REPORT OF RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION ON 1) THE ALLEGED EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLING OF ŞİYAR PERİNÇEK IN ADANA & 2) THAT ARRESTED INDIVIDUALS WERE SUBJECTED TO TORTURE AND ILL-TREATMENT UNDER CUSTODY ON 28 MAY 2004
| IHD | MAZLUMDER | KESK | HRFT |
CASE
On May 28 2004, Şiyar Perinçek was killed by security officers from the Adana Directorate of Security. He was killed in front of a school, the Abdurrahim Gizer İlköğretim Okulu (Turan Cemal Beriker Avenue), between 14:30-15:00 pm. After the incident, M. Gazi Aydın, M. Nurettin Başçı, Mehmet Kahvecioğlu and M. Veli Karadeniz, were detained. Allegedly, M. Gazi Aydın, M. Nurettin Başçı, Mehmet Kahvecioğlu and M. Veli Karadeniz were subjected to torture and ill-treatment during the detention period. Since the incident occurred in a plaza across the street from the Adana Branch Office of the HRA, the executive members of the branch also applied to the HRA Headquarters immediately after the incident.
On May 28 2004, Şiyar Perinçek was killed by security officers from the Adana Directorate of Security. He was killed in front of a school, the Abdurrahim Gizer İlköğretim Okulu (Turan Cemal Beriker Avenue), between 14:30-15:00 pm. After the incident, M. Gazi Aydın, M. Nurettin Başçı, Mehmet Kahvecioğlu and M. Veli Karadeniz, were detained. Allegedly, M. Gazi Aydın, M. Nurettin Başçı, Mehmet Kahvecioğlu and M. Veli Karadeniz were subjected to torture and ill-treatment during the detention period. Since the incident occurred in a plaza across the street from the Adana Branch Office of the HRA, the executive members of the branch also applied to the HRA Headquarters immediately after the incident.
COMPOSITION OF THE DELEGATION
After the application to the HRA Headquarters, a delegation was formed to investigate the allegations concerning the extrajudicial killing, torture, and ill-treatment; to interview and meet with victims, eye-witnesses, and authorities; to inform the public; to make available the results of research and investigation ; to make a contribution to protecting the right to life ensured by various international and national legislation; to prevent torture; and to demand that the perpetrators of the relevant violations are found and prosecuted.
After the application to the HRA Headquarters, a delegation was formed to investigate the allegations concerning the extrajudicial killing, torture, and ill-treatment; to interview and meet with victims, eye-witnesses, and authorities; to inform the public; to make available the results of research and investigation ; to make a contribution to protecting the right to life ensured by various international and national legislation; to prevent torture; and to demand that the perpetrators of the relevant violations are found and prosecuted.
The delegation was composed of following people:
Lawyer Reyhan Yalçındağ, Vice President of the HRA; Lawyer Şükran Buldu, member of the HRA General Executive Board and representative of the Middle Anatolia; Lawyer Selahattin Demirtaş, Chairperson of Diyarbakır Branch of the HRA and member of the Executive Board; Lawyer Şeyhmus Ülek, Vice President of Mazlum-Der; Mr. Ali Rıza Ekinci, President of the DİVES (A Trade Union linked to KESK); Lawyer Mustafa Çinkılıç, Representative of the HRFT Adana Branch and member of HRFT Executive Board; Dr. Mehmet Antmen, physician of Adana Branch of HRFT and Mr. Sabri Kahraman, member of the Executive Board of Adana Branch of the HRA.
Lawyer Reyhan Yalçındağ, Vice President of the HRA; Lawyer Şükran Buldu, member of the HRA General Executive Board and representative of the Middle Anatolia; Lawyer Selahattin Demirtaş, Chairperson of Diyarbakır Branch of the HRA and member of the Executive Board; Lawyer Şeyhmus Ülek, Vice President of Mazlum-Der; Mr. Ali Rıza Ekinci, President of the DİVES (A Trade Union linked to KESK); Lawyer Mustafa Çinkılıç, Representative of the HRFT Adana Branch and member of HRFT Executive Board; Dr. Mehmet Antmen, physician of Adana Branch of HRFT and Mr. Sabri Kahraman, member of the Executive Board of Adana Branch of the HRA.
INITIATIVES OF THE DELEGATION
The Human Rights Association gave written information to the Adana Governorship, the Adana Chief of Public Prosecutor Office, and Public Prosecutor Office of Adana State Security Court, the Chief Physician of Adana State Hospital, the Adana Forensic Medical Institution, and the Adana Directorate of Security and informed these individuals and organizations that the HRA aimed to carry out an investigation into the extrajudicial execution and torture allegations. In preparation for the research, relevant appointments were made.
The Human Rights Association gave written information to the Adana Governorship, the Adana Chief of Public Prosecutor Office, and Public Prosecutor Office of Adana State Security Court, the Chief Physician of Adana State Hospital, the Adana Forensic Medical Institution, and the Adana Directorate of Security and informed these individuals and organizations that the HRA aimed to carry out an investigation into the extrajudicial execution and torture allegations. In preparation for the research, relevant appointments were made.
On 9 June 2004, the delegation interviewed the executive board members of the Adana Branch who had witnessed the events. They also interviewed some eyewitnesses. The delegation visited Mr. Nuri Yiğit, Chief Public Prosecutor of the Adana State Security Court, Mr. Kasım Yağmur, the Prosecutor of the Adana State Security Court and Mr. Tevfik LOĞOĞLU, the public prosecutor carrying out the preliminary investigation, Mr. Mehmet TOPRAK, Head of the Human Rights Board of the Adana Governorship, Mr. Mehmet CEBE, Chief of the Adana Security Directorate, Mr. Cemal LEVENT, deputy chief of the Adana Security Directorate, Lawyer Necati ERDEM, Chairman of the Adana Bar Association, Lawyer İsmail ARISOY, Executive Member of the Bar Association, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mehmet YAĞCI, Chief Physician of the State Hospital, Dr. Necmi ÇEKİN, head of the Forensic Medicine Institution, Op. Dr. Mehmet KOBANEL who performed the operation and Dr. Fulya KAYA, Chief of staff in 112 Emergency Service and interviewed with them. The Adana Chief Public Prosecutors Office rejected the interview request of the delegation.
On 3 June 2004 lawyer Reyhan YALÇINDAĞ, a member of the delegation, also interviewed M. Nurettin BAŞÇI and M. Gazi AYDIN, who are in a Kürkçüler F-Type Prison in Adana and took their statements regarding the allegations.
STATEMENT OF AN EYEWITNESS WHO WENT TO THE ADANA BRANCH OF THE HRA IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE INCIDENT (ON 28 MAY 2004) (NAME WITHHELD DUE TO REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIALITY)
“While I was sitting on a ledge in front of the place where the incident occurred on 28 May 2004 at about 15:00, I noticed a motorcycle carrying two individuals. The motorcycle was red. A person in a lead-colored civilian car following the motorcycle opened the car door and hit the motorcycle. Two individuals fell from the motorcycle. One of these began to flee. Another individual was lying on the ground. A tall, thin man, wearing a grey t-shirt and black denim pants, shot at the individual who was lying on the ground. He pocketed the empty cartridges. Afterwards, I realized that the man who shot the individual lying on the ground was a police officer. The police officers also arrested the other individual who had fled soon afterwards.”
INTERVIEWS WITH OTHER EYEWITNESSES
The HRA’s delegation interviewed two eyewitnesses on 9 June 2004. The eyewitnesses requested confidentiality.
The HRA’s delegation interviewed two eyewitnesses on 9 June 2004. The eyewitnesses requested confidentiality.
The first eyewitness’ statement is as follows:
“When the incident occurred, I was passing a stationer and a Turkish Airlines office that is next to the Abdurrahim Gizer İlköğretim Okulu (a primary school). Suddenly, I saw a man who was trying to escape; he was running towards me. Police officers were following him. When I arrived at the florist, I saw that other plain clothes police officers were running towards him. While the individual was running towards me, I heard the sound of a gun. At first, I thought the man had been shot. I remember that I was surprised since he did not fall after I had heard the sound of a gun. He put his hands on his head and yielded to the police officers, when the police officers arrested him. As soon as he was arrested, he was laid to the ground and searched. During the search, nothing was found. Afterwards I realized that the sound I heard was the sound of the gun that shot the other individual.”
“When the incident occurred, I was passing a stationer and a Turkish Airlines office that is next to the Abdurrahim Gizer İlköğretim Okulu (a primary school). Suddenly, I saw a man who was trying to escape; he was running towards me. Police officers were following him. When I arrived at the florist, I saw that other plain clothes police officers were running towards him. While the individual was running towards me, I heard the sound of a gun. At first, I thought the man had been shot. I remember that I was surprised since he did not fall after I had heard the sound of a gun. He put his hands on his head and yielded to the police officers, when the police officers arrested him. As soon as he was arrested, he was laid to the ground and searched. During the search, nothing was found. Afterwards I realized that the sound I heard was the sound of the gun that shot the other individual.”
A second eyewitness made the following statement:
“I was crossing the Turan Cemal Beriker Avenue, when the incident happened. I saw a young man lying on the sidewalk. His back was bloody. There were many armed police officers around the young man, and one of them leaned his knees against the wounded man’s shoulders, and he was holding the injured man with his hands.”
“I was crossing the Turan Cemal Beriker Avenue, when the incident happened. I saw a young man lying on the sidewalk. His back was bloody. There were many armed police officers around the young man, and one of them leaned his knees against the wounded man’s shoulders, and he was holding the injured man with his hands.”
STATEMENT BY THE FOURTH EYEWITNESS INTERVIEWED BY LAWYER REYHAN YALÇINDAĞ AND LAWYER SELAHATTİN DEMİRTAŞ, MEMBERS OF THE DELEGATION, AFTER HE/SHE HAD APPLIED TO THE DİYARBAKIR BRANCH OFFICE OF THE HRA ON 11 JUNE 2004
A fourth eyewitness, who requested confidentiality for now but declared that he/she will provide information about the event during a trial, made the following declaration :
“I and my friend … (abovementioned first eyewitness) were crossing the street in the area also known as Türkkuşu on 28 May 2004 at about 15:00. When we arrived at the corner of the THY building, we heard the sound of guns. Firstly, we heard the sound of a gun fired two times. At that moment, I saw a man running towards us. A police officer( I can identify him if I see him) was following him. He had dark hair, a moustache, a light colored waistcoat, was about 40 years old, and stood about 1 meter 70 centimeters tall. He weighed about 80 kilograms. They opened fire against the person who was fleeing. The police officer’s hands were shivering. He opened fire without a “stop” warning. But he gave warning to stop after he had opened fire. At that time, about 2-3 police officers were running towards the man who was trying to flee. One of these police officers was about 40 years old; he was bald and 1 meter 70 centimeters tall, about 80-90 kilograms in weight, has brown hair, and a moustache. If I see him, I can identify him. The individual who was fleeing stopped when he saw the police officers running towards him. The police officers arrested and rudely searched him. Apparently, nothing was found. They took him to the Türkkuþu crossroads at the Turhan Cemal Beriker Avenue. After about 30 seconds, we arrived there, and we saw an injured young man lying on the ground. A police officer was holding his wounded’ arms and he pressed his knees against the wounded person’s shoulder. While we were around there, we did not see any ambulance coming. There was no explosive material, or gun, etc. around the wounded person. We heard the individuals saying that the police officers had picked up empty cartridges on the ground after they opened fire. I left the place of the incident soon afterwards.”
“I and my friend … (abovementioned first eyewitness) were crossing the street in the area also known as Türkkuşu on 28 May 2004 at about 15:00. When we arrived at the corner of the THY building, we heard the sound of guns. Firstly, we heard the sound of a gun fired two times. At that moment, I saw a man running towards us. A police officer( I can identify him if I see him) was following him. He had dark hair, a moustache, a light colored waistcoat, was about 40 years old, and stood about 1 meter 70 centimeters tall. He weighed about 80 kilograms. They opened fire against the person who was fleeing. The police officer’s hands were shivering. He opened fire without a “stop” warning. But he gave warning to stop after he had opened fire. At that time, about 2-3 police officers were running towards the man who was trying to flee. One of these police officers was about 40 years old; he was bald and 1 meter 70 centimeters tall, about 80-90 kilograms in weight, has brown hair, and a moustache. If I see him, I can identify him. The individual who was fleeing stopped when he saw the police officers running towards him. The police officers arrested and rudely searched him. Apparently, nothing was found. They took him to the Türkkuþu crossroads at the Turhan Cemal Beriker Avenue. After about 30 seconds, we arrived there, and we saw an injured young man lying on the ground. A police officer was holding his wounded’ arms and he pressed his knees against the wounded person’s shoulder. While we were around there, we did not see any ambulance coming. There was no explosive material, or gun, etc. around the wounded person. We heard the individuals saying that the police officers had picked up empty cartridges on the ground after they opened fire. I left the place of the incident soon afterwards.”
INTERVIEWS WITH MEHMET NURETTİN BAŞÇI AND MEHMET GAZİ AYDIN WHO HAD BEEN ARRESTED, BY LAWYER REYHAN YALÇINDAĞ, MEMBER OF THE DELEGATION, IN THE KÜRKÇÜLER F-TYPE PRISON
Lawyer Reyhan Yalçındağ, a member of the delegation, interviewed Mehmet Gazi Aydın and Mehmet Nurettin Başçı, who has been in the Adana Kürkçüler F-Type Prison, one by one on 3 June 2004, and she took their statements concerning the case:
In summary, Mehmet Nurettin Başçı made the following statement:
“I had met the individual who was killed about one or two days before the event. He told me that he had not any place to stay, so he and I went to the son of my uncle, Mehmet Kahvecioğlu’s house to stay a night. He had told me that his name was Mustafa. I hadn’t seen him since that night. My job is distributing cigarettes. While I was doing my job in İncirlik on 28 May 2004 at about 14.00, he saw and called me. He told me that he would go to Adana. Since I wanted to go to Adana also, I took him to my motorcycle and we set off on a trip together. When we arrive in Adana, he was going to get off at the İnönü Parký (a park). After we had arrived in Adana, a lead-grey color civilian car approached us and hit the motorcycle at the Turan Cemal Beriker Avenue. I lost my balance, then I recovered myself and I kept on riding. But the car hit the motorcycle again, and then the motorcycle fell down. I and the man — whose name was Şiyar as I learned after I had been taken under custody — fell. I was afraid so I began to flee. At that moment the rain of bullets started. He did not have a gun or such things. If he had had a gun, I would have seen it because he wore a t-shirt suitable for summer. He did not resist them by using a gun. I had supposed that he also fled. But afterwards I realized that he was not running with me; in other words, he did not flee. After I had fallen down and heard the sound of the gun, I was afraid, and I began to flee. As soon as I turned a corner towards the Turkish Airlines office, I saw many plainsclothes police officers approaching me. Then I put my hands over my head, leaned on the wall and surrendered. While I was being put in the car on the street, I noticed that an individual had been wounded because of the police gunfire. I also told the prosecutor this. As soon as I had been arrested, they put me in a car and blindfolded me. Then I was taken to the Security Directorate. During the detention, one of my testicles and my right toe were given an electric shock. They tied my arms and told me that “…now, you will get on a helicopter.” After those words, I was forced to stand up on a chair. They hung me up by hanging my tied hands and pushed the chair. I was left hanging and I understood that “getting on a helicopter” meant being subjected to hanging. I was undressed and subjected to cold water. When they abandoned these methods temporarily, I was forced to stand up for a long time; I was subjected to hunger and went without water; I was not allowed to go to the toilet for two days. Subsequently, they squeezed my testicles and I was beaten and threatened with death and sexual torture. They also insulted me. This torture continued for two days. Once I was taken in a car while I was blindfolded. After they drove about 30-40 kilometers, I was forced to get out of the car. They told me that they would kill me. At that time, they said that they would also kill Şiyar. They fired their guns two times. When they asked me what my last wish was, I answered that I wanted to smoke a cigarette. Then they brought me back to the Security Directorate while I was blindfolded. During these two days, our lawyers were not allowed to visit us. During the period, when I was in the Security Directorate, I was again tortured and forced to sign some documents; I did not have any idea about their contents. I told the doctors about the treatments to which I had been subjected. But I don’t know whether the doctor reported my complaints and the torture marks on my body, because the police officers were present in the examination room. I deplore the police officers. In this prison I, Mehmet Kahvecioğlu, and Mehmet Veli Karadeniz stayed together in the same cell. We had been taken under custody together. But as I know, a man called Mehmet Gazi Aydın is held in a single cell.”
“I had met the individual who was killed about one or two days before the event. He told me that he had not any place to stay, so he and I went to the son of my uncle, Mehmet Kahvecioğlu’s house to stay a night. He had told me that his name was Mustafa. I hadn’t seen him since that night. My job is distributing cigarettes. While I was doing my job in İncirlik on 28 May 2004 at about 14.00, he saw and called me. He told me that he would go to Adana. Since I wanted to go to Adana also, I took him to my motorcycle and we set off on a trip together. When we arrive in Adana, he was going to get off at the İnönü Parký (a park). After we had arrived in Adana, a lead-grey color civilian car approached us and hit the motorcycle at the Turan Cemal Beriker Avenue. I lost my balance, then I recovered myself and I kept on riding. But the car hit the motorcycle again, and then the motorcycle fell down. I and the man — whose name was Şiyar as I learned after I had been taken under custody — fell. I was afraid so I began to flee. At that moment the rain of bullets started. He did not have a gun or such things. If he had had a gun, I would have seen it because he wore a t-shirt suitable for summer. He did not resist them by using a gun. I had supposed that he also fled. But afterwards I realized that he was not running with me; in other words, he did not flee. After I had fallen down and heard the sound of the gun, I was afraid, and I began to flee. As soon as I turned a corner towards the Turkish Airlines office, I saw many plainsclothes police officers approaching me. Then I put my hands over my head, leaned on the wall and surrendered. While I was being put in the car on the street, I noticed that an individual had been wounded because of the police gunfire. I also told the prosecutor this. As soon as I had been arrested, they put me in a car and blindfolded me. Then I was taken to the Security Directorate. During the detention, one of my testicles and my right toe were given an electric shock. They tied my arms and told me that “…now, you will get on a helicopter.” After those words, I was forced to stand up on a chair. They hung me up by hanging my tied hands and pushed the chair. I was left hanging and I understood that “getting on a helicopter” meant being subjected to hanging. I was undressed and subjected to cold water. When they abandoned these methods temporarily, I was forced to stand up for a long time; I was subjected to hunger and went without water; I was not allowed to go to the toilet for two days. Subsequently, they squeezed my testicles and I was beaten and threatened with death and sexual torture. They also insulted me. This torture continued for two days. Once I was taken in a car while I was blindfolded. After they drove about 30-40 kilometers, I was forced to get out of the car. They told me that they would kill me. At that time, they said that they would also kill Şiyar. They fired their guns two times. When they asked me what my last wish was, I answered that I wanted to smoke a cigarette. Then they brought me back to the Security Directorate while I was blindfolded. During these two days, our lawyers were not allowed to visit us. During the period, when I was in the Security Directorate, I was again tortured and forced to sign some documents; I did not have any idea about their contents. I told the doctors about the treatments to which I had been subjected. But I don’t know whether the doctor reported my complaints and the torture marks on my body, because the police officers were present in the examination room. I deplore the police officers. In this prison I, Mehmet Kahvecioğlu, and Mehmet Veli Karadeniz stayed together in the same cell. We had been taken under custody together. But as I know, a man called Mehmet Gazi Aydın is held in a single cell.”
The member of the delegation observed that there were signs of torture on Mehmet Nurettin Başçı’s right arm and elbow, and the victim was anxious.
Mehmet Gazi Aydın made the following statement in a summary:
“I was arrested and taken into custody by the police officers on 28 May 2004, when I was in front of the Adana Ulu Camii. I did not have a gun. After I was arrested, I was transferred to the Security Directorate and the Units of Gendarmerie as well. I was interrogated there, too. During the detention period, I was subjected to beatings and Palestine Hanging. I was forced to undress and was threatened. Since I occasionally fainted, I do not remember whether I was subjected to electric shock or not. I am almost illiterate. So I don’t know what I was forced to sign in the Security Directorate, either. There are still marks of torture on my right knee. I don’t know if the doctors, who examined us, reported the marks of torture on my body, since the police officers were also in the room. Once they took me to the Þiyar’s room in the hospital to see him. When I saw him, he was struggling. I thought that because he suffered or because of the medicines, he was in such a condition. We did not have access to any lawyer for two days. On 1 June 2004, I was jailed and transferred to the prison. Since I was brought to the prison, I have been staying in a single cell. The officers don’t meet my needs. For example, I said many times that I wanted to buy cigarettes. But they told me that since all cigarettes were sold, they could not give me any cigarette. Since I have been here, I have been taken to the Director of the Prison and the Gendarmerie Commander – specifically, I was taken out of the cell two times. The Director of the prison and Gendarmerie Commander wanted to force me to confess. They are saying that if I confess, I’ll be released. I am under intense pressure. I told them that I knew my rights and I did not want to enjoy the law concerning confession.”
“I was arrested and taken into custody by the police officers on 28 May 2004, when I was in front of the Adana Ulu Camii. I did not have a gun. After I was arrested, I was transferred to the Security Directorate and the Units of Gendarmerie as well. I was interrogated there, too. During the detention period, I was subjected to beatings and Palestine Hanging. I was forced to undress and was threatened. Since I occasionally fainted, I do not remember whether I was subjected to electric shock or not. I am almost illiterate. So I don’t know what I was forced to sign in the Security Directorate, either. There are still marks of torture on my right knee. I don’t know if the doctors, who examined us, reported the marks of torture on my body, since the police officers were also in the room. Once they took me to the Þiyar’s room in the hospital to see him. When I saw him, he was struggling. I thought that because he suffered or because of the medicines, he was in such a condition. We did not have access to any lawyer for two days. On 1 June 2004, I was jailed and transferred to the prison. Since I was brought to the prison, I have been staying in a single cell. The officers don’t meet my needs. For example, I said many times that I wanted to buy cigarettes. But they told me that since all cigarettes were sold, they could not give me any cigarette. Since I have been here, I have been taken to the Director of the Prison and the Gendarmerie Commander – specifically, I was taken out of the cell two times. The Director of the prison and Gendarmerie Commander wanted to force me to confess. They are saying that if I confess, I’ll be released. I am under intense pressure. I told them that I knew my rights and I did not want to enjoy the law concerning confession.”
Lawyer Reyhan Yalçındağ, a member of the delegation, interviewed Mehmet Gazi Aydın. She observed that Aydın was very anxious and frightened. Since he has been held in a single cell, he does not feel safe. Bahri Görgün, the director of the prison, was interviewed at the end of the visit and asked about Aydın’s request for cigarettes and his concern about his single cell. Mr. Görgün said that because Aydın has not had any money, he had not been given cigarettes. In addition, he said that other prisoners would be put in Aydın’s cell later and that he would not remain alone. After this meeting, Ms. Yalçındağ met with Beyhan Günyeli, Aydın’s lawyer, and informed her of the situation. Günyeli maintained that her client’s family had sent money for him; it was not true that he did not have any money. Günyeli also maintained that the pressure on her client was being continued through the rejection of his needs, such as cigarettes, etc.
OFFICIAL VISITS OF THE DELEGATION
1) Kasım YAĞMUR, the State Security Court’s Prosecutor, who is carrying out the investigation
He made the following statement in a summary:
“I decided to separate relevant parts of the case file and forward it to the Chief Public Prosecutor in Adana. I lodged a complaint against the security forces because torture and killing was involved. After this stage, we don’t have any authority to investigate.”
In spite of the fact that we stated that the family’s lawyers had also been the members of the delegation and requested an examination of the case file, we were not allowed to look into the case file. He stated that there had been no decisions concerning the secrecy of the case file yet, but he had been planning to make a decision by Friday, 11 June. He added that if we insisted on looking into the file, he would make a decision relating to the secrecy of the file immediately.
1) Kasım YAĞMUR, the State Security Court’s Prosecutor, who is carrying out the investigation
He made the following statement in a summary:
“I decided to separate relevant parts of the case file and forward it to the Chief Public Prosecutor in Adana. I lodged a complaint against the security forces because torture and killing was involved. After this stage, we don’t have any authority to investigate.”
In spite of the fact that we stated that the family’s lawyers had also been the members of the delegation and requested an examination of the case file, we were not allowed to look into the case file. He stated that there had been no decisions concerning the secrecy of the case file yet, but he had been planning to make a decision by Friday, 11 June. He added that if we insisted on looking into the file, he would make a decision relating to the secrecy of the file immediately.
2) Nuri YİĞİT, Chief Public Prosecutor of the Adana State Security Court
He made the following statement during the visit:
“We all are lawyers, and we believe in the supremacy of law. I have attended many seminars on human rights since 1997. I am sensitive about these issues. But the State Security Court doesn’t have the authority to lunch an investigation concerning torture and extrajudicial execution. For this reason, we separated the relevant part of the case file and sent it to the Adana Chief Public Prosecutors Office. So I cannot comment on the case. Rejection of the case by the State Security Court’s Prosecutor is his personal legal opinion. I cannot say anything. However, if he does not want to permit an examination of the file, he must ensure that a secrecy decision is taken. We cannot do anything if he does this. It is true that the State Security Courts are exceptional courts. We are the courts based on Law No. 2845. In addition, the Turkish state is a state of law. When there is a violation of rights, perpetrators of the violation are absolutely prosecuted. Relating to the aforementioned case and torture allegations, the file was sent to the responsible prosecutors’ office.”
He made the following statement during the visit:
“We all are lawyers, and we believe in the supremacy of law. I have attended many seminars on human rights since 1997. I am sensitive about these issues. But the State Security Court doesn’t have the authority to lunch an investigation concerning torture and extrajudicial execution. For this reason, we separated the relevant part of the case file and sent it to the Adana Chief Public Prosecutors Office. So I cannot comment on the case. Rejection of the case by the State Security Court’s Prosecutor is his personal legal opinion. I cannot say anything. However, if he does not want to permit an examination of the file, he must ensure that a secrecy decision is taken. We cannot do anything if he does this. It is true that the State Security Courts are exceptional courts. We are the courts based on Law No. 2845. In addition, the Turkish state is a state of law. When there is a violation of rights, perpetrators of the violation are absolutely prosecuted. Relating to the aforementioned case and torture allegations, the file was sent to the responsible prosecutors’ office.”
3) Tevfik LOĞOĞLU, Adana Public Prosecutor, who carried out the investigation concerning the allegation of torture and execution.
He made the following statement:
“I have not received the file yet. So I cannot say anything about the file. After I receive the file, I will examine it, and I will inform you as to whether I will give you a copy of the file or not. However, I do not have any information at this stage. I only have a report concerning the autopsy I have. The file was supposed to reach me earlier, but the Security Directorate sent the file to the State Security Court instead of to me. So I have not received the file yet. I am the prosecutor who took a part in Şiyar Perinçek’s autopsy. Documents in the file I have are an examination report, a report indicating the body was given to the family, and a report of the State Hospital indicating that the killed person’s clothes were given to the Security Directorate. When I receive the other relevant documents and the full file, I will make a decision about which documents I will give you.”
He made the following statement:
“I have not received the file yet. So I cannot say anything about the file. After I receive the file, I will examine it, and I will inform you as to whether I will give you a copy of the file or not. However, I do not have any information at this stage. I only have a report concerning the autopsy I have. The file was supposed to reach me earlier, but the Security Directorate sent the file to the State Security Court instead of to me. So I have not received the file yet. I am the prosecutor who took a part in Şiyar Perinçek’s autopsy. Documents in the file I have are an examination report, a report indicating the body was given to the family, and a report of the State Hospital indicating that the killed person’s clothes were given to the Security Directorate. When I receive the other relevant documents and the full file, I will make a decision about which documents I will give you.”
4) Lawyer İsmail ARISOY, Executive Member of the Adana Bar Association and Member of the Human Rights Committee in the Province.
He made the following statement:
“I have followed the case in the press. However, I received the complaints lodged by lawyers, who have been interested in the case, and their report, as I am a member of the Human Rights Committee of the Governorship. We have just started to investigate the case. But concerning the part of the case which the Bar Association is interested in, you should speak to Chairperson of the Bar Association. Generally, the lawyers continuously face problems and obstacles regarding the right to defense in Adana. We have been receiving complaints about violations from the Adana Kürkçüler Prison, also. Unfortunately, it is not possible to say that our bar association is very effective on these matters. I am working in the subcommittee, which was formed under the Provincial Human Rights Committee to investigate extrajudicial execution and torture allegations. For this reason, I will monitor the matter. We will do what is needed.”
He made the following statement:
“I have followed the case in the press. However, I received the complaints lodged by lawyers, who have been interested in the case, and their report, as I am a member of the Human Rights Committee of the Governorship. We have just started to investigate the case. But concerning the part of the case which the Bar Association is interested in, you should speak to Chairperson of the Bar Association. Generally, the lawyers continuously face problems and obstacles regarding the right to defense in Adana. We have been receiving complaints about violations from the Adana Kürkçüler Prison, also. Unfortunately, it is not possible to say that our bar association is very effective on these matters. I am working in the subcommittee, which was formed under the Provincial Human Rights Committee to investigate extrajudicial execution and torture allegations. For this reason, I will monitor the matter. We will do what is needed.”
5) Lawyer Necati ERDEM, Chairman of the Adana Bar Association
He made the following declaration during the visit:
“I heard that the case had been the result of a conflict, and I thought it was true. I have just heard the allegation concerning the extrajudicial execution. Examination of preliminary files and meetings between a detainee and lawyer are difficult matters in Adana. We have a written statement of the prosecutor. It says that the prosecutor does not permit the examination of the files by defenders. We have informed the Ministry of Justice in writing, but we haven’t received a response yet. We occasionally hear about torture allegations in the Kürkçüler Prison, but we haven’t received any information or documents. Regarding the matter that you were not given the copies of the documents in the case file, the Chief Public Prosecutors Office in Adana alleges that the Article 46/2 of the Law on Lawyers states that lawyers can access the case file but not at the preliminary stage. It is very clear that the treatment is illegal and arbitrary.”
After members of the delegation had told him that they had gone to the Anti Terror Branch of the Security Directorate in order to visit their clients, but that they had not been allowed to visit them for two days and that there were allegations of torture, Mr. Erdem said:
“We have not received any application from lawyers about the matter. In addition, the allegations that torture has occasionally occurred in the Kürkçüler Prison and that the prisoners were subjected to ill-treatment, especially during the counting, have also been received by the Bar Association. We will investigate the case.”
He made the following declaration during the visit:
“I heard that the case had been the result of a conflict, and I thought it was true. I have just heard the allegation concerning the extrajudicial execution. Examination of preliminary files and meetings between a detainee and lawyer are difficult matters in Adana. We have a written statement of the prosecutor. It says that the prosecutor does not permit the examination of the files by defenders. We have informed the Ministry of Justice in writing, but we haven’t received a response yet. We occasionally hear about torture allegations in the Kürkçüler Prison, but we haven’t received any information or documents. Regarding the matter that you were not given the copies of the documents in the case file, the Chief Public Prosecutors Office in Adana alleges that the Article 46/2 of the Law on Lawyers states that lawyers can access the case file but not at the preliminary stage. It is very clear that the treatment is illegal and arbitrary.”
After members of the delegation had told him that they had gone to the Anti Terror Branch of the Security Directorate in order to visit their clients, but that they had not been allowed to visit them for two days and that there were allegations of torture, Mr. Erdem said:
“We have not received any application from lawyers about the matter. In addition, the allegations that torture has occasionally occurred in the Kürkçüler Prison and that the prisoners were subjected to ill-treatment, especially during the counting, have also been received by the Bar Association. We will investigate the case.”
6) Mehmet TOPRAK, Head of the Human Rights Board of the Human Rights Committee in the Provinces
He made the following statement, in a summary:
“I heard about the case from the media while I was watching the news on 28 May 2004 at the end of work. We did not attempt to do anything as it was a weekend. We began to investigate the event after the Headquarters of the HRA’s fax letter dated 31.05.2004. We transferred the application to a subcommittee of three individuals and wanted them to carry out an investigation and report and present the results of the investigation to the Provincial Committee. The subcommittee has begun work, but has not yet completed the investigation. Corresponding and interviewing with the eyewitness one by one, the subcommittee will carry out its work. We are carrying out the investigation very carefully and slowly to prevent any fault. We don’t want to make any mistake by going to quickly. There is a lawyer from the Bar Association, a lawyer from the Treasury, and a representative of a non-governmental organization (Esnaf ve Sanatkarlar Odası) on the subcommittee. We will do what we can do to clarify the case. I completely agree with your determination that the right to life is a basic right. In this framework, we will investigate the case by considering all its aspects.”
He made the following statement, in a summary:
“I heard about the case from the media while I was watching the news on 28 May 2004 at the end of work. We did not attempt to do anything as it was a weekend. We began to investigate the event after the Headquarters of the HRA’s fax letter dated 31.05.2004. We transferred the application to a subcommittee of three individuals and wanted them to carry out an investigation and report and present the results of the investigation to the Provincial Committee. The subcommittee has begun work, but has not yet completed the investigation. Corresponding and interviewing with the eyewitness one by one, the subcommittee will carry out its work. We are carrying out the investigation very carefully and slowly to prevent any fault. We don’t want to make any mistake by going to quickly. There is a lawyer from the Bar Association, a lawyer from the Treasury, and a representative of a non-governmental organization (Esnaf ve Sanatkarlar Odası) on the subcommittee. We will do what we can do to clarify the case. I completely agree with your determination that the right to life is a basic right. In this framework, we will investigate the case by considering all its aspects.”
7) Cemal LEVENT, Deputy Chief of the Adana Security Directorate
After the members of the delegation introduced themselves and explained the aims of their visit, Cemal LEVENT, the Deputy Chief of the Security Directorate, began to talk to the human rights defenders in a very aggressive and rude way. He also used the same language when the members of the delegation tried to summarize their work and to talk about their roles in the human rights struggle which has been carried out for a long time in Turkey. In a summary he stated:
“You are individuals and institutions wearing the masks entitled to human rights defenders. I am evaluating your visit in the same way. The case is a terror matter. You are not objective. Deal with people who are beating and injuring each other and with men who are beating their wives as seen on TV screens, instead of this case. Your efforts are efforts that the other side intends. It is not an effort concerning respect for human rights.”
After the above statement, stating that they had never discussed their human rights defenders identity and if he had been continuing to use same language, they could not have kept on with the interview, the members of the delegation requested an interview with the Chief of the Security Directorate and visited with Mehmet CEBE, Chief of the Security Directorate, together with Cemal LEVENT.
After the members of the delegation introduced themselves and explained the aims of their visit, Cemal LEVENT, the Deputy Chief of the Security Directorate, began to talk to the human rights defenders in a very aggressive and rude way. He also used the same language when the members of the delegation tried to summarize their work and to talk about their roles in the human rights struggle which has been carried out for a long time in Turkey. In a summary he stated:
“You are individuals and institutions wearing the masks entitled to human rights defenders. I am evaluating your visit in the same way. The case is a terror matter. You are not objective. Deal with people who are beating and injuring each other and with men who are beating their wives as seen on TV screens, instead of this case. Your efforts are efforts that the other side intends. It is not an effort concerning respect for human rights.”
After the above statement, stating that they had never discussed their human rights defenders identity and if he had been continuing to use same language, they could not have kept on with the interview, the members of the delegation requested an interview with the Chief of the Security Directorate and visited with Mehmet CEBE, Chief of the Security Directorate, together with Cemal LEVENT.
8) Mehmet CEBE, Chief of the Security Directorate
The members of the delegation informed him that the right to live is sacrosanct, and that they were visiting him as a part of their investigation into the allegation of an extrajudicial execution and the allegations relating to ill treatment of detainees. Mr. Mehmet Cebe could not answer the questions concerning the case, as he did not know about the case. He gave information about the case after he asked Cemal Levent, the Deputy Chief of the Security Directorate, who was present during the visit. The members of the delegation observed that Mr. Cebe did not have any information about how the event had happened, about the gun and equipment which allegedly had been found on killed person…etc., how many bullets had hit him, how many days he had been in the hospital, which hospital he had stayed in, and that detainees could not be visited by their lawyer for two days because of the Anti Terror Branch’s restrictions, etc. He did, however, ask Mr. Cemal Levent to discuss these matters with the delegation. Cemal Levent stated:
“The individuals who were being following did not obey the warning to stop issued by the security officers and so their motorcycle was hit by a car, and they fell. Because one of those who fell opened fire, the police officers shot him. As a result of the action, he was wounded and then transferred to the hospital. He was unconsciousness when he was taken to the hospital. It is true that the individuals who were taken under custody during the operations were not allowed to meet with their lawyers for two days after the event. It was because the operation was still continuing. As a result of that, their allegations concerning their ill-treatment was forwarded to the Prosecutor Office by their lawyers; the individuals were examined by the doctor and a report was prepared. According to the medical reports, there was no sign of torture on their bodies.”
Lawyer Mustafa CİNKILIÇ, a representative of the HRFT Adana Branch Office, and Dr. Mehmet ANTMEN, a member of the executive board and doctor of the HRFT Adana Branch Office, also attended the following visits:
The members of the delegation informed him that the right to live is sacrosanct, and that they were visiting him as a part of their investigation into the allegation of an extrajudicial execution and the allegations relating to ill treatment of detainees. Mr. Mehmet Cebe could not answer the questions concerning the case, as he did not know about the case. He gave information about the case after he asked Cemal Levent, the Deputy Chief of the Security Directorate, who was present during the visit. The members of the delegation observed that Mr. Cebe did not have any information about how the event had happened, about the gun and equipment which allegedly had been found on killed person…etc., how many bullets had hit him, how many days he had been in the hospital, which hospital he had stayed in, and that detainees could not be visited by their lawyer for two days because of the Anti Terror Branch’s restrictions, etc. He did, however, ask Mr. Cemal Levent to discuss these matters with the delegation. Cemal Levent stated:
“The individuals who were being following did not obey the warning to stop issued by the security officers and so their motorcycle was hit by a car, and they fell. Because one of those who fell opened fire, the police officers shot him. As a result of the action, he was wounded and then transferred to the hospital. He was unconsciousness when he was taken to the hospital. It is true that the individuals who were taken under custody during the operations were not allowed to meet with their lawyers for two days after the event. It was because the operation was still continuing. As a result of that, their allegations concerning their ill-treatment was forwarded to the Prosecutor Office by their lawyers; the individuals were examined by the doctor and a report was prepared. According to the medical reports, there was no sign of torture on their bodies.”
Lawyer Mustafa CİNKILIÇ, a representative of the HRFT Adana Branch Office, and Dr. Mehmet ANTMEN, a member of the executive board and doctor of the HRFT Adana Branch Office, also attended the following visits:
9) Assoc. Prof. Mehmet YAĞCI, Chief Physician of the Adana State Hospital
Stated that:
“I was on duty on that day when the wounded man was brought to the hospital. But I did not care for him personally. I got information from his doctors regarding his situation. The doctor who carried out the operation is Mehmet Kobanel. If you interview with him, you may get proper information. There is no intensive care unit in our hospital. But the effort to develop such a unit is ongoing.”
Stated that:
“I was on duty on that day when the wounded man was brought to the hospital. But I did not care for him personally. I got information from his doctors regarding his situation. The doctor who carried out the operation is Mehmet Kobanel. If you interview with him, you may get proper information. There is no intensive care unit in our hospital. But the effort to develop such a unit is ongoing.”
10) Mehmet KOBANEL, the doctor who carried out the operation, Expert on Heart and Vessel Surgery of the Adana State Hospital.
In a summary he made the following statement:
“The wounded man was brought to the hospital by 112 emergency service on 28 May at 15:00. I operated on him. We started the operation at 15:17. As his injury was very serious we gave him 4-5 units of blood. The bullet had entered his body from about his left armpit and had gone through and left his body from the right side of his back. The bullet had broken into pieces his internal organs. There is not any mark such as burn…etc. When the patient was brought to the operating room he was undressed. The operation lasted 1.5 hours. Then we took him out of the operating room and transferred him to a single room since we do not have an intensive care unit. I left the hospital at about 18:00 and transferred the patient to the doctor who was on duty. The patient was not taken out of the hospital during the medical treatment. I and my staff performed maximum care. He did not say anything about his identity during the medical treatment period. Indeed, he did not communicate in any way. Sometimes he recovered his consciousness and at those times he was trying to get the serum tubes out. For this reason we had to tie his hands. His tension…etc was normal, he could speak but he never did. Police officers entered the room whenever they wanted. We were not threatened and did not face any oppression, etc. We were not prevented from performing our duty. We may describe his death as a normal development, because his wound was very serious. As the personnel of the hospital, we did what we could. I called the Balcalý Research Hospital (Balcalý Araþtýrma Hastanesini) to request a room in the intensive care unit, but they answered that the unit was full.”
In a summary he made the following statement:
“The wounded man was brought to the hospital by 112 emergency service on 28 May at 15:00. I operated on him. We started the operation at 15:17. As his injury was very serious we gave him 4-5 units of blood. The bullet had entered his body from about his left armpit and had gone through and left his body from the right side of his back. The bullet had broken into pieces his internal organs. There is not any mark such as burn…etc. When the patient was brought to the operating room he was undressed. The operation lasted 1.5 hours. Then we took him out of the operating room and transferred him to a single room since we do not have an intensive care unit. I left the hospital at about 18:00 and transferred the patient to the doctor who was on duty. The patient was not taken out of the hospital during the medical treatment. I and my staff performed maximum care. He did not say anything about his identity during the medical treatment period. Indeed, he did not communicate in any way. Sometimes he recovered his consciousness and at those times he was trying to get the serum tubes out. For this reason we had to tie his hands. His tension…etc was normal, he could speak but he never did. Police officers entered the room whenever they wanted. We were not threatened and did not face any oppression, etc. We were not prevented from performing our duty. We may describe his death as a normal development, because his wound was very serious. As the personnel of the hospital, we did what we could. I called the Balcalý Research Hospital (Balcalý Araþtýrma Hastanesini) to request a room in the intensive care unit, but they answered that the unit was full.”
11) Dr. Fulya KAYA, Chief of the 112 Emergency Service
In a summary she made the following statement:
“If you want to get information about the case, you have to lodge an official application. After your application, we can provide written or oral information if those in charge permit it. For this reason we do not have to inform you. You may refer to my words in your report.”
In a summary she made the following statement:
“If you want to get information about the case, you have to lodge an official application. After your application, we can provide written or oral information if those in charge permit it. For this reason we do not have to inform you. You may refer to my words in your report.”
12) Dr. Necmi ÇEKİN, Head of the Group of the Forensic Medical Institution
made the following statement:
“I and one of my colleagues carried out the autopsy. When the body was brought in, it was undressed and there were no clothes with him. Therefore we could not get any information about the shooting distance. But we carried out a detailed autopsy. And we sent a part of a mass, which we took from the body, to the Balcalı Araştırma Hastanesi. As soon as we receive the results of the pathologic research, we will complete the detailed autopsy report.”
made the following statement:
“I and one of my colleagues carried out the autopsy. When the body was brought in, it was undressed and there were no clothes with him. Therefore we could not get any information about the shooting distance. But we carried out a detailed autopsy. And we sent a part of a mass, which we took from the body, to the Balcalı Araştırma Hastanesi. As soon as we receive the results of the pathologic research, we will complete the detailed autopsy report.”
13) Lawyer Beyhan GÜNYELİ, Lawyer of the Adana Bar Association
Lawyer Beyhan Günyeli, lawyer of detained Mehmet Nurettin Başçı and Mehmet Kahvecioğlu, stated that she had gone, together with her colleague Sevil Aracı, to visit their clients at the Anti-Terror Branch of the Security Directorate on 29 May 2004 at 11.00 am. They waited, however, until 11:50 and after that they were not allowed to see them because the inquiries had been continuing. Therefore, they had applied to the Prosecutor’s Office of the State Security Court. After they had met with the Public prosecutor of the State Security Court, they had repeated their demand at 15:20 on same day. In a summary she stated:
“Lawyer Sevil Aracı, my colleague, and I went to the Anti-Terror Branch of the Security Directorate on 29 May 2004 at 11:00 in order to visit Mehmet Kahvecioğlu and Mehmet Nurettin Başçı, our detained clients. We were told that we could not see them at that moment because the inquiry was still continuing. Our demand was rejected in spite of the fact that it was our legal right, and according to new amendments we have the right to visit our clients. And we insisted. We left the branch after we had been made to wait about 1 hour. Then we went to the justice building in order to see Mr. Nevzat İnanoğlu, the Public Prosecutor of the State Security Court, together with lawyer Sevil Aracı, lawyer Mehmet Aydın, lawyer Hüseyin Kılınç and lawyer İlknur Önal. The public prosecutor told us that there was no prohibition and that we might have visited our clients. Thus our demand was accepted and again we went to the Anti-Terror Branch on the same day. The chief commissar on duty at the Anti-Terror Branch said that the visit would last only two minutes and that the prosecutors had known about this time limit. He added that the duration of the visit was out of their control. We stated that we would not accept a two-minute visit and that the prosecutor had not limited the duration. I, lawyer Sevil Aracı and lawyer Mehmet Aydın interviewed Mehmet Kahvecioğlu and Mehmet Nurettin, our clients, in a room at the entrance of the anti-terror branch between 15.20 and 15.40. Holding his arms, Nurettin Baþçý begged “please take out me from here; they are torturing me.” It was observed that Mr. Başçı’s left elbow was bruised; he also had deep bruises on his left shoulder and bruises on various part of his waist. According to his statement, his right and left toes and his sexual organs were subjected to electric shocks; he was taken out in a car while in detention, and a gun was fired when they arrived in an empty area. He was forced to stand up until morning, food and sleep were withheld from him, and he was not allowed to use the toilet as he needed. So together with our colleagues we prepared a report concerning M.Nurettin Baþçý’s allegation and our experiences. We submitted the report and an application referring our requests to the prosecutor. We demanded that Başçı be transferred to the forensic medical institution in order for his case to be investigated and so that the torture could be reported. For this reason, we also demanded that the detention period not be extended. We submitted this to the Public Prosecutor of the State security Court. After the visit, we reported that we could not see our clients at 11.00 and we could not look at any preliminary documents.
Lawyer Beyhan Günyeli, lawyer of detained Mehmet Nurettin Başçı and Mehmet Kahvecioğlu, stated that she had gone, together with her colleague Sevil Aracı, to visit their clients at the Anti-Terror Branch of the Security Directorate on 29 May 2004 at 11.00 am. They waited, however, until 11:50 and after that they were not allowed to see them because the inquiries had been continuing. Therefore, they had applied to the Prosecutor’s Office of the State Security Court. After they had met with the Public prosecutor of the State Security Court, they had repeated their demand at 15:20 on same day. In a summary she stated:
“Lawyer Sevil Aracı, my colleague, and I went to the Anti-Terror Branch of the Security Directorate on 29 May 2004 at 11:00 in order to visit Mehmet Kahvecioğlu and Mehmet Nurettin Başçı, our detained clients. We were told that we could not see them at that moment because the inquiry was still continuing. Our demand was rejected in spite of the fact that it was our legal right, and according to new amendments we have the right to visit our clients. And we insisted. We left the branch after we had been made to wait about 1 hour. Then we went to the justice building in order to see Mr. Nevzat İnanoğlu, the Public Prosecutor of the State Security Court, together with lawyer Sevil Aracı, lawyer Mehmet Aydın, lawyer Hüseyin Kılınç and lawyer İlknur Önal. The public prosecutor told us that there was no prohibition and that we might have visited our clients. Thus our demand was accepted and again we went to the Anti-Terror Branch on the same day. The chief commissar on duty at the Anti-Terror Branch said that the visit would last only two minutes and that the prosecutors had known about this time limit. He added that the duration of the visit was out of their control. We stated that we would not accept a two-minute visit and that the prosecutor had not limited the duration. I, lawyer Sevil Aracı and lawyer Mehmet Aydın interviewed Mehmet Kahvecioğlu and Mehmet Nurettin, our clients, in a room at the entrance of the anti-terror branch between 15.20 and 15.40. Holding his arms, Nurettin Baþçý begged “please take out me from here; they are torturing me.” It was observed that Mr. Başçı’s left elbow was bruised; he also had deep bruises on his left shoulder and bruises on various part of his waist. According to his statement, his right and left toes and his sexual organs were subjected to electric shocks; he was taken out in a car while in detention, and a gun was fired when they arrived in an empty area. He was forced to stand up until morning, food and sleep were withheld from him, and he was not allowed to use the toilet as he needed. So together with our colleagues we prepared a report concerning M.Nurettin Baþçý’s allegation and our experiences. We submitted the report and an application referring our requests to the prosecutor. We demanded that Başçı be transferred to the forensic medical institution in order for his case to be investigated and so that the torture could be reported. For this reason, we also demanded that the detention period not be extended. We submitted this to the Public Prosecutor of the State security Court. After the visit, we reported that we could not see our clients at 11.00 and we could not look at any preliminary documents.
14) Lawyer Sevil ARACI, Lawyer of the Adana Bar Association
Repeating Lawyer Beyhan Günyeli’s above statements, Lawyer Sevil Aracı stated that they were not allowed to see their detained client, so they had to wait for meeting although they argued that this was not legal. The officials of the Anti Terror Branch insisted that they could not see their client, and they were not able to see any preliminary documents at any point. Mrs. Aracı also stated that when she met her client, she observed that there were several marks of torture on Baçı’s body. She added that her client said he was subjected to methods of torture such as electric shocks, lack of food and drink, and beatings. Aracı also said that they signed a written report on the situation on 29 May 2004 at 15.45.
Repeating Lawyer Beyhan Günyeli’s above statements, Lawyer Sevil Aracı stated that they were not allowed to see their detained client, so they had to wait for meeting although they argued that this was not legal. The officials of the Anti Terror Branch insisted that they could not see their client, and they were not able to see any preliminary documents at any point. Mrs. Aracı also stated that when she met her client, she observed that there were several marks of torture on Baçı’s body. She added that her client said he was subjected to methods of torture such as electric shocks, lack of food and drink, and beatings. Aracı also said that they signed a written report on the situation on 29 May 2004 at 15.45.
THE DETERMINATIONS
1. The Delegation of the Human Rights Association visited the place of the incident and carried out an investigation there. The delegation determined that the event in which Şiyar Perinçek was shot occurred at the Turan Cemal Beriker Avenue, in a plaza across the street from the Adana Branch Office of the HRA.
2. The Delegation examined all photos taken by representatives of the press immediately after the event. It did not find any photo indicating that anything like a gun, bomb, cartridge, or bullet was found on Şiyar Perinçek.
3. According to the findings, after the examination of the photos, the delegation determined that there were definite marks on the right front and back doors of the civilian metallic grey Wolkswagen Polo (with the license number of 01 PK 677) that was parked near the sidewalk and near the motorcycle. These findings suggest that the above-mentioned car hit the motorcycle.
4. Taking into consideration eyewitness’s statements, the delegation did not find any evidence that Mehmet Nurettin Başçı and Şiyar Perinçek, who had fallen from the motorcycle, had guns. The eyewitnesses said there was no armed resistance from the two men.
5. The delegation received information that a police officer had pressed the injured Şiyar Perinçek’s shoulders with his knees until he was taken to the ambulance.
6. Taking into consideration the event and that there were many police officers (according to Research and Determination Report on Incident Place of 28 May 2004 at 18.45, there were police officers from Region Branch of Public Security, Team of Ş.E Çıtak Police Station, Anti Terror Branch and Crime Branch), as well as eyewitness statements and statements by Başçı, the Delegation found it was not possible that Nurettin Başçı escaped from the place of the incident and that his track had been lost.
7. As a result of the police firing, Şiyar Perinçek was wounded at about 14:30. The ambulance was called 15 minutes after the event. After 5 minutes the ambulance arrived and he was taken to the Emergency Service of the Adana Public Hospital. According to the reports in the case file, he was hospitalized at 15:00. According to the search report prepared by the security officers on 28 May 2004 at 15:15, some money, a lighter, a packet of cigarettes, and a piece of paper were found during a search.
8. Şiyar Perinçek was operated on after he had been taken to the Adana Public Hospital. He was not, however, taken to a hospital where there was an intensive care unit, despite the fact that his life was still in danger. During the Delegation’s visit, Dr. Mehmet Kobanel, a physician of the Public Hospital, stated that he had contacted the officers of Balcalı Research Hospital twice and demanded that he be hospitalized in the intensive care unit. The delegation found that when the patient’s life was in danger, phone demands were insufficient.
9. A traditional autopsy to determine the cause of death has not yet been prepared. A report of the Medical Examination of death exists in the preliminary file.
10. The members of the Delegation did not receive any response regarding the whereabouts of the victim’s clothes, which were important evidence for determining the distance of the shooting. The delegation found that the family of the victim had been given the undressed body.
11. The members of the Delegation received information from health officers suggesting that the gunfire came from a professional because of the way the fatal shot hit his heart and lungs.
12. Taking into consideration the event, the eyewitnesses, and Mehmet Nurettin Başçı’s statements, and that there were many police officers, the members of the Delegation determined that Nurettin Başçı was arrested when the victim was shot. According to the reports of the arrest, the place where Başçı was arrested is apparently located in Dağlıoğlu Mahallesi, at 23rd street, and the time was 00.30. This means that arrest came 9 hours after the event occurred.
13. The lawyers who wanted to see Mehmet Kahvecioğlu, Mehmet Nurettin Başcı, Mehmet Veli Karadeniz and Gazi Aydın – all of whom had been arrested–were prevented from doing so and were not allowed to see them when they went to the Anti-Terror Branch for first time. In following visits, the lawyers determined that Nurettin Baþçý had been tortured. But they were not allowed to examine the relevant preliminary documents. This information was reported and signed by security officers and lawyers. The aforementioned document is kept in the file that is at the prosecution stage.
14. The Human Rights Delegation was not prevented from carrying out its work. The Official Authorities from whom the interviews were requested were sensitive on the matters of interviews and time. The Adana Public Prosecutors Office, however, rejected a request for an interview and Cemal Levent, Deputy Chief of the Adana Security Directorate, insulted the delegation’s members. He also insulted the delegation by saying that he did not consider himself a defender of human rights.
1. The Delegation of the Human Rights Association visited the place of the incident and carried out an investigation there. The delegation determined that the event in which Şiyar Perinçek was shot occurred at the Turan Cemal Beriker Avenue, in a plaza across the street from the Adana Branch Office of the HRA.
2. The Delegation examined all photos taken by representatives of the press immediately after the event. It did not find any photo indicating that anything like a gun, bomb, cartridge, or bullet was found on Şiyar Perinçek.
3. According to the findings, after the examination of the photos, the delegation determined that there were definite marks on the right front and back doors of the civilian metallic grey Wolkswagen Polo (with the license number of 01 PK 677) that was parked near the sidewalk and near the motorcycle. These findings suggest that the above-mentioned car hit the motorcycle.
4. Taking into consideration eyewitness’s statements, the delegation did not find any evidence that Mehmet Nurettin Başçı and Şiyar Perinçek, who had fallen from the motorcycle, had guns. The eyewitnesses said there was no armed resistance from the two men.
5. The delegation received information that a police officer had pressed the injured Şiyar Perinçek’s shoulders with his knees until he was taken to the ambulance.
6. Taking into consideration the event and that there were many police officers (according to Research and Determination Report on Incident Place of 28 May 2004 at 18.45, there were police officers from Region Branch of Public Security, Team of Ş.E Çıtak Police Station, Anti Terror Branch and Crime Branch), as well as eyewitness statements and statements by Başçı, the Delegation found it was not possible that Nurettin Başçı escaped from the place of the incident and that his track had been lost.
7. As a result of the police firing, Şiyar Perinçek was wounded at about 14:30. The ambulance was called 15 minutes after the event. After 5 minutes the ambulance arrived and he was taken to the Emergency Service of the Adana Public Hospital. According to the reports in the case file, he was hospitalized at 15:00. According to the search report prepared by the security officers on 28 May 2004 at 15:15, some money, a lighter, a packet of cigarettes, and a piece of paper were found during a search.
8. Şiyar Perinçek was operated on after he had been taken to the Adana Public Hospital. He was not, however, taken to a hospital where there was an intensive care unit, despite the fact that his life was still in danger. During the Delegation’s visit, Dr. Mehmet Kobanel, a physician of the Public Hospital, stated that he had contacted the officers of Balcalı Research Hospital twice and demanded that he be hospitalized in the intensive care unit. The delegation found that when the patient’s life was in danger, phone demands were insufficient.
9. A traditional autopsy to determine the cause of death has not yet been prepared. A report of the Medical Examination of death exists in the preliminary file.
10. The members of the Delegation did not receive any response regarding the whereabouts of the victim’s clothes, which were important evidence for determining the distance of the shooting. The delegation found that the family of the victim had been given the undressed body.
11. The members of the Delegation received information from health officers suggesting that the gunfire came from a professional because of the way the fatal shot hit his heart and lungs.
12. Taking into consideration the event, the eyewitnesses, and Mehmet Nurettin Başçı’s statements, and that there were many police officers, the members of the Delegation determined that Nurettin Başçı was arrested when the victim was shot. According to the reports of the arrest, the place where Başçı was arrested is apparently located in Dağlıoğlu Mahallesi, at 23rd street, and the time was 00.30. This means that arrest came 9 hours after the event occurred.
13. The lawyers who wanted to see Mehmet Kahvecioğlu, Mehmet Nurettin Başcı, Mehmet Veli Karadeniz and Gazi Aydın – all of whom had been arrested–were prevented from doing so and were not allowed to see them when they went to the Anti-Terror Branch for first time. In following visits, the lawyers determined that Nurettin Baþçý had been tortured. But they were not allowed to examine the relevant preliminary documents. This information was reported and signed by security officers and lawyers. The aforementioned document is kept in the file that is at the prosecution stage.
14. The Human Rights Delegation was not prevented from carrying out its work. The Official Authorities from whom the interviews were requested were sensitive on the matters of interviews and time. The Adana Public Prosecutors Office, however, rejected a request for an interview and Cemal Levent, Deputy Chief of the Adana Security Directorate, insulted the delegation’s members. He also insulted the delegation by saying that he did not consider himself a defender of human rights.
POINTS IN NEED OF CLARIFICATION
1. Was the fact that the event occurred near the Adana Branch of the HRA only a coincidence? Did the security officers who carried out the operation know that the victim was the son of Mihdi Perinçek, the HRA representative of the South East and East Anatolian Region?
1. Was the fact that the event occurred near the Adana Branch of the HRA only a coincidence? Did the security officers who carried out the operation know that the victim was the son of Mihdi Perinçek, the HRA representative of the South East and East Anatolian Region?
2. Why was no warning to stop given to the murdered individual and to Mehmet Nurettin Başçı, who were on the motorcycle? Why was the motorcycle hit and overturned instead of being given a warning to stop?
3. Was it possible that Şiyar Perinçek had resisted by using a gun after he fell down? Why did the police officers not raid the house that day, when they organized an extensive operation, after they were informed about him (the reports in the file confirm that their information includes the address where they stayed)? Why could they not overcome an unarmed and wounded man while he was lying on the ground?
4. Has anyone investigated the eyewitness’s allegations that a police officer shot the victim while he was lying face down and not resisting?
5. Why had the ambulance arrived after 20 minutes when the closest ambulance was 5 minutes from the place of the incident? Why had the other security officers remained silent about the police officer pressing the victim to the ground?
6. If it is true that, as alleged, the victim Şiyar Perinçek resisted with a gun, why is there no sign of a gun or other explosives in the photos taken immediately after the event?
7. Why is the whereabouts of his clothes not known, despite the fact that there is no documentation concerning seized clothes in the file of the prosecution? Is it possible that his missing clothes are the result of an effort to hide evidence that might clarify the distance at which he was shot?
8. Why was Şiyar Perinçek not taken to another hospital with an intensive care unit after the operation? Did the chief physician’s office, which only phoned the Balcalı Hospital even though the patient’s life was in danger, exhibit sufficient effort to save him? Why did the hospital officers allow the security officers to enter his room?
9. According to the Medical Examination and Autopsy Report prepared on 30 May 2004 at 17.20, Şiyar Perinçek died on 30 May 2004 at about 15:30. An Adana Security Directorate document stated, however, that “…. the murdered person died on 31.05.2004”. This document was dated 31.05.2004 and concerned the prolonged detention period. It was signed by Kamil Karabörk, the Chief of the Terror Branch of Adana Security Directorate and sent to the Chief Public Prosecutors. Have competent authorities explained the contradictory situation regarding the date of death in the file?
10. Mehmet Nurettin Başçı was arrested and taken under custody at the same time as the victim was wounded. This information is based on the testimony of Nurettin Başçı, statements from eyewitnesses, and a Confrontation and Identification Report written on 29.05.2004 at 14.00. Why was it recorded on the incitement report in the preliminary file that he was arrested on 28 May 2004 at about 00.30 and far away from the place of the event, Dağlıoğlu Quarter 23rd Street? 00.30 would mean the first hour of 28 May and about 14 hours before the event. Similarly, the date and time of the arrest are 28.06.2004 and 23.50, according to a form of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. What was the reason for showing that Başçı was arrested on different day than the murder, and at a different time? Was the brother of Nurettin Başçı also arrested and taken under the custody on 28.06.2004 at 23:30 from his house? Was the brother of Nurettin Başçı taken to the Public Hospital instead of Nurettin? Was he examined by a doctor?
11. Why were the lawyers who went to the Anti-Terror Branch not allowed to see Mehmet Nurettin Başçı, Mehmet Veli Karadeniz, Mehmet Kahvecioğlu and Mehmet Gazi Aydın, their detained clients, despite the fact that it was the second day of their detention? Similarly, why was it not possible to examine the preliminary documents?
CONCLUSION AND CONVICTIONS
Convictions
Based on its visits, findings, statements and reports in the file, along with the photo evidence and observations, the Human Rights Delegation is convinced that there is no evidence except the statements and reports of the Security Units that Şiyar PERINÇEK was warned before he was shot or that Şiyar PERINÇEK resisted with a gun. The Delegation gathered data casting doubt upon the allegations of the Security Units. At this stage definite data could not be gathered, but the delegation is convinced that Şiyar PERİNÇEK was killed by police officers of the Adana Security Directorate in an extra-judicial execution.
Convictions
Based on its visits, findings, statements and reports in the file, along with the photo evidence and observations, the Human Rights Delegation is convinced that there is no evidence except the statements and reports of the Security Units that Şiyar PERINÇEK was warned before he was shot or that Şiyar PERINÇEK resisted with a gun. The Delegation gathered data casting doubt upon the allegations of the Security Units. At this stage definite data could not be gathered, but the delegation is convinced that Şiyar PERİNÇEK was killed by police officers of the Adana Security Directorate in an extra-judicial execution.
Our Delegation believes that a serious investigation should examine why Perinçek was not transferred to a hospital with an intensive care unit after the operation and why the police officers arbitrarily entered his room while he was in the hospital. The delegation also believes that the clothes of the victim have not been returned so as to obscure the distance at which the victim was shot. To determine the definite reason of death an autopsy report should be prepared.
The Delegation believes the attitudes of the Security Directorate, which prevented the lawyers from meeting with their detained clients, were arbitrary. This situation is not legal. The right to access a lawyer was violated. The delegation thinks this was done in order to hide the ill treatment and torture of the detained individuals.
The members of the Delegation are concerned that similar human rights violations may occur in the future.
Conclusion
The right to life is inviolate. The violation of the right to life falls in the category of crimes against humanity. Torture, ill treatment and inhuman treatment are also crimes against humanity. An investigation is needed to determine whether Þiyar Perinçek was murdered as a result of an extrajudicial execution; an investigation also needs to take place concerning the ill treatment and allegations of torture made by individuals taken into custody after the event. The preliminary investigation should be completed immediately and the evidence should not be hidden. The perpetrators should be tried and punished.
The right to life is inviolate. The violation of the right to life falls in the category of crimes against humanity. Torture, ill treatment and inhuman treatment are also crimes against humanity. An investigation is needed to determine whether Þiyar Perinçek was murdered as a result of an extrajudicial execution; an investigation also needs to take place concerning the ill treatment and allegations of torture made by individuals taken into custody after the event. The preliminary investigation should be completed immediately and the evidence should not be hidden. The perpetrators should be tried and punished.
Despite the fact that there is substantial evidence to believe that Şiyar Perinçek’s killing was the result of extra-judicial execution and that Mehmet Nurettin Başçı and Mehmet Gazi Aydın were tortured, there has been no administrative or legal proceedings against the responsible officers. So civilians do not feel safe.
Laws are binding for everyone. The justice system should complete the process in the most effective way as soon as possible and make a fair decision. The Bar Associations and other NGOs should monitor the proceedings initiated by the Adana Public Prosecutors Office in order to make sure domestic laws are effective and that the perpetrators are punished.
The case concerning the extra-judicial killing of Şiyar Perinçek and the allegations regarding the ill treatment and torture of detained individuals should be given full attention. The Parliamentary Human Rights Investigation Committee and State Human Rights Presidency should note this report and launch an investigation immediately. They should also inform the public.
Our delegation has hopes that violations of the right to life, torture, and the ill treatment of prisoners will not continue, and believes it is important that the perpetrators of these violations be taken before the judiciary in order to prevent more from occurring.
Lawyer Reyhan YALÇINDAĞ, Vice President of the HRA
Lawyer Şükran BULDU, Member of General Executive Board and Representative of the Middle Anatolian Region
Lawyer Selahattin DEMİRTAŞ, Member of the HRA’s Headquarters Executive Board, Chairman of the Diyarbakır Branch of HRA.
Lawyer Şeyhmus ÜLEK, Vice President of the Mazlum-Der
Ali Rıza EKİNCİ, on behalf of KESK, President of DİVES
Lawyer Mustafa CİNKILIÇ, Representative of the HRFT Adana Branch, and Member of the Executive Board.
Dr. Mehmet ANTMEN, Doctor of the HRFT Adana Branch.
Sabri KAHRAMAN, Executive member of the HRA Adana Branch
Lawyer Şükran BULDU, Member of General Executive Board and Representative of the Middle Anatolian Region
Lawyer Selahattin DEMİRTAŞ, Member of the HRA’s Headquarters Executive Board, Chairman of the Diyarbakır Branch of HRA.
Lawyer Şeyhmus ÜLEK, Vice President of the Mazlum-Der
Ali Rıza EKİNCİ, on behalf of KESK, President of DİVES
Lawyer Mustafa CİNKILIÇ, Representative of the HRFT Adana Branch, and Member of the Executive Board.
Dr. Mehmet ANTMEN, Doctor of the HRFT Adana Branch.
Sabri KAHRAMAN, Executive member of the HRA Adana Branch