HOUSE DEMOLITIONS AND FORCED EVICTIONS PERPETRATED BY THE TURKISH SECURITY FORCES

HOUSE DEMOLITIONS AND FORCED EVICTIONS PERPETRATED BY THE TURKISH SECURITY FORCES: A FORM OF CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION

I. Preliminary observations: the relevance of house demolitions and forced evictions in Turkey to the Committee against Torture (CAT)
Forced evictions and house demolitions, resulting in massive forced displacement, have been carried out between 1989 1999 as a form of punishment against the Kurdish population living in the Southern and South-Eastern part of Turkey. Kurdish villages or settlements that were considered as problematic were systematically destroyed. Houses, fields, forests were burned down; livestock was killed, often in front of the victims who had no time to rescue their personal belongings. These acts were often accompanied by other human rights violations, including brutality, humiliations, threats, enforced disappearances, extra-judicial executions and torture.

The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) acknowledges that this policy, conducted on a large scale by the Turkish Security Forces, can constitute a violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”(see Annex I).

While this policy ended after a one-sided cease-fire in 1999, the issue is far from being resolved. Victims’ compensation and redress, as well as the conduct of independent investigations into those events in order to bring those responsible before a competent tribunal are still pending. In this respect, an important number of the victims were often forced to fill-in a formatted petition confirming that they left their homelands because of the PKK activities, that they absolved the authorities from their criminal responsibility and that they abandon their right to compensation and redress. Moreover, HRA and OMCT are particularly worried by the resurgence of new forced evictions after 1999, along with harassment and implementation of measures such as food embargoes, restriction on freedom of movement to go in and out of villages.

In addition, victims of house demolitions and forced evictions who had to forcible leave their homelands are today confronted to precarious living conditions characterised by poverty, destitution, unemployment, child labour, as well as worrying housing and health conditions. In this respect, women, children and the elderly are particularly affected. The trauma left by the destruction of their goods, their displacement, their new socio-economic conditions and their inability to return bear serious psychological impact that is overall affecting their health status.
The issue of house demolitions and forced evictions is not new to the Committee against Torture (CAT). In its November 2001 Concluding Observations on Israel, the Committee stated that “Israeli policies on house demolitions may, in certain instances, amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (article 16 of the Convention)”(Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee against Torture: Israel. 23/11/2001, CAT/C/XXVII/Concl.5. , para 6j). In Hijirizi et al v Yugoslavia, the CAT determined that in the circumstances of the case the failure of the authorities to protect residents from burning and destruction of houses constitute acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Communication No. 161/2000, UN Doc CAT/C/29/D/161/2000 (2 December 2002), para 9.2). The Committee added that the fact that some of the complainants were still hidden in the settlement when the houses were burnt and destroyed, the particular vulnerability of the alleged victims and the fact that the acts were committed with a significant level of racial motivation constituted aggravating factors. The CAT eventually concluded that Yugoslavia’s failure to provide redress and compensation to the victims violated article 16.

With regard to the nature of the afore-mentioned policy, to the fact that issues of redress, compensation, independent investigation and prosecution are still pending, to the ECHR jurisprudence, as well as to the CAT’s recognition that house demolitions and force evictions can constitute a from of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, HRA and OMCT hope that the Committee will take up this issue in its constructive dialogue with the State party, as well as in its concluding observations on Turkey.

This brief note aims at replacing the policy in its context, at describing its main features and impact on the victims, as well as at highlighting the unresolved issues of redress, compensation, investigation and prosecution.

II. House demolitions and forced evictions: a brief overview
The practice of house demolitions and forced evictions, resulting in massive forced displacement and destruction of villages, gained momentum during the 1990s and lasted until the end of 1999. They occurred on a large scale and were mostly carried out by the Turkish Security Forces and administrative authorities against the rural Kurdish population living in the South Eastern and Eastern region of Turkey.

According to the 1997 report prepared by the Parliamentary Commission on Migration, 3428 rural residential unites were evacuated. The Human Rights Association (HRA), which continued to monitor the situation until today, received many other applications by victims following 1997, allowing saying that around 4000 places of settlement were evacuated.

According to the annual balance sheets published by the Human Rights Association (HRA) (years 1994 to 1999), 1500 villages have been burned down and evacuated in 1994, 243 in 1995, 68 in 1996, 23 in 1997, 30 in 1998 and 30 in 1999. The statistical data released by the Immigrant’s Association for Social Cooperation and Culture highlights that on a period running from 1970 to 2000, the bulk of forced displacement took place between 1990 and 1995 (71,6%), with the highest number of forcible displaced families (258) recorded for the year 1994. The same statistical data show that 98.8% of the locations where forcible displaced families come from have been located in the Eastern and South Eastern regions of Turkey. Overall, these figures clearly indicate that the demolition of houses and forced evictions are directly related to a massive forcible displacement of the Kurdish people out of their homelands.

During the period running from 1989 to 1999, besides the demolitions of houses, forced evictions and burning of villages, the use of highlands were banned and thousands acres of forestry were set on fire. Basic infrastructural facilities such as roads, irrigation networks, and electricity were destroyed in the evacuated villages. Gardens were destroyed, trees were cut down and most of the arable fields are no longer in use. The ban on the use of highlands caused the destruction of animal husbandry. Fields and possessions in the evacuated villages were seized by the village guards, or were destroyed.

People whose houses and villages were destroyed had to migrate to city centres in the region or to metropolitan areas in the West on their own without any support from the authorities.

Besides the loss of all their belongings, property and pecuniary resources, these people were often deprived of basic welfare facilities like shelter, job, health, and education in their new place of settlement, living under the level of poverty. Because of their identities, they were subject to many attacks and pressures in their new living surroundings.

III. House demolitions and forced evictions: a policy carried out as a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
“In November 1994, special military teams came to our village. They burned the house of my uncle Haci Ahmet. Later I saw 9-10 other houses burning. Women and children were crying. We went to the governor and told him the events. He replied us that it was out of his authority to intervene: also trying to calm us down, he added that the security forces would never burn a village. Later I turned to the village. There were 31 houses in the village and 23 of them that were close to each other were burned down. The rest was saved. The houses were burned with the furniture inside them. Later some old villagers -under pressure-gave petitions claiming that the “terrorists” (PKK) burned the village. After this the governor provided them with iron sheets to rebuild their houses in the village. The young and the middle-age inhabitants of the village resisted the pressure and didn’t accept to give petitions and refused to declare that the village was burned by PKK”

Extract from the testimony of Mehmet Hadi Karakaya
“In was in the middle of June 1993. (…) we saw that the security forces were throwing blue coloured boxes in the houses after kicking and breaking the doors. They were lighting some kind of a white coloured liquid that came out of the broken boxes. Everything started to burn. Later they began throwing bombs out of the planes as if bullets were not enough. My animals were in the barn. I went and opened the door of the barn in order to save my animals. We had about 100 sheep. I let them free. While running towards the hill, I turned back to have a look at them and saw that they were being fired on. Having burned all the houses, the soldiers left. There were animal corpses everywhere. Some burnt animals were dying in agony. I saw a donkey, still burning. I would have told it easily if it was PKK who burnt the village. Our men were tortured and forced to tell that it was PKK who burnt down the village. But I have seen it with my own eyes that it was the soldiers and not the PKK who burnt the village.”

Extract from the testimony of Neriman Cicek
“In September 0f 1993, thousand of soldiers entered the village. Once again, they forced us to become village guards. They gave us 10 days of time to think this over. Most of houses including the mosque were pulled down. Eventually in 1997 our village was completely burned down. All our vineyards and gardens in the village were burned. Even under such conditions we are willing to return to our village. We miss the dirt, the soil and the air of the village.”

Extract from the testimony of Hüseyin Kaya and His wife Adile Kaya
“In the year of 1993, the security forces started to pressure us to become village guards. In the spring of 1994, roughly 40-50 villagers accepted to become village guards. Our village consisted of 400 houses. In August 1994, 200 of them were burned. We could not save any of our furniture and any other belongings.”

Extract from the testimony of Kemal Guven
The demolition of houses, forced evictions and destruction of villages that have affected the Kurdish population living in the South Eastern and Eastern region of Turkey have occurred against the background of a fifteen-year conflict opposing government forces to the armed Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK). The demolitions of houses, forced evictions and destructions of villages were carried out by the Turkish Security Forces and by village guards (Kurdish villagers armed and paid by the Turkish authorities to fight the PKK) as a policy to combat the PKK insurgency.

While the PKK’s attacks contributed to demolition of houses, forced evictions and destruction of villages, evidence collected by the Human Rights Association (HRA), as well as judgements by the European Court of Human Rights highlight that the Turkish authorities bear responsibility for the majority of such acts. Data released by the Immigrants Association for Social Cooperation and Culture show that among 2139 families interviewed, 2116 did not identified PKK activities as a cause for displacement.

In response to the guerrilla tactic deployed by the PKK, those villagers who refused to become village guards or were suspected of supporting the PKK were attacked by the Turkish Security Forces or by village guards. As a result, villages or settlements that were considered as problematic were systematically destroyed. Houses, fields and forests were burned down and the livestock was killed, in front of the victims who had no time to rescue their personal belongings. These acts were often accompanied by other human rights violations, including brutality, humiliations, threats, enforced disappearances, extra-judicial executions and torture. Following the destruction of their property and villages, the victims had but no other solution than to leave and resettle somewhere else. In this respect, statistics released by the Immigrants Association for Social Cooperation and Culture highlight that among 2139 families interviewed, 943 considered that the demolition of their houses and forced evictions constituted the first reason of their displacement, 188 families considered that it constituted the second one, while 174 the third one. In turn, HRA’s data highlight that repression was not lifted after the process of forcible displacement: 36.3 % of the victims have been taken under custody, mostly for political reasons, after the demolition of their homes and forced evictions.

Overall, no actions have been taken by the Turkish authorities in order to guarantee an independent investigation into the circumstances of these events, identify those responsible, bring them before a competent and impartial tribunal and apply the penal, civil and/or administrative sanctions provided by law.

Moreover, an important number of the victims of house demolitions and forced evictions were often forced to fill-in a formatted petition confirming that they left their homelands because of the PKK activities. This formatted petition also contains a declaration absolving the authorities from their criminal responsibility. Some of those who wanted to go back to their homeland, besides other difficulties they were confronted to, saw the authorities’ agreement related to them signing a similar petition.

IV. The current situation of the victims: destitution, poverty and precarious living conditions
“I am unemployed. I don’t know how to survive with my 6 children and wife. We are not used to concrete streets. This is not the place to live for us. If I can find a job and earn money for bus tickets and if the conditions in the village are improved we will return to our village”

Extract from the testimony of Mehmet Hadi Karakaya
“In 1996 we also moved to Istanbul. We lived in a humid basement floor for a long time. Now, we live in an apartment in Kocamustafapasa. We even don’t have enough bread to eat. Now my two sons work as porterbut since we cannot survive with that money, my two daughters, who are only 11 and 15 years old started to work in a textile shop. In case one child gets ill, we do not have enough money to pay for his/her medical care, because we don’t have a social coverage or health insurance.”

Extract from the testimony of Neriman Cicek
“Here I am trying to look after my family by working as a peddler. I sell vegetables, fruits, but the municipality and the police officers do not let us do our work. They confiscate our carriages and ruin our vegetables and fruits. We are economically in a very bad condition. There are times when we cannot find any bread to eat. We are 10 persons at home. We live in a humid and dirt basement floor. I cannot send my children to school since I do not have the necessary money. My children always get ill. My two-year-old son’s arm is broken, but we do not have the money to take him to a doctor.”

Extract from the testimony of Hüseyin Kaya and His wife Adile Kaya
“I cannot find a job. In the village I did send the children to school. Now I live in Ikirelli, Istanbul. My children cannot go to school due to economic problems. I am a construction worker. (…) my 11 and 13 year-old children work in a textile shop in order to look after the family.”

Extract from the testimony of Kemal Guven
As mentioned, following the destruction of their houses and forced evictions, the victims had often no other solution than to leave and resettle somewhere else, notably in urban centres where they are living in destitution, precarious conditions and extreme poverty, a situation that particularly affects women, children and the elderly.
Overall, most of the victims are confronted, in their resettlement place, to high levels of unemployment, lack of income to provide for themselves and their families, poor housing conditions, restricted access to health services, restricted access to education for the children, increased health and nutrition problems, epidemic diseases, as well as to cultural problems caused by cultural and linguistic conflict. The inadequate rate of social security coverage among the victims reinforces this situation, as the most important problem encountered is decreasing levels of income due to unemployment without social insurance. Such a situation has led to a serious state of hopelessness among the victims and makes it difficult for them to become integrated with and participate in the public sphere in urban social settings. In general, the authorities’ answer to this situation has been unsatisfactory and often limited to the provision of services, such as housing, to former village guards.

The statistical data released by the Immigrants Association for Social Cooperation and Culture highlights that following the forced displacement, the majority of household heads either found themselves unemployed or performing jobs in the informal sector such as street-sellers. These figures sharply contrast with the fact that the 87.1 % of the household heads based their survival on agriculture before forcible displacement.

According to HRA data, 43.4 % of the displaced children have cut their formal relations with the schools and had to work under very bad conditions. For instance, a lot of children, as their parents cannot afford to send them to school (paying school books and clothes), end up in working in textile shops, in the construction sector, as shoe shiners or as street sellers.

Post displacement housing conditions indicate that the life style of the victims is often transformed from, one based on detached private housing to one based on squatter settlements or homelessness. In general, squatter settlements lack basic infrastructure and basic household equipment. Moreover, after the forced displacement, most of the families have begun to live together in the same house because of economic problems.

The traumas left by the violations and pressures, along with the conditions of severe poverty they have to cope with also negatively affect the psychology of the victims. The HRA notes, for instance, that women’s suicide tend to increase among the displaced population. The statistical data released by the Immigrants Association for Social Cooperation and Culture highlights that following the forced displacement, out of a total of 2139 families interrogated, 1208 have acknowledged that they were suffering psychological damages.

V. The issue of redress and compensation
Besides the fact that no actions have been taken by the Turkish authorities in order to guarantee an independent investigation and those victims of house demolitions and forced evictions were often forced to fill-in declarations absolving the authorities from their criminal responsibility, the issue of redress and compensation remains crucial question today.

The statistical data released by the Immigrants Association for Social Cooperation and Culture highlight that among 2139 forcibly displaced families interviewed, 2108 (96.6%) have suffered damages and losses due to demolition of properties and forced evictions, 1549 (72,4%) have suffered destruction of household items during their house demolitions or the forced eviction, and that 1990 (88,4) had their house destroyed or were forcibly evicted.

Overall, most of the victims of house demolitions and forced evictions did not receive redress and compensation. Only a very small group of victims of house demolitions and forced evictions applied to administrative or judicial mechanisms in order to get redress and compensation and most of them could not get any effective results. According to HRA data, only 20,1 % of the victims have, so far, seek for legal or administrative action.

Moreover, an important number of the victims of house demolitions and forced evictions were often forced to fill-in a formatted petition confirming that they abandoned their rights to redress and compensation. Victims are also often afraid that the seeking of legal action might well prevent their return to their homeland.

VI. New forced evictions of villages: July 2001 evictions of villages in Sirnak province
While the policy of house demolitions and forced evictions stopped in 1999, villages forced evictions were reported, in 2001, in the Sirnak province, South Eastern part of Turkey. The resurgence of new forced evictions following 1999, along with harassment and implementation of measures such as food embargoes, restriction on freedom of movement to go in and out of villages is of particular concern to HRA and OMCT.

A population of 600-700 villagers living in the villages of Asat (15 households) and Ortakli (30 households), located in the Sirnak province, have been evicted by the Turkish Security Forces on 20 July 2001. An investigation carried out by HRA in August 2001 highlighted that the forced eviction of the Asat and Ortaki villages could be related to a mine explosion that caused deaths and wounds of some soldiers during a military operation in July 2001. Interviews with villagers of Asat and Ortakli underlined that they had no relation with the mine explosion and that the whole are has been mined for some time, with mines being located at 25 or 40 kilometres from their villages.

The mission conducted by HRA in August 2001 reported that the 600-700 evicted villagers, whose majority are women, children and elderly people, were living nearby the Beytüssebap municipality borders in about 80 tents in destitute conditions characterised by poverty, deprivation, uncertainty and fear. HRA reported that the victims did not receive any heath care service and that they were subjected to serious health problems. Testimonies from the victims recorded that about 600 animals, beehives, orchards and garden were destroyed due to a lack of maintenance following their forced eviction, cutting the villagers’ production veins.

During discussions of HRA delegation with victims, security forces in civil dresses tried to record talks and identify speakers. This situation led victims to avoid talking openly. In this respect, the Muhtar of the village said to the HRA delegation that they left their village on their own will. Women therein denied what Muhtar said and stated that Muhtar was under threat and forced to talk to the HRA delegation in that way. Immediately after Muhtar’s statement, a young person, Rasim Aþan (18 years old) intervened and asked Muhtar to tell the truth. He went on giving his statements to the HRA delegation. After having given his statements Rasim Aþanstated that he was being threatened and he expressed his wish to leave Beytüşşebap together with the HRA delegation to secure his life. By taking a common decision, the HRA delegation took Rasim Aşan in the eyes of security officers who accompanied them on the way back to Þýrnak. The HRA delegation’s car was stopped at the gendarmerie control point at the entrance of Þýrnak and all videotapes, camera films and notes were confiscated by gendarmerie.

Rasim Aþan who had given his witness to the HRA delegation was taken under custody for the alleged reason that he may have a fake ID Card. Rasim Aşan was brought to the office of the Şırnak Public Prosecutor at 14:00 on 9 August 2001. He stated that he was tortured and forced to give and sign a statement against members of the HRA delegation. Although he declared that he was tortured and although there was a doctor report identifying the torture scars on his body, he was arrested by the Court under Article 159 of Turkish Penal Code and sent to the Þýrnak Prison. All members of the HRA elegation witnessed of this legal scandal.

As a result of this, Osman Baydemir (a member of HRA delegation) and Rasim Aşan are currently facing trial before the Diyarbakir 3rd State Security Court. This trial will be held on May 6th in Diyarbakir.

VII. Conclusions and recommendations
In the light of the precedent developments, HRA and OMCT call upon the Committee:
– to conclude that the policy of houses demolitions and forced evictions constitutes a breach of Article 16;
– to call on the State Party to compensate the victims of forced evictions, house demolition and related injuries and violations;
– to call on the State Party to carry out independent investigations into the circumstances of these events, identify those responsible, bring them before a competent and impartial tribunal and apply the penal, civil and/or administrative sanctions provided by law;
– to permit the victims to return back their homelands and that during the return of the victims the ownership has to be granted based on the extract from the land register. So an independent commission should be formed to establish the material damage of those who were forced to leave their villages or other settlements;
– to lift village guard system as their practices are posing a psychological obstacle against return.

Annex I
The relevant judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on house demolitions/forced evictions and torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

Overall Presentation
In the case Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the destruction of the defendant’s home constitutes a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, in violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. This decision was upheld in two subsequent rulings of the Court: Bilgin v. Turkey and Dulas v. Turkey.

In determining the occurrence of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the ECHR recalled that it must attain a minimum level of severity, dependent upon the circumstances of the case. In this respect, the ECHR jurisprudence, which has been consistent since 1998 on that particular issue, singles out specific elements allowing determining the occurrence of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in case of house demolitions and forced evictions. These elements are related to 1) the manner in which the homes are being destroyed and the evictions are being carried out; 2) the personal circumstances of the victims and 3) the situation in which the victims are being left after the demolitions/evictions took place.

With respect to the manner in which the homes are being destroyed, the ECHR pointed out the following elements as factors causing suffering of sufficient severity to be categorized as inhuman treatment: the fact that the victims were unprepared (lack of prior notification), premeditation by the State agents, the presence of security forces in the lieu of demolition/eviction, the destruction of the homes and possessions in front of the victims, disrespect for the victims’ feelings and inadequate precautions to secure the safety of the victims.

Regarding the personal circumstances of the victims, the ECHR underscores factors of old age and duration of residence in a given place as elements aggravating the severity of the victims’ suffering, which is engendered by the house demolitions or forced evictions. Following this reasoning, other aggravating factors can also be taken into account. Indeed, in pinpointing old age and the duration of residence in a given place, the ECHR defines elements that render the victims more vulnerable to the house demolitions/evictions.

Finally, the ECHR also takes into account the situation in which the victims are being left after the demolitions/evictions took place. In this respect, the Court lists the deprivation of livelihood, deprivation of shelter, deprivation of support, the obligation to leave one’s village or community, the destitution of the victims and the absence of assistance by the authorities as factors causing suffering of sufficient severity to be categorized as inhuman treatment.

Ihsan Bilgin v. Turkey (Application No. 23819/94) / the judgement was delivered on 16 November 2000

Summary of the facts
The Applicant, Mr Ihsan Bilgin is a Turkish citizen who was born in 1960. At the time of the events giving rise to his application he was living in Yukarýgören, a hamlet attached to the village of Güzderesi in the Province of Diyarbakir (south-east Turkey). The application concerns the applicant’s allegations that security forces destroyed his house and other possessions in Yukarýgören. The Government claimed that the property was destroyed by the PKK possibly with the aid of the applicant.

Applicant’s Case
The applicant requested the Court to find that the respondent State had violated his rights under Articles 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination), 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 (protection of property) on account of the destruction of his house and other possessions. He further invited the Court to find that his home had been destroyed as part of a practice of intentional destruction of homes and possessions and forced evacuation in southeast Turkey in and around 1993, which element in his opinion constituted an aggravated violation of the Convention. He further contended that the respondent State had failed to comply with its obligations under former Article 25 of the Convention. He requested the Court to award him just satisfaction under Article 41.

Judgment of the Court
The Court found that the Commission’s findings were acceptable. This involved the finding that the security forces were responsible for the destruction of the applicant’s home and possessions and that the loss of his home and possessions, which deprived him of his livelihood, caused him and his family to abandon Yukarýgören and to settle elsewhere. As such, the Court determined that Turkey was in violation of the following articles of the ECHR:

– Violation of article 3: Torture and Degrading Treatment The Court considered that the treatment of the applicant must have caused him suffering of sufficient severity for the acts of the security forces to be categorised as inhuman treatment with in the meaning of Article 3 of the ECHR.

– Violation of Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1: Private and Family Life The Court found that the security forces destroyed the applicant’s home and possessions, thus depriving the applicant of his livelihood and forcing him and his family to leave Yukarýgören. The Court noted that there can be no doubt that these acts constituted grave and unjustified interferences with the applicant’s rights to respect for his private and family life and home, and to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

– Violation of Article 13: Inadequate Investigation
The Court noted that where an individual has an arguable claim that his or her home and possessions have been purposely destroyed by State agents, the notion of an “effective remedy” entails, in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate and without any prejudice to any other remedy available in the domestic system, an obligation on the respondent State to carry out a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible and including effective access for the complainant to the investigative procedure (see the judgment of Selçuk and Asker v Turkey).

The Court in analysing the procedure for investigating and prosecuting the case in Turkey noted that the scope of the investigation was limited to offences allegedly committed on specific dates indicated by the applicant, i.e. 28 September, 13 October and 23 November 1993. The possibility that the events complained of by the applicant, who is illiterate, might in fact have occurred on other dates did not appear to have been taken into consideration, whereas the initial obviously crucial question in any investigation of an alleged offence is not when it has occurred but whether or not it has occurred at all. The Court also noted that the relevant records of the Çatakköprü and/or Silvan Gendarmerie Station had only been verified by the military authorities themselves and not by the public prosecutor responsible for the investigation of the case. Finally, it did not appear that, apart from Hüdaverdi Tunç, any attempts have been made to obtain evidence from other gendarmes attached to the Çatakköprü Gendarmerie Station at the material time.

– Violation of former Article 25: Interference with the Right of Individual Petition The Court found that pressure was exerted on the applicant to dissuade him from bringing the case. It explained that in this context, “pressure” includes not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention remedy.

Zubeyde Dulas v. Turkey (Application No. 25801/94) / the judgement was delivered on 30 January 2001

Summary of the Facts
Mrs Dulas complained about the deliberate destruction of her home in Çiftlibahçe, southeast of Turkey, by security forces of the Republic of Turkey on 8 November 1993. She claimed that she had been forcibly evicted from her home, village and community, left without a remedy and subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. She also complained of interference by the state authorities with her right to individual application.

Judgement of the Court
The Court upheld the Commission’ s findings of fact that the Hazro Gendarmerie had visited the village of Çiftlibahçe on 8 November 1993 to look for Ahmet Çakýcý from that village. Mrs Dulas was forced to leave by the gendarmes and the gendarmes then set fire to her house. The gendarmes destroyed about 50 houses in Çiftlibahçe that day. As such, the Court determined that Turkey was in violation of the following articles of the ECHR:

– Violation of Article 3: Prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment The Court, having regard to the fact that her house was burned in front of her eyes, that Mrs Dulas was forcibly evicted from the village and community where she had lived all her life, that she was aged over 70 at the time of the events, and that she was left destitute and without any assistance, found that the applicant must have been caused suffering of sufficient severity for the acts of the security forces to be categorised as inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3.
– Violation of Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) The Court found it established that the applicant’ s house had been deliberately destroyed by the security forces and that these acts constituted particularly grave and unjustified interferences with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, family life and home and with her peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. The Court accordingly, found violations of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

– Violation of Article 13: Right to an effective remedy The Court reiterated that the effect of Article 13 is to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an “arguable complaint” under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief. The remedy required by Article 13 must be effective in practice as well as in law, in particular in the sense that its exercise must not be unjustifiably hindered by the acts or omissions of the authorities of the respondent state.

Mrs Dulas was entitled, in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate, to a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible and including effective accesses for the complainant to the investigation procedure.

The Court reaffirmed its findings that this body made up of civil servants, hierarchically dependent on the governor, an executive officer linked to the security forces under investigation, can not be regarded as independent. So thorough or effective investigation was therefore conducted into the applicant’s allegations, and therefore there had been a breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

– Violation of former Article 25: Interference with the Right of Individual Petition The court held that the respondent State failed to comply with its obligations under former Article 25 / 1 of the Convention.

Selçuk & Asker v. Turkey/ The judgement was delivered on 24 April 1998
Commission Findings
Early in the morning of 16 June 1993, a large force of gendarmes arrived in the village of Islamköy. A number of them, under the apparent command of CO Cömert, went to Mr Asker’s house. The house was set on fire, causing the destruction of the property and most of its contents. Mr and Mrs Asker ran inside the house in an attempt to save their possessions: this occurred either while the gendarmes were setting fire to the house by pouring petrol onto it, or just before; it was not established that the house was set on fire while the Askers were inside. Villagers came to see what was happening and were prevented from trying to put out the fire. A number of gendarmes, including CO Cömert, then proceeded to Mrs Selçuk’s house. Despite her protests, petrol was poured on her house, which was set on fire, by, or under the orders of, CO Cömert. Villagers, including two of those who gave evidence to the Commission’s delegates, were prevented from putting out the fire. Mrs Selçuk’s house and its contents were completely destroyed. Mr and Mrs Asker left the village and they returned about ten days later. Mrs Selçuk spent the night or several nights in the village and then left to stay in Diyarbakir with her daughter. On or about 26 June 1993, a force of gendarmes arrived in Islamköy; they were seen on the road nearby and in the village itself. The mill belonging to Mrs Selçulk and others, which stood on a creek in Islamköy, was set on fire and destroyed. CO Cömert was seen with the gendarmes at the mill when this occurred. Mr Asker complained about the destruction of his home to the District Governor in Kulp, presenting a petition. No steps were taken in response to this. Following these events, Mrs Selçuk and Mr and Mrs Asker moved to live permanently in Diyarbakir. Islamköy was abandoned completely by the end of 1994 due to increased PKK activity.

Judgement of the Court
The Court ruled that the destruction of the applicant’ s home constitutes a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of The European Convention on Human Rights, which states that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.

Annex II
Statistical data related to house demolitions, forced evictions, destruction of villages and forcible displacement

The following tables are based upon the Report of the Immigrants’ Association for Social Cooperation and Culture that carried out interviews 2,139 different families (a total of 17’845 people).

Table 1: Number of families forcibly displaced per year between 1970 and 2000

The Year of Forced Migration	Number of Family	%
No Response	28	1.3
1970	2	0.1
1971	1	0.0
1972	2	0.1
1973	1	0.0
1974	2	0.1
1975	4	0.2
1976	6	0.3
1977	3	0.1
1978	6	0.3
1979	5	0.2
1980	23	1.1
1981	4	0.2
1982	15	0.7
1983	9	0.4
1984	21	1.0
1985	30	1.4
1986	47	2.2
1987	38	1.8
1988	50	2.3
1989	110	5.16
1990	144	4.5
1991	97	4.5
1992	280	13.1
1993	440	20.6
1994	358	16.7
1995	213	10.0
1996	80	3.7
1997	50	2.3
1998	41	1.9
1999	23	1.1
2000	6	0.3
Total	2,139	100.0

Table 2: Place of origin of the forcible displaced families

Name of the City	Number of Families	%
No Response	12	0.6
Diyarbakır	620	29.0
Mardin	419	19.6
Bingöl	36	1.7
Adana	4	0.2
Şırnak	83	3.9
Muş	89	4.2
Batman	141	6.6
Siirt	150	7.0
Bitlis	110	5.1
Tunceli	32	1.5
Elazığ	1	0.0
Erzurum	20	0.9
Ardahan	7	0.3
Kars	5	0.2
Malatya	1	0.0
Sivas	1	0.0
Osmaniye	1	0.0
Urfa	31	1.4
Hakkari	205	9.6
Ağrı	12	0.6
Iğdır	1	0.0
Van	153	7.2
Maraş	1	0.0
Adıyaman	2	0.1
Total	2,139	100.0

Table 3: Health Problems after Forced Displacement

Health Problems After Forced Migration	No of Families	%
Yes	1,762	82.4
No	377	17.6
Total	2,139	100.0

Table 4: Nutrition Problems after Forced Displacement

Nutrition Problem After Forced Migration	No of Families	%
Yes	1,688	78.9
No	451	21.1
Total	2,139	100.0

Table 5: Employment of Household Head after forced Displacement

Employment of Household Head After Forced Displacement	No of Families	%
Land owner farmer	2	0.1
Wealthy farmer	2	0.1
Wealthy peasant	1	0
Middle-size peasant	2	0.1
Petite peasant	8	0.4
Poor peasant	31	1.4
Agricultural labourer	64	3.0
Rentier	25	1.2
Unemployed	623	29.1
Retired	35	1.6
Skilled wage-earner	1	0.0
Civil servant	16	0.7
Unskilled servant	203	9.5
Blue collar worker	10	0.5
Artisan	62	2.9
Petite employer	14	0.7
Average-grand employer	3	0.1
Peddler, seller-workman	451	21.1
Others	553	25.9
No response	33	1.5
Total	2,139	100.0

Table 6: Loss of Job due to Forced Displacement

Loss of Job	Number of Families	%
Yes	1,514	66.1
No	725	33.9
Total	2,139	100.0

Table 7: Employment of Household Head Before Forced Displacement

Employment of Household Head Before Forced Migration	No of Families	%
Land owner farmer	12	0.6
Wealthy farmer	87	4.1
Wealthy peasant	149	7.0
Middle-size peasant	619	28.9
Petite peasant	301	14.1
Poor peasant	316	14.8
Agricultural labourer	377	17.6
Rentier	10	–
Unemployed	31	1.4
Retired	9	0.4
Skilled wage-earner	3	0.1
Civil servant	13	0.6
Unskilled servant	20	0.9
Blue collar worker	3	0.1
Artisan	41	1.9
Petite employer	15	0.7
Average-grand employer	4	0.2
Pedller, seller-workman	37	1.7
Others	91	4.3
No response	10	0.5
Total	2,139	100.0

Table 8: Housing problems after Forced Displacement

Shelter Problem After Forced Migration	No of Families	%
Yes	1,162	54.3
No	977	45.7
Total	2,139	100.0

Table 9:Psychological Damages due to Forced Displacement

Psychological Damages	Number of Families	%
Yes	1,208	79.9
No	431	20.1
Total	2,139	100.0

Table 10:Forced Displacement Because of PKK Activities

The effect of pressures by PKK forced migration and its order of priority	Number of Families	%
No effect	2,116	98.9
1st reason for displacement	18	0.8
3rd reason for displacement	1	0.04
7th reason for displacement	1	0.04
8th reason for displacement	1	0.04
9th reason for displacement	1	0.04
11th reason for displacement	1	0.04
Total	2,139	100.0

Table 11:Forced Displacement due to House Demolitions and Forcefully Evacuation of the Villages – Hamlets

The effect of house demolition and forcefully evacuation of the villages on forced displacement	No of Families	%
No effect	836	39.1
1st reason for displacement	943	44.1
2nd reason for displacement	118	5.5
3rd reason for displacement	174	8.1
4th reason for displacement	39	1.8
5th reason for displacement	19	0.9
6th reason for displacement	5	0.2
7th reason for displacement	2	0.1
8th reason for displacement	1	0.04
9th reason for displacement	1	0.04
10th reason for displacement	1	0.04
11th reason for displacement	1	0.04
Total	2,139	100.0

Table 12: Damages and Losses due to the Demolition of the Properties and Forced Displacement

Damages and Losses	Number of Families	%
Yes	2,108	98.6
No	31	1.4
Total	2,139	100.0

Table 13: Destruction of Household Items or Leaving Them Behind due to Forced Displacement

Destruction of Household Items or Leaving Them Behind	Number of Families	%
Yes	1,549	72.4
No	590	27.6
Total	2,139	100.0

Table 14: Destruction of Houses / Houses Left Behind

Destruction of Houses / Houses Left Behind	Number of Families	%
Yes	1,990	88.4
No	249	11.6
Total	2,139	100.0

Annex III
Testimonies by victims of house demolitions and forced evictions collected by HRA
The following testimonies are but a few stories among thousands received, collected or monitored by the HRA regarding the demolition of houses, destruction of villages, forced evictions and their impact on the victims following forcible displacement.

First Testimony
I am from Ajmanuk (Guzeltepe) village of Mus. My true age is 48 though it is 43 in my ID card. I have six children, the youngest of whom is 4 and the oldest is 15. Together with my wife we are 8 people in the household.

Our village was very beautiful. We had enough land. We cultivated wheat, tobacco. We owned mountain pastures and raised sheep and cows. In the year of 1993, repression in the village began. The village is 6 km away from the city centre of Mus. Our food was being investigated and the soldiers insulted us. In November 1994, special military teams came to our village. My cousins started crying. They burned the house of my uncle Haci Ahmet. At first I wanted to escape. Later, I saw 9-10 other houses burning. Women and children were crying. I couldn’t bear the great terror anymore and turned back to the village knowing that I was risking my life doing this. It was midday. A few villagers, in great horror, told me to go to the city centre and let the authorities know about what was taking place. While I was leaving the village, disguising myself among the children, I saw another group of soldiers entering the village.

The news had already arrived to the Governance of Mus before I arrived. Including me, some inhabitants of my village and some people of the neighbouring villages and a few members of the City Council together, we were 10 people. We went tot eh governor and told him of the events. He replied that it was out of his authority to intervene also, trying to calm us down, he added that the security forces would never burn a village. I was nervous and angry. I tried to explain everything to him. While I was escaping from the village I saw two of my cousins who are 5 and 2. The 5 years old one was running towards the villagers, who were gathered in the village centre, holding his 2 years old sister in his arms. Soldiers were forcing the villagers to gather in the centre and were ordering them to burn their own houses themselves.

I told the governor the following story. Once upon a time there were a man and snake that were good friends. The man used to talk to the snake. When the man became old, he decided to go to Mecca for pilgrimage. Before he left, he called his son to tell him about his will. Hetold him that the snake was a good friend of him and asked him to also be friend. After the man had left for pilgrimage, the son went home and met the snake. He didn’t like it and cut its tail while trying to kill it. The snake escaped leaving the tail behind. A few days later, the snake turned back for revenge and bit the son killing him at sleep. The old man returned from the pilgrimage and the snake, after the welcome, told him about the events that happened in his absence and asked him to be friends again. The man replied to him, ‘you with the pain of your cut tail and I, with the pain of my murdered son in my heart, cannot be friends until the end of time.’

I told the governor that it was so difficult for us to forget what we had witnessed and the pain we experienced. I also added that time would pass and our grandchildren would grow old, but telling these stories of pain to each other and live our pain again and again nobody would ever forget what had taken place that day. Hearing these words, the governor became angry, pointed his finger towards me and warned me asking whether I knew the meaning of my words. Later I turned to the village. There were 31 houses in the village and 23 of them that were very close to each other were burned down. The rest was saved. The houses were burned with the furniture inside them. Some furniture saved from the fire was burned outside.

After the event, I moved to Mus, together with my family. We stayed in us for one year. Later some old villagers – under pressure – gave petitions claiming that the “terrorists” (PKK) burned the village. After this the governor provided them with iron sheets to rebuild their houses in the village. They accepted the help and settled in the village again. The young and the middle-aged inhabitants of the village resisted the pressure and didn’t accept to give the petitions and refused to declare that the village was burned by PKK. After having spent one year in Mus, in the spring of 1995, I also returned to my village and built a small house with mud bricks. The pressure went on after I returned to the village. We were strictly controlled and insulted whenever we left or entered the village. Entering mountain pastures were totally prohibited. In 1997, the soldier killed the shepherd of the village near the security station, which is just out of the village. (The trial is still going on.) I could not bear the pressure anymore and migrated to the Ulubat village of Bursa, where my brother-in-law dwells in, together with my family in July 1998. At first, we searched for a house to rent with my brother-in-law, but nobody wanted to rent their house to us since we were Kurds. I had a friend in Yalova. I went there and eventually rented a house for 13 million TL. Two days later we moved here, Yalova. Now, I am unemployed. I don’t know how to survive with my 6 children and wife. We are not used to concrete streets. This is not the place to live in for us. If I can find a job and earn the money for bus tickets and if the conditions in the village are improved we will return to our village.

Mehmet Hadi Karakaya
Second Testimony
Our village, Celikâ Aliyé Roma is a village of Dargecit, Mardin. Since it is a big village with 200 houses, a security station is established in it. It was the middle of June in 1993. Since it was very hot in the summer, we were sleeping and having our dinner on the roof. That day we had worked hard and were tired. The sun had set and we were getting ready to sleep. Suddenly we heard an explosion. At first, we couldn’t understand what was happening. Not much after, we saw that the soldiers were shooting towards the village from the station. Men began to take shelter in mountainous areas of the village. Only women and children were left behind. Each one of use ran somewhere else. We tried to take shelter. We went into the houses. As the morning came, I saw two women running. I asked them why they were running. They replied that the soldiers had gathered the villagers and had been beating and arresting some of them. Afterwards they went on running. I informed the neighbours, gathered the children and led them to a close-by cave. We were roughly 40 persons in the cave. Soon afterwards, we heard my uncle shouting, “Get out of here! Come on! They killed Zulfer, the are burning the village down!”

As soon as we got out of the cave, we saw that the security forces were throwing blue coloured boxes in the houses after kicking and breaking the doors. They were lighting some kind of white coloured liquid that came out of the broken boxes. Everything started to burn. While moving toward the village, we saw that the soldiers had taken some of the villagers into custody. My seven-year-old girl was also among them. We succeeded to hide ourselves while this was taking place. The villager taken into custody was brought back in the sunset. It was Bahtiyar Aydin who let them free. As far as I heard, he came and asked the soldiers whether these were terrorists to deserve such a bad treatment and the soldiers defended their act by claiming that the villagers helped the terrorists. So, Bahtiyar Aydin became angry and ordered the soldiers to set the villagers free. If he hadn’t come on time, the soldiers would murder all the villagers. After a short time, the soldiers killed him, too since he was defending the rights of the people.

When we came back to the village, the operation was still continuing. It was as if bullets were running out of the sky. We were running between the houses in order to find a shelter. Later they began throwing bombs out of the planes as if the bullets were not enough. Two planes were bombing and then leaving. Later two others were doing the same. My animals were in the barn. I went and opened the door of the barn in order to save my animals. We had about 100 sheep. I set them free. While running towards the hill, I turned back to have look at them and saw they were being fired on. Having burned all the houses, the soldiers left. We returned back to the village from the hills. Although we had not thought that we had watched everything that was happening in from the hills, we could not believe our eyes when we actually arrived to the village. There were animal corpses everywhere. Some burnt animals were dying in agony. I saw a donkey, still burning.

We decided to take refuge in a neighbouring village named Mehina (Kayikci). On the way we run into Sabahat who was from our village. She told us that her husband and her brother-in-law were murdered. Suddenly, she threw her baby into the fire, saying that it was better for him to die, rather than living without father. Fortunately, we saved the baby before getting injured. (Now, Sabahat has nobody to look after her.) We continued to run away. Eventually we arrived the Mehina (Kayikci), we, as the women decided to visit our village in the hope of finding something unburned. Some places were still burning as we arrived at the village. Smoke was rising from everywhere. In the village we learned that they had killed 7 people. Alaattin, Fahrettin, Haci Dikran, Suleyman, his son Mehmet and Zulfer. They were first executed by shooting. Later the corpses were carried to Haci Dikran’s garden in a tractor and were burned with the same liquid used to burn the houses. I saw the corpses. They were unrecognizable. There was no flesh left on their bones. What were left from 7 people were bones almost turned to into ashes. They did not allow us to bury them. We left them there and returned to Mehina (Kayikci) village. The corpses remained there for 4 days. We, as the women, continued to visit the village secretly. They were beating and insulting us whenever they noticed us. Even under these conditions we were eager to return back to our village. At the end of the fourth day, they allowed us to bury the corpses. What we could do was only to fill the bones into white bags and bury, instead of shrouding them. While burying the last one, they once again attacked us and we escaped. After they left, we returned back and buried the last one, since it was too hot, animal corpses had began to smell awfully. We tied and pulled them into the river. There were so many corpses that they nearly stopped the flow of the river. It was harvest time and the crops were waiting to be harvested. We had spent so much effort to grow them and we couldn’t even entertain the idea to leave them there.

They did not leave us in peace in Mehina (Kayikci) either. A couple of [days] later, they also burned down Mehina. They burned all of the crops and most of the houses. We moved to Zewik, a hamlet of our village. The helpful people of Zewik welcomed us. What we, as women, were most tedious about was that our children had been hungry for days. They did not leave us in peace wherever we went. They were making sudden attacks and were telling us that we had no place to live in the region, since we were “terrorists”. One night while getting ready for our prayers, my husband insisted on going to the mosque for the prayers, no matter how much we told him not to. Looking after him, I saw that the soldiers had taken my brother-in-law and some other inhabitants of the Zewik village under custody. Immediately afterward we heard their screams in pain. They were being beaten. Soldiers were shooting at their feet.

One week later, they burned 4 or 5 houses in Zewik. Once again, we took our children and left the village. It was difficult to know what to do, because we didn’t know where our men were. After walking a while we saw my husband and a few other men hiding in a corner. We continued walking the rest of the road together with them. We were frightened to the extent that we believed to see soldiers wherever we looked at. After a long walk we arrived in Serkar village and Siirt where my parents live. At the end of our fourth day in Serkar village guards and soldiers made once again a sudden attack. They were breaking the doors and burning whatever they see around. Pages of the Koran (the holy book of Islam) were spread all around. All of the men living in the village were gathered together, insulted and beaten in the village centre, 5-6 months later, Serkar village was emptied and burned down, too. Having no place to accommodate in the area, we took refuge in a village named Geliyé Osman.
After a while, that village was also attacked several times and kept under severe pressure after we settled down there. So the last few months of our life passed in moving around the neighbourhood villages.

Then we moved to Kerboran (Dargecìt), district of Mardin. There, we rented a house. Meanwhile, we heard that Geliyé Osman was also burned down. My husband and children moved to Istanbul from Dargecìt in order to work. We spent six years separated from each other. In 1996 we also moved to Istanbul. We lived in a humid basement floor for a long time. Now, we live in an apartment flat in Kocamustafapasa. Our economic condition was pretty good in the village. We had land to cultivate, fruit gardens and lots of animals to rise. We had good quality vineyards. My children were growing up like kings. But now it is very different. We even don’t have enough bread to eat. Now, my two sons work as porters but since we cannot survive with that money, my two daughters, who are only 11 and 15 years old, started to work in a textile shop. Yet, our total income per month is only 170-180 million TL. We, as 12 persons, live on this money. In case one of the children gets ill, we don not have enough money to pay for he/her medical care, because we don’t have a social coverage or health insurance. However, I can say that we are better than many of the migrants who share the same destiny with us. Most of our villages moved to Istanbul, just like we did; only a few of them still live in the neighbouring cities of the region, such as Batman and Siirt. Most of the ones who moved here are living under very difficult conditions. The children generally work in the construction sector, textile shops, in shoe shining or they sell handkerchiefs on the streets.
We came here and we lived in misery. We didn’t do any harm to the soldiers to deserve this. Sometimes, we were even providing them with food, when they were short of food. But how could we know that they would burn us down some day? I am Muslim and I am a member of the community of Mohammed, and I never lie. I would have told it easily if it was PKK who burnt down the villages. But I have seen it with my own eyes that it was soldiers and not the PKK who burnt the villages.

Despite all the pains and injuries what we now want is to return to our village. But what we fear is the re-occurrence of the pressure and attacks. How can we return, if the necessary conditions are not provided and the pressures do not stop? We want peace and brotherhood. We want to go back to our villages. They didn’t let us alone there. The only wish I have from now on is that they let us die in our own land. If I happen to die here, I do no want to be buried here. Take my body and bury it in my own village.

Neriman Cicek
Third Testimony
I am from Kanika (Dalkuru) village of Eruh district of Siirt. We were raising animals in the village. We owned 100 sheep and 10 hectares of land. We cultivated wheat, lentil, chickpeas, watermelon, melon and four vineyards of 45 hectares. In the vineyards we had thousands of grapevines, 50 plum trees, about 100 peanut trees, about 200 almond trees, about 100 pear trees, about 50 apple trees, about 100 apricot trees, about 500 fig trees, and a heavily forested area of thousands of gallnut trees. We had a house of 4 rooms made of stone, concrete and woods. In addition, we had a haymow, a barn for the sheep and a second barn for the cows.

Our village was so beautiful. On one of its sides there was a plain and on the other there was a plateau. Our economic condition was so pretty good. In the year of 1993 pressures began. Security forces and village guards have frequently blockaded the village. During these blockages they kept us under control in our houses and did not allow us take our animals out to meadows. Every operation lasted at least 4-5 days. Sometimes they didn’t permit us to go tour vineyards or lands. They searched our houses in detail and destroyed the household belong ngs [were]. Sometimes they gathered us in the village centre and insisted us to accept being village guards. They exposed us to insults and beatings. They poured cold water on us, sometimes arrested us and took us to Eruh. There, they tortured and interrogated us. I was taken under custody and brought to Eruh three times. I was tortured and left hungry there. I was not the only one arrested. Sometimes 10, sometimes 20 persons were exposed to the practices. They tortured us in order to convince us to become village guards. In 1989, village guards and security forces settled in the village school. Our children couldn’t go to school. It was closed to students. Our village consisted of 200 households and their number decreased as the pressure increased. In 1989, about 15 families couldn’t bear the pressure anymore and accepted to become village guards. Security forces made us carry their food and belongings. In 1989, a villager named Yusuf Timurtas was shot and killed since he didn’t want to carry their food. Although everybody knew who killed him in reality, the villagers were accused of killing him. Three or five villagers were arrested then. Later they took back the guns of the village guards and pressure and armed operations increased. IN the year of 1993 on several occasions the village was blasted with artillery fire from Eruh, Missefra or Hilal. Many villagers left the village out of fear. Our vineyards and gardens were burned d e to the artillery fire and we tried to put the fire out. In the September of 1993, thousands of soldiers entered the village. They gathered all the villagers, including women, children, and the elderly in the village centre. Once again, they forced us to become village guards. They told us to call back the ones who left the village and make them give consent to becoming village guards. We refused to follow this order. They gave us 10 days of time to think this over (which they did several tim s before). In this period many villagers escaped from the village and there were only 35 families left in the village. Most of the houses including the mosque were pulled down. The villagers who left migrated to the cities of Siirt, Icel, Antalya, Adana, Ceyhan, Istanbul and Izmir.

Our family moved to Siirt. There, we could not find any jobs. We remained unemployed. The pressures continued in Siirt. Our house was raided for many times. I migrated to Istanbul in order to avoid being arrested although I had not committed any crime to deserve any punishment. All this repression was arbitrary. Later in 1997, my family accompanied me to Istanbul. Eventually in 1997 our village was completely burned down and emptied.

Here I am trying to look after my family by working as a peddler. I sell vegetables, fruit, but the municipality and police officers do not let us do our work. They confiscate our carriages and ruin our vegetables and fruits. We are economically in a very bad condition. There are times we cannot find any bread to eat. The oldest of my children is 18 and the youngest is 2. We are 10 persons at home.

We live in a basement floor. We pay a rent of for 20 million TL per month. I cannot send my children to school since; I do not have the necessary money. It was very difficult for us to find a place for rent because we are Kurds from Siirt. Nowadays, we are looking for another place to rent but cannot find one due to the same reasons.
My wife, my children and I cannot speak Turkish well. (The wife interrupts and continues.) Some of our neighbours scorn and label us at “betrayers” just because we cannot speak Turkish well. They ask us why we do not send our children to school. Here, I have great communication difficulties when I go out shopping. We are insulted and scorned. I cannot defend myself or reply back because I cannot speak Turkish. I live in humid air and dirt in a basement floor together with my 8 children. My children always get ill. My two-year-old son’s arm is broken, but we do not have the money to take him to a doctor. His arm needs a medical operation.

All our vineyards and gardens in the village were burned. Even under such conditions we are willing to return to our villages. We missed the dirt, soil and the air of our village.

We also want to ask for material and psychological support from your association in order to return to our village.

Fourth Testimony
I am from the village of Nordin in the Malazgirt district of the city of Mus. I have over 20 hectares of land. In the village, we cultivated wheat, barley, lentil, and chickpeas and raised animals. I owned about 70 sheep. I have 5 children. The economic conditions of my family were good in the village. Now, we live in poverty. In the year of 1993, the security forces started to pressure us to become village guards. In the spring of 1994, roughly 40-50 villagers accepted to become village guards. Our village consisted of 400 houses. In August 1994, 200 of them were burned. We could not save any of our furniture and any other belongings. We moved to Malazgirt, which was the nearest district. They were scorning and insulting us while burning the village. Insults and pressures w nt on even when we were in Malazgirt, since we still resisted becoming village guards. After having spent 6months in Malazgirt, we moved to Istanbul. My two brothers and other kin al o followed us to Istanbul. The rest of the villagers migrated to cities like Izmir, Bandirma, Agri, Patnos. They confiscated our animals before we moved out.

I cannot do hard work, due to the torture I was subjected to in the village. I cannot find a job. Two of my children were 7 and 9 at the time; suffer post-traumatic syndromes, because they witnessed the whole scene of me being tortured and insulted. They frequently shiver due to the disease. I cannot get them treated due to lack of money. After nine months in Istanbul, my 11 months old baby died because of malnourishment.

In the village, I did send the children to school. Now, I live in Ikirell [sp.], Istanbul. My children cannot go to school due to economic problems. I am a construction worker. Since it is winter I remain unemployed. I am sick, too. I cannot get treatment either, because I have no money. Although they are neuropathically ill, my 11 and 13 year-old two children work at a textile shop in order to look after the family. I want to ask for material and medical help from your association. Moreover, I want it to work to create the necessary conditions for us to return to our village.
Kemal Guven