Yılmaz (Vice Director of Istanbul Police for Political Affairs), Ali Çetkin (security chief), Hasan Erdoğan (commissioner), Hüseyin Doğrul, Ömer Kaplan, Ayhan Çarkın, Ayhan Özkan, Selim Kestik and Kadir Uçar.”

The prosecution of the police officers who participated in a house raid in the Hasköy quarter of Istanbul on 26 November 1993 at about 6.00 p.m. and resulted in the killing of two youths, Selma Doğan and Erol Yalçın, started on 21 April at the Istanbul Beyoğlu Heavy Penal Court. The indictment read out in the hearing sought various prison sentences for the defen-dants. In addition, the court board banned the press from the hearing. Selma Doğan’s mother Sabiha Doğan, who attended the hearing on behalf of the victims, was detained and beaten by police officers including those being prosecuted. Sabiha Doğan was arrested on 22 April on allegations of “aiding the Revolutionary Left organization and harbouring its members”. The trial resulted in acquittal within a short time. After the raid, some people living on Büklüm Street where Selma Doğan’s mother and family have lived for 10 years is located, said that they did not think the house was a safe house and they had not heard calls from police to “surrender” during the operation. However, police authorities alleged that the house had been used by Revolutionary Left militants

and police officers Abdullah Dindar and Mehmet Sezginer were wounded in fire opened from the house during the raid.

A trial was launched against 5 police officers, Yunus Yıldırgan, Mustafa Altınok, Er-can Çetinkaya, Salih Tonga and Şefik Kul in connection with the house raid which was carried out in Kartal, Istanbul on 19 November 1993 and resulted in the death of a woman, Serap Macit. In the trial, which started at the Istanbul Kartal Heavy Penal Court on 28 June 1994, various prison sentences were sought for the police officers accused of “killing deliberately”. The police officers, on the other hand, did not accept the accusation and alleged that Serap Macit had been killed during a clash. Lawyer Eren Keskin, who attended the hearing on the behalf of the victim wanted to ask the police officers; “Was not it possible to capture her alive?” but her request was refused. Police did not allow a group of 40 people, who wanted to watch the hearing, to enter the court hall. In the hearing held on 27 September, Serap Macit’s husband Ramazan Macit, who was brought to the court hall under surveillance of gendarmes since he was arrested because of another case, was allowed to attend the prosecution process on behalf of the victim. Ramazan Macit who claimed that his wife had been intentionally killed by the police officers and this was an extra-judicial execution, was not allowed to read out the petition he had prepared. When he insisted on reading the petition, he was harassed and taken out of the court hall by gendarmes.

A trial was launched against security chief Ismail Gür, in charge of the Içel Security Directorate, who shot to death Abdullah Arpacı (25) in the Oskar Hotel in Mersin on 16 August 1993. The first hearing of the trial, was held at the Izmir Heavy Penal Court No.4 for security reasons on 18 August. The indictment read out in the hearing demanded a sentence of 24 years in prison for Ismail Gür on charges of killing deliberately. Ismail Gür, who was cross-exam-ined in the hearing said: “I drew my gun in order to frighten Abdullah Arpacı, who was talking with a woman. My friends tried to prevent me. During the quarrel, my gun went off. I did not intend to kill him.” In his first testimony after the incident, Ismail Gür had said “I was too drunk at the time. I lost control of myself.”

In 1994, numerous cases were forwarded to the European Human Rights Commission because extra-judicial executions were not seriously investigated, the lawsuits brought were not serious, and the responsible people were not punished. The Commission admitted and investi- gated many of those cases. After examination of certain applications forwarded in 1993, deci-sions were taken against Turkey.

For example, the applications of Hüseyin Güleç, the father of Ahmet Güleç who died in a shooting by security forces who opened fire on participants of demonstration in Idil on 4 March 1991, and of Sariye Uğur, the mother of night watchman Musa Uğur who was killed by soldiers and village guards raiding a coal mine in Şırnak on 24 December 1990, which were forwarded to the Commission in 1993, were deemed right in August 1994. Turkey’s statement, arguing that security forces had to prevent the incidents and maintain security in the Emer-gency State Region, and the fact that internal judiciary measures had not been employed, was found to be inappropriate. In the Commission’s decision, complaining families and Turkish government were invited to find a friendly solution. In the trials opened on the grounds that the right to life had been violated, there was a call for abolition of Article 4 of the Emergency State Legislation, which prevents compensation to the relatives of those killed, and prosecution of the security forces, who are assailants of murders, and of the related articles of the Law on Prosecution of Civil Servants (in force since 1913), which foresee some obstructions.