metadata
tags:
- sentence-transformers
- sentence-similarity
- feature-extraction
- generated_from_trainer
- dataset_size:12180
- loss:MultipleNegativesRankingLoss
base_model: nlpaueb/legal-bert-base-uncased
widget:
- source_sentence: >-
9. On 12 December 1995 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court (oблacний суд)
convicted the applicant of the murder of four persons, sentenced him to
death and ordered the confiscation of his personal property. 10. On 22
February 1996 the Supreme Court (Верхoвний суд) upheld the judgment of the
first-instance court. The applicant was transferred by the authorities
responsible for the isolation block of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional
Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior (Адміністрація слідчого
ізолятору Управління міністерства внутрішніх справ) to one of the cells
intended for persons awaiting execution of the death sentence. 11. A
moratorium on executions was declared by the President of Ukraine on 11
March 1997. In judgment no. 11pп/99 of 29 December 1999, the
Constitutional Court of Ukraine held that the provisions of the Criminal
Code concerning the death penalty were contrary to the Ukrainian
Constitution. As a result, death sentences were commuted to life
imprisonment by Law no. 1483-III of 22 February 2000. 12. On 2 June 2000
the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court commuted the applicant’s death sentence
to life imprisonment. 13. The facts of the case concerning the conditions
of the applicant’s detention in Ivano-Frankivsk Prison and the events
during his time there are disputed. 14. The facts as presented by the
applicant are set out in paragraphs 17 to 23 below. The facts as presented
by the Government are set out in paragraphs 24 to 30. 15. A description
of the material submitted to the Commission and to the Court will be found
in paragraphs 31 to 58 below. 16. The Commission, in order to establish
the facts in the light of the dispute over the conditions of the
applicant’s detention and the events which occurred in Ivano-Frankivsk
Prison, conducted its own investigation pursuant to former Article 28 § 1
(a) of the Convention. To this end, the Commission examined a series of
documents submitted by the applicant and the Government in support of
their respective assertions and appointed three delegates to take evidence
from witnesses at a hearing conducted at the Ministry of Justice in Kyiv
on 23 and 26 November 1998, and in Ivano-Frankivsk on 24 and 25 November
1998. The Commission’s assessment of the evidence and its findings of fact
are summarised in paragraphs 59 to 75 below. 17. On 12 December 1995 the
Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of the murder of
four persons, sentenced him to death and ordered the confiscation of his
personal property. After the first-instance judgment, he was placed in a
separate cell. He was not allowed to write to his family, nor could he be
visited by his lawyer. He applied several times for permission to meet his
lawyer. 18. On 22 February 1996 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of
the first-instance court. On a decision of the authorities responsible for
the isolation block of the Ministry of the Interior, the applicant was
transferred to a cell intended for prisoners awaiting execution of the
death sentence. On 30 March 1996 the applicant’s lawyer applied to see the
applicant in order to give him the Supreme Court’s decision in the case.
The prison governor did not grant him permission to do so. 19.
Conditions of detention of persons sentenced to death were governed by the
Pre-Trial Detention Act 1993 (“the Act”) and by an instruction of 20 April
1998 (“the Instruction”), whose content remained top secret. Under the
terms of the Instruction, exercise in the open air, watching television,
buying newspapers and receiving food parcels from relatives were
prohibited. The Instruction therefore prevented the applicant from
enjoying the rights guaranteed by the Act. 20. In a reply by the deputy
head of the Ivano-Frankivsk Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior to
a complaint by the applicant’s father concerning the conditions of the
applicant’s detention, reference was made to the Instruction. Moreover,
according to information received by the applicant’s father from the
deputy governor of the prison, it appeared that the Act did not apply to
him. Had the Act been applicable to the applicant, he would have been
entitled under sections 9(1) and 13 to take daily exercise in the open
air, to receive parcels twice a month and to watch television. However,
this was strictly prohibited between 1995 and 1998. Up to September 1997
the applicant was also prohibited from sending and receiving letters. It
was only then that the deputy governor of the prison orally informed the
applicant’s mother that he could send and receive letters. Moreover, his
father was refused permission to visit him on 29 May 1995 and 10 June and
31 July 1996 without any explanation from the prison authorities. From
July 1996 onwards, instead of monthly visits which would last up to two
hours, the applicant’s father had been allowed to visit the applicant only
once every three months for not more than one hour. 21. As regards visits
from a priest, the applicant’s father and members of the clergy repeatedly
but unsuccessfully applied to the prison authorities and those responsible
for the isolation block of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Directorate of the
Ministry of the Interior for the applicant to be allowed to receive a
visit from a priest. 22. The applicant finally stated that he had
complained several times about the conditions in which he was being held.
He had also unsuccessfully applied to the prison authorities for
permission to lodge an application with the European Commission of Human
Rights. 23. In a letter to the Commission of 6 March 1998, the
applicant’s father stated that on 4 March 1998 he had seen his son, who
had told him about a check-up carried out by a commission from the
Ministry of the Interior in mid-February 1998. After the commission had
left, the applicant had been transferred to a cell that was worse equipped
and dirty. The window in the cell had been fully shuttered. The bucket for
flushing the toilet had been taken away and the toilet could not therefore
be cleaned properly, which had caused an unbearable smell. Moreover, the
applicant had been given only 25 cl of hot water to prepare tea and milk.
All his dishes had been removed. His Bible had been taken away. He had not
been allowed to read periodicals and his notebook and calendar had been
confiscated. 24. The Government stated that the legal status and
conditions of detention of persons sentenced to death were governed by the
Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. Pursuant to section 8 of the Act,
a person sentenced to death was kept in custody away from other prisoners.
The cell to which the applicant had been transferred after his sentence
had become final complied with the sanitary and hygiene rules laid down in
section 11 of the Act: the cell measured 9 sq. m and had a bed, a table, a
radio, sufficient natural and electric light, heating, running water and a
toilet. 25. The applicant was provided with three meals a day, standard
clothing and footwear as well as other articles of everyday use. Medical
assistance, treatment, prophylactic and anti-epidemic measures were
arranged and implemented in accordance with the legislation on health
protection. 26. According to section 12 of the Act, prior to the sentence
being carried out, prisoners sentenced to death were, as a rule, allowed
visits from relatives and other persons not more than once a month, by
written permission of the court within whose jurisdiction the case fell.
The length of a visit was two hours maximum. After a case had been dealt
with by an appellate court, visits by lawyers and legal assistants could
be allowed by the head of the Central Directorate of the Ministry of the
Interior, the head of the Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the
Interior or his deputy responsible for the isolation block. According to
section 12 of the Act, visits by defence counsel were allowed without any
limits as to their number and length. 27. On 13 December 1995, after the
first-instance judgment, the applicant’s parents and lawyer received
permission to visit him. The parents visited the applicant on 15 December
1995 and in January 1996. The applicant’s lawyer visited him on 21
December 1995 and on 7 January 1996. During the period from 22 February
1996 to 29 December 1997, the parents applied to the Ivano-Frankivsk
Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior for permission to
visit the applicant on 24 February, 4 March, 5 April, 4 May, 2 July, 1
October, 18 November and 25 December 1996, and on 3 and 20 June and 19
September 1997. They were granted permission for visits on 24 February, 5
March, 5 April, 4 May, 2 July, 4 October and 4 December 1996, and on 4
March, 4 June, 4 September and 4 December 1997. 28. The applicant’s
lawyer applied for permission to visit the applicant on 25 April, 11
November, and 18 and 19 December 1996. Permission was granted for a first
visit on 7 May 1996 and on the other occasions as requested. 29. Persons
sentenced to death were allowed to send an unlimited number of letters.
During the period 1995-98 the applicant sent thirty-one letters:
twenty-four letters related to his criminal case and seven letters were to
his relatives. The applicant applied for the first time to the Regional
Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior for permission to send letters
to his relatives on 17 September 1997. Thereafter he sent letters to his
parents on 19 and 26 November and 31 December 1997, and on 5, 16, 20 and
30 January, 3 February, 11 March, 6 April, 15 May, 17 June, 6 July, 10
August, 15 September, 22 October, 13 November and 11 December 1998. He
received letters from his parents on 18 and 29 September, 19 October, 20
November and 24 December 1997, and on 16 and 26 January, 6, 10 and 23
February, 14 and 16 March, 17 April, 14 May, 1 and 8 June, 1 and 30 July,
20 August, 29 September, 10, 22 and 27 October, 4, 20, 26 and 30 November
and 4, 17 and 21 December 1998. 30. The Government further submitted that
the Prosecutor-General had conducted a thorough investigation into the
applicant’s and his parents’ complaints concerning the application of
illegal methods of investigation in the applicant’s case, namely torture
and brutal and inhuman treatment. The allegations had not been proved and
had been found unsubstantiated. In fact, complaints by the applicant, his
parents, his representative and his defence counsel were received on 11
March, 8 April, 13, 14 and 29 May, 24 July, 11 September and 25 October
1996, and on 5 and 17 March, 19 May and 25 July 1997, and answered on 20
and 23 March, 23 and 24 April, 23 May, 27 June, 1 August, 30 September and
14 November 1996, and on 28 and 31 March and 20 May 1997. On 31 July 1997
the exchange of letters and the proceedings concerning the complaints
filed by the applicant and his parents were terminated pursuant to section
12 of the Act. 31. In a letter of 26 May 1998 the prison governor replied
to a complaint lodged by the applicant’s father on 10 May 1998 informing
him that persons sentenced to death were allowed to send twelve letters a
year. He also stated that the applicant was aware of his rights and
obligations. 32. In a letter of 10 August 1998 the Ivano-Frankivsk
regional prosecutor informed the applicant’s father that visits and
correspondence of persons sentenced to death were governed by the
Instruction and not by the Act to which the applicant’s father had
referred in his complaint. 33. In a written complaint of 4 September 1998
addressed to the regional prosecutor the applicant’s parents stated, inter
alia, that they had not seen the applicant for three months, that since 5
July 1998 they had not received any letters from him, that on 2 September
1998 they had become aware that the applicant had been beaten and
humiliated, that Mr Ivashko, the deputy governor of the prison, had
intervened during their visit on 2 September 1998 when the applicant had
spoken about his conditions of detention, and that, for a period of one
year and six months, the applicant had been denied the possibility of a
visit from a priest, despite his requests. 34. In a letter of 10
September 1998 the regional prosecutor informed the applicant’s father
that the applicant’s visits and correspondence were governed by the
national legislation and that the prison administration had acted within
the limits of this legislation. 35. On 10 September 1998 the
Ivano-Frankivsk deputy regional prosecutor sent a report to the
Prosecutor-General. The report concerned the findings of the investigation
carried out following the complaint by the applicant’s father about
allegedly unlawful acts by the prison authorities in respect of the
applicant’s correspondence and visits. The report concluded that the
investigation had not established any violation of the applicant’s rights
by the prison authorities. 36. On 11 September 1998 the applicant’s
father sent a complaint to Mr Shtanko, the head of the State Department
for the Execution of Sentences, to which the latter replied on 12 October
1998. The allegations he raised were similar to those in his complaint to
the regional prosecutor of 4 September 1998. Mr Shtanko replied that the
applicant had been placed in solitary confinement because he had broken
the rules. Furthermore, an investigation had not established that any
physical force had been used against the applicant or that the prison
authorities had humiliated him or restricted his rights, as was confirmed
by the applicant himself. The applicant’s father was also informed that
visits, including visits by a priest, could be allowed by the
Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior. 37.
On 23 October 1998 the applicant’s parents submitted a request to the
regional prosecutor, the Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the
Interior and the prison governor that a commission of independent doctors
be set up in order to examine the applicant’s state of health. They
alleged that the inmates of the prison had been tortured, which resulted
in a suicide attempt by one of them or an attempt on his life. On 3
November 1998 the applicant’s parents were informed by the prison governor
that their request had been refused on the grounds that there had been no
sign of torture or of the use of any other physical violence against the
applicant and that his state of health was satisfactory. 38. On 23 and 24
October 1998 the applicant’s parents sent a letter to Mrs Leni Fischer,
then President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
They complained of torture inflicted on the applicant and one of his
fellow inmates, Mr Kuznetsov, which had resulted in a suicide attempt by
the latter, and alleged that they had been taken to hospital and that Mr
Kuznetsov had been paralysed. The parents further complained that they had
been prevented from seeing the applicant. 39. In a letter of 26 October
1998 the applicant’s parents informed the Commission that “in
establishment BI 304/199 in Ivano-Frankivsk there [had] been an attempt to
execute the unjustly condemned M. Kuznetsov and B. Poltoratskiy illegally,
and [that] the Government [had] tried to conceal the fact”. 40. A
handwritten medical report issued on 28 October 1998 was signed by the
applicant. The report stated that the applicant did not show any signs of
having been beaten and that his state of health was satisfactory. 41. In
a handwritten statement of 28 October 1998 the applicant said that he had
been treated properly by the prison authorities, that no physical violence
had been employed, that all disciplinary measures imposed on him had been
justified and that his parents’ complaints had not been substantiated.
42. The Regional Directorate for the Execution of Sentences of the
Ministry of the Interior issued a report on 29 October 1998 in response to
the applicant’s father’s complaint about alleged torture and his request
for a commission of independent doctors to examine the applicant’s state
of health. The report stated that on 28 October 1998 the applicant had
been examined by the prison doctors who had found no signs of physical
injury. It also stated that the applicant denied that he had been
tortured. 43. In a letter of 30 October 1998 the deputy head of the
Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior informed the
applicant’s mother that her complaint concerning torture to which the
applicant had allegedly been subjected had been examined and found to be
unsubstantiated. A medical examination of the applicant had not shown any
signs of torture. Accordingly, there was no reason to set up a medical
commission to investigate the allegations. 44. A letter of 2 November
1998 from the deputy regional prosecutor to the Prosecutor-General
reported on the findings of the investigation carried out in connection
with the applicant’s father’s complaint about restrictions on the
applicant’s correspondence and visits, the interference by the prison
authorities during the applicant’s parents’ visit on 2 September 1998 and
the physical torture inflicted on the applicant. The letter said that, as
regards the restriction on the applicant’s correspondence and visits, the
father had wrongly relied on the Act, which did not apply to that category
of prisoners, that the interference by a prison official had been
justified, and that on 25 September 1998 the applicant had undergone a
thorough medical examination which had not established any physical
injuries. Finally, it explained that the applicant had been placed in
solitary confinement on 26 August 1998 because he had broken the prison
rules by refusing to let himself be examined by a prison warder upon his
return from a daily walk outside the cell. 45. In a letter of 20 November
1998 the deputy regional prosecutor replied to the applicant’s mother’s
complaint about the physical torture allegedly inflicted on the applicant
and to her request for a medical examination of the applicant. He stated
that on 28 October 1998 the applicant had undergone a medical examination
which had established that the allegations were unsubstantiated. The
medical report had been confirmed and signed by the applicant. 46. In a
letter of 23 November 1998 the regional prosecutor informed the
applicant’s father that his allegations about illegal acts on the part of
the prison authorities had been found to be unsubstantiated. 47. In a
letter of 30 November 1998 the deputy head of the Regional Directorate of
the Ministry of the Interior informed the applicant’s representative, Mr
Voskoboynikov, that he could not be granted permission to visit the
applicant as the latter had already had a visit from his relatives that
month. 48. In a letter of 8 December 1998 from the State Department for
the Execution of Sentences the applicant’s father was informed that a
thorough investigation had proved that his complaint about an illegal
attempt to execute his son was unsubstantiated and that his son’s state of
health was satisfactory. 49. On 22 December 1998 the applicant requested
permission from the head of the Regional Directorate of the Ministry of
the Interior to see a priest. His request was granted and he saw a priest
on 26 December 1998. 50. In a letter of 15 February 1999 the prison
governor informed the applicant’s father that his complaint of 22 January
1999 had been examined. He stated that persons sentenced to death were
allowed to receive two parcels a year but no food parcels. 51. In a
decision of 5 March 1999 the Senior Prosecutor rejected a criminal
complaint by the applicant’s parents against the deputy regional
prosecutor. He refused to institute criminal proceedings against the
latter on the ground that there was no evidence of his having committed an
offence. He stated, inter alia, that the Act did not apply to the
conditions of detention of death-row prisoners. These were governed by the
Instruction, which was covered by the rules on State secrecy. 52.
According to the prison records, the applicant’s parents applied to visit
the applicant on 19 September 1997, and on 4 March, 8 April, 19 June, 22
July, 2 November and 1 December 1998. Permission was given on 7 October
1997, and on 4 March, 22 April, 20 August, 17 November and 11 December
1998 for visits which took place on 4 December 1997 and 4 March, 12 June,
2 September and 26 November 1998 and on 4 January 1999. The request of 19
June 1998 was not granted. 53. According to the prison records, the
applicant sent letters to his parents on 17 September, 19 and 26 November,
and 31 December 1997, and on 5, 16, 20 and 30 January, 3 February, 11
March, 6 April, 15 May, 17 June, 6 July, 10 August, 15 September, 22
October, 13 November and 11 December 1998. He received letters from them
and other persons on 18 and 29 September, 19 October, 20 November and 24
December 1997, and on 16 and 26 January (two letters), 6, 10, 17 and 23
February, 6, 14 and 16 March, 6, 17, 20, 27 and 29 April, 14 May, 1, 8 and
30 June, 1, 20 and 30 July, 20 August (two letters), 29 September, 10, 22
(two letters) and 27 October, 4, 13, 20, 26 and 30 November, 4, 17 and 21
December 1998. 54. In an undated document Mr Y.M. Pavlyuk, the deputy
head of the isolation block, declared that during the period between 11
September 1997 and 18 December 1998, neither the applicant nor his parents
had asked for permission for the applicant to see a priest. He further
declared that during the said period no member of the clergy had asked for
such permission. He signed the declaration. 55. According to the
applicant’s medical card, the applicant was X-rayed and blood-tested on 23
April 1998. On 25 September, 1 and 28 October, 9, 19 and 27 November, 3,
10, 17 and 24 December 1998 the applicant was seen by a prison
psychiatrist. 56. In a written request of 2 May 2000 to the head of the
Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Department for the Execution of Sentences of the
Ministry of the Interior, Mr Boyko, the applicant’s father, in his
capacity as his legal representative, asked for a confidential meeting
with the applicant in order to discuss issues concerning his application
pending before the European Court of Human Rights. On 23 May 2000,
following a further request lodged on 15 May 2000, he was granted
permission for a normal visit on 5 June 2000. 57. On 16 May 2000 the
applicant’s father complained to the Deputy Minister of the Interior that
his request of 2 May 2000 for a confidential meeting had remained
unanswered. 58. In a letter of 14 July 2000 the deputy head of the State
Department for the Execution of Sentences, Mr V.A. Lyovochkin, replied
that Mr Boyko had given the applicant’s father permission to visit the
applicant on 5 June 2000 and that the visit had taken place as scheduled.
He added that in accordance with Article 40 of the Correctional Labour
Code, a lawyer could be given permission for a confidential meeting with
his client on presentation of his licence and identity card. 59. Since
the facts of the case were disputed, the Commission conducted an
investigation, with the assistance of the parties, and took oral evidence
from the following witnesses: the applicant; the applicant’s parents; Mr
Bronislav S. Stichinskiy, Deputy Minister of Justice; Mr Drishchenko,
Deputy Prosecutor-General; Mr Ivan V. Shtanko, Deputy Minister of the
Interior; Mr Petro A. Yaremkiv, the governor of Ivano-Frankivsk Prison; Mr
Bogdan V. Kachur, prison doctor; Mr Stanislav V. Prokhnitskiy, medical
assistant; Mr Yuriy M. Pindus, assistant to the prison governor, who was
on duty on 3 September 1998; Mr Fedir O. Savchuk, assistant to the prison
governor, who was on duty during the night of 2 to 3 September 1998; Mr
Igor P. Ivashko, the deputy governor of the prison; Mr Yaroslav M.
Pavlyuk, the deputy head of the isolation block; Mr Valentin M. Nabiulin,
the head of the Department for Supervision of Isolation Blocks and Prisons
of the Directorate for the Execution of Sentences; Mr Oleksand V. Kmyta,
the deputy head of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Directorate of the
Ministry of the Interior; and Mr Anatoliy O. Boyko, the head of the
Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Department for the Execution of Sentences of the
Ministry of the Interior.
The Commission’s findings may be summarised as follows. 60. The applicant
gave evidence before the delegates that he had been beaten on 2 September
1998 after the visit from his parents on the same day. During that visit,
he had said to his parents that he had been beaten and called a beast. The
applicant’s parents stated before the delegates that they had been told by
their son on 2 September 1998 that he had been beaten and humiliated. The
Commission observed, however, that the applicant denied before the
delegates that he had been beaten before 2 September 1998. It considered,
therefore, that it had not been established that the applicant had been
beaten before 2 September 1998. 61. As to the events on 2 September 1998,
the applicant stated before the delegates that, after the visit from his
parents on that date, he had been taken to the “cinema room” where four
persons, including Mr Pavlyuk, the deputy head of the isolation block on
duty, were waiting for him with clubs. He had been asked three times to
tell everything, but had refused and had been struck on his legs, hips,
back and chest. He had returned to his cell and had written until the
morning on four sheets of paper which had been included in a file. 62.
The applicant further stated that he had been beaten on 10, 14 and 22
September 1998. One day, during a technical search of his cell, he had
been taken out and ordered to get undressed so that his clothes could be
checked. When he was naked, he had been beaten. He had been ordered to lie
down on the floor with his face to the ground and his hands behind his
head. He mentioned the name of K.Y. Hrevnin to the delegates. 63. The
Commission considered that the applicant’s account contained a number of
details and elements which it would not have expected to find in a
fabricated story. It noted, however, that there was no record of any
occurrence connected to the ill-treatment described by the applicant. The
Commission accepted that the applicant may have been afraid to complain or
to write to anyone, as he said. However, it accepted this argument with
difficulty, having regard to the fact that he had not been scared when he
had told his parents on 2 September 1998 that he had been beaten.
Moreover, the prison psychiatrist saw him on 25 September 1998 and had not
recorded any problems regarding his state of health or any injuries. The
Commission added that the medical report of 28 October 1998, which the
applicant had signed, concluded that he did not show any signs of having
been beaten and that his state of health was satisfactory. 64. The
Commission further noted that the applicant had signed a written statement
on 28 October 1998 to the effect that he had been treated properly by the
prison authorities, that no physical violence had been used against him,
that all disciplinary measures imposed on him had been justified and that
his parents’ complaints had not been substantiated. It took into account
the fact that, before the delegates, the applicant had denied the contents
of his statement, and pointed out that the practice of the prison
authorities to require an inmate to confirm in writing that he had been
treated properly by prison officers gave rise to suspicion. 65. As to the
applicant’s parents’ submission before the delegates that, after the
alleged beatings and torture on 2 September 1998, he had been transferred
to Chukopovskiy Psycho-Neurological Hospital early in the morning of 3
September 1998 and had been placed in the intensive care unit where he had
been given a blood transfusion, the Commission observed that, although the
applicant had maintained that he had been beaten after his parents’ visit
on 2 September 1998, he had denied that he had been transferred to
hospital. This was corroborated by the statements of the prison doctor,
the medical assistant, the governor’s assistant on duty at the time and
the deputy governor, all of whom had been heard by the delegates. In
addition, there was no documentary evidence proving that the applicant had
been taken to hospital on the aforesaid date. The Commission did not
consider the parents’ evidence on this point convincing or reliable. 66.
The Commission found that there was no medical or other material evidence
establishing that the applicant had sustained injury as a result of
ill-treatment by prison officers in Ivano-Frankivsk Prison, as he had
alleged. It had regard to the fact that the applicant had denied that he
had been beaten before 2 September 1998 and had been transferred to
hospital after that date, and that the absence of any use of force by
prison officers on 2, 10, 14 and 22 September 1998 had been supported by
the oral statements of the witnesses heard by its delegates. The
Commission therefore found it impossible to establish, beyond reasonable
doubt, that the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment in prison as
he had alleged. 67. The applicant’s parents sent a complaint to the
regional prosecutor on 4 September 1998, claiming, inter alia, that they
had become aware that the applicant had been beaten and humiliated by
prison officers. They made similar allegations to the head of the State
Department for the Execution of Sentences on 11 September 1998. On 12
October 1998 the latter informed the applicant’s father that the
investigation had not established that any physical force had been used
against his son or that the prison authorities had humiliated him or
restricted his rights. He also stated that this finding had been confirmed
in writing by the applicant himself. 68. On 23 October 1998 the
applicant’s parents requested the regional prosecutor, the Regional
Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior and the prison governor to set
up an independent medical commission in order to examine the applicant’s
state of health. They alleged that the prison’s inmates had been tortured,
resulting in a suicide attempt by one of them, Mr Kuznetsov, or in an
attempt on his life. On 30 October 1998 the applicant’s mother was
informed by the deputy head of the Regional Directorate of the Ministry of
the Interior that her complaint concerning the alleged torture of the
applicant had been examined and found to be unsubstantiated and a medical
examination of the applicant had not revealed any signs of torture. There
was, accordingly, no reason to set up a medical commission to investigate
her allegations. On 3 November 1998 the prison governor informed the
applicant’s parents that their request had been refused on the grounds
that there was no sign of torture or the use of any other form of physical
violence against the applicant and that his state of health was
satisfactory. In a letter of 20 November 1998 to the applicant’s parents,
the deputy regional prosecutor confirmed that on 28 October 1998 the
applicant had undergone a medical examination which had established that
the parents’ allegations were unsubstantiated. Moreover, on 2 November
1998 the deputy regional prosecutor sent a letter to the
Prosecutor-General which reported on the results of the investigation
carried out in connection with, inter alia, the allegations that the
applicant had been physically tortured. The letter confirmed that on 25
September 1998 the applicant had undergone a thorough medical examination
which had not revealed any physical injury. 69. The Commission noted that
on 8 December 1998 the applicant’s father had received a letter from the
State Department for the Execution of Sentences stating that a thorough
investigation had proved that his complaint about an attempt to execute
his son was unsubstantiated and that the latter’s state of health was
satisfactory. The domestic investigation had then ended on 5 March 1999
with a decision by the Senior Prosecutor on the applicant’s parents’
criminal complaint against the regional prosecutor. The Senior Prosecutor
had refused to institute criminal proceedings on the ground that no
criminal offence had been established. 70. The Commission found that
there were no contemporaneous records giving details of any investigation
which the domestic authorities had carried out into the applicant’s
parents’ allegations of the events in September 1998. It had not seen a
single document proving that an investigation had been carried out by any
domestic authorities other than those directly involved in the facts of
which the applicant’s parents complained. Moreover, the medical report of
28 October 1998 had been drafted almost two months after the applicant’s
alleged ill-treatment and the applicant had not been seen by the prison
doctor or prison psychiatrist between 23 April and 25 September 1998. 71.
The Commission found that the eight death-row inmates at Ivano-Frankivsk
Prison, including the applicant, were being kept in single cells without
the opportunity to communicate with other inmates. The applicant’s cell
measured 2 x 5 x 3 m. There was an open toilet, a washbasin with a
cold-water tap, two beds, a table and a little bench, both fixed to the
floor, central heating and a window with bars. The applicant had some
books, newspapers, a chess set, a stock of soap and toilet paper, some
fruit and other food. During the delegates’ visit on 24 and 25 November
1998, the cell had been overheated, particularly in comparison with other
rooms in the prison. The light was on twenty-four hours a day and the
central radio was switched off at night. The inmates were frequently
observed by prison warders through a spy hole in the door of the cell,
which deprived them of any kind of privacy. The cell was freshly painted,
from which the inference might be drawn that conditions had been worse
prior to the delegates’ visit. The Commission accepted the applicant’s
evidence that between 24 February and 24 March 1998 there had been no tap
or washbasin in his cell, but only a small pipe on the wall near the
toilet, that the water supply could only be turned on from the corridor,
that the walls were covered with faeces and that the bucket for flushing
the toilet had been taken away. The Commission found the applicant’s
evidence – which was not contested by the Government – persuasive. 72.
The Commission also accepted the applicant’s evidence that, until May
1998, the window in his cell had been shuttered and that he had not been
allowed to take daily outdoor walks. 73. Concerning the applicant’s
parents’ requests to visit him, the Commission found that, apart from the
parents’ request of 19 June 1998, all had been granted. The parents had
applied to visit their son on 19 September 1997 and on 4 March, 8 April,
22 July, 2 November and 1 December 1998. Permission had been given on 7
October 1997 and on 4 March, 22 April, 20 August, 17 November and 11
December 1998 for visits which had taken place on 4 December 1997 and 4
March, 12 June, 2 September and 26 November 1998 and 4 January 1999. The
Commission noted that the parents’ requests to visit the applicant had
mostly been granted for a date two or three months after the request had
been made. Moreover, two warders had been present during the visits, who
were authorised to interrupt the conversation if they considered that the
parents or the applicant had said anything “untrue”. 74. Regarding the
applicant’s correspondence, the Commission noted that the applicant had
applied for the first time to the Regional Directorate of the Ministry of
the Interior for permission to send a letter to his relatives on 17
September 1997. Thereafter he had sent letters to his parents on 19 and 26
November 1997, 31 December 1997, and on 5, 16, 20 and 30 January, 3
February, 11 March, 6 April, 15 May, 17 June, 6 July, 10 August, 15
September, 22 October, 13 November and 11 December 1998. He had received
letters from his parents on 18 and 29 September, 19 October, 20 November
and 24 December 1997, and on 16 and 26 January, 6, 10 and 23 February, 14
and 16 March, 17 April, 14 May, 1 and 8 June, 1 and 30 July, 20 August, 29
September, 10, 22 and 27 October, 4, 20, 26 and 30 November and 4, 17 and
21 December 1998. 75. The Commission could not establish with sufficient
clarity whether the applicant or his parents had asked for permission for
a priest to come to see the applicant. It nevertheless found that while
the applicant had seen a priest on 26 December 1998 following his request
of 22 December 1998, there had been no regular visits to inmates by any
chaplain.
sentences:
- >-
Protection of property Every natural or legal person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his
possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions
provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right
of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use
of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the
payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties. 32 33
- >-
Prohibition of torture No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Have agreed as follows:
- >-
Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of
expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to
receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public
authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent
States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or
cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries
with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are
necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national
security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of
disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the
protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the
disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the
authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
- source_sentence: >-
5. The applicant was born in 1919 and lives in Bogoria, Poland. 6. On 5
July 1974 the applicant’s husband filed with the Staszów District Court
(sąd rejonowy) an action in which he sought a declaration that he and
other relatives inherited the property of his late father. 7. On 30
November 1977 the court issued the relevant decision. Some of the
participants in the proceedings lodged an appeal against it. 8. On 14
April 1978 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (sąd wojewódzki) amended that
decision in part and dismissed the remainder of the appeal. 9. On 21
December 1981 the applicant filed with the Staszów District Court a
petition in which she requested the division of the inherited property.
10. On 27 August 1992 the court issued a partial decision. The applicant
appealed it. 11. On 24 June 1993 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court quashed
that decision and remitted the case for re-examination. 12. On 15 June
1994 the applicant challenged participation in the proceedings of all the
judges from the Staszów District Court. 13. On 7 October 1994 the
Regional Court dismissed that challenge. She appealed against that
decision. 14. On 14 November 1994 the President of the Regional Court, in
reply to the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of the
proceedings, wrote a letter informing her that the case was very complex
and that she contributed to the delay by her numerous petitions. 15. On
24 February 1995 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (sąd apelacyjny) amended the
Regional Court’s decision of 7 October 1994 in that it excluded four
judges from participation in the proceedings. 16. On 29 May 1995 the
District Court held a hearing. It stayed the proceedings, because three
participants had died. The court ordered the applicant to provide
information concerning their legal successors. 17. On 11 December 1995
the court refused the applicant’s request to have the proceedings resumed.
It noted that she had failed to provide the addresses of the heirs of one
of the participants in the proceedings and submitted only that they lived
in the United States. 18. On 12 July 1996 the District Court refused the
applicant’s subsequent request in this respect. It relied, inter alia, on
the fact that she had failed to specify whether the persons concerned had
Polish or American nationality, which made it impossible for the court to
serve summonses on them. The applicant appealed that decision. 19. On 7
November 1996 the Regional Court quashed the appealed decision and ordered
its re-examination by the District Court. 20. On 7 April 1998 the
District Court resumed the proceedings. On the same date it decided to
appoint a guardian ad litem for absent participants in the proceedings and
announce that fact in a newspaper. 21. On 22 September 1998 the President
of the District Court informed the applicant that the newspaper which the
court had requested to publish the announcement had not replied. The
President resolved to undertake necessary steps in order to ensure a more
expeditious examination of the case. 22. On 22 June 1999 the Regional
Court excluded a judge from participation in the proceedings and
transferred the case to the Opatów District Court. 23. On 29 September
1999 four judges from the latter court requested to be excluded from
participation in the proceedings due to their personal relations with one
of the participants. 24. On 28 July 2000 the applicant was ordered to
submit certain pleadings and provide information about the nationality of
the participants residing in the United States. In reply, she submitted
that she did not know whether they had a Polish nationality. 25. In
August 2000 the District Court summoned the applicant to make an advance
payment to cover the costs of translating letters rogatory and sending
them to the United States. In reply, the applicant stated that the
participants residing there spoke fluent Polish and thus translation was
not necessary. 26. On 28 September 2000 the court stayed the proceedings,
relying on the applicant’s failure to comply with its order. 27. On 26
February 2001 the applicant requested that the proceedings be resumed and
submitted a letter from the Polish consulate in Chicago, from which it
transpired that the persons concerned had not renounced their Polish
nationality. 28. On 16 March 2001 the court refused that request. The
applicant appealed. 29. On 17 July 2001 the Rzeszów Regional Court
transferred the appeal against that decision to the Kielce Regional Court.
30. On 24 October 2001 the latter court rejected the appeal. 31. On 25
January 2002 the Opatów District Court once again refused to resume the
proceedings. 32. On 8 February 2002 the applicant appealed against that
decision. 33. The proceedings are still pending.
sentences:
- >-
Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled
to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent
and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced
publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of
the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security
in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the
protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the
extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special
circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent
until proved guilty according to law. 9 3. Everyone charged with a
criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed
promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate
time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend
himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if
he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it
free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have
examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and
examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as
witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter
if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
- >-
Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right
to respect for his private and family life, his home and his
correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority
with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the
law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of
national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the
country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of
health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of
others.
- >-
Right to marry Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry
and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the
exercise of this right.
- source_sentence: >-
32. The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Sollentuna (Sweden). The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows. 33. The applicant's brother Mehmet Salim Acar (son of Mehmet and
Hüsna, born in Bismil in 1963), a farmer living in Ambar, a village in the
Bismil district in south-east Turkey, disappeared on 20 August 1994. The
facts surrounding the disappearance of the applicant's brother are in
dispute between the parties. 34. The facts as submitted by the applicant
are set out in Section 1 below. The facts as submitted by the Government
are contained in Section 2. A summary of the documents produced is set out
in Part B. 35. On 20 August 1994, while Mehmet Salim Acar was working in
a cotton field near Ambar, a white or grey Renault car without any
registration plates stopped. Two armed men in plain clothes – claiming to
be police officers – got out of the car and asked Mehmet Salim to
accompany them in order to help them find a field. When Mehmet Salim
refused to get into the car, the two men threatened him with their
weapons. They then took his identity card, tied his hands, blindfolded
him, punched him in the head and stomach, forced him into their car and
drove off. 36. The scene was witnessed by Mehmet Salim's son İhsan Acar
and İlhan Ezer, another farmer. After the car had driven off, İhsan ran
home and told his mother Halise Acar what had happened, and she in turn
informed the village headman. Abide Acar, Mehmet Salim's daughter, had
seen her father sitting in the back of a “grey-coloured” car passing
through the village while she and a neighbour were washing clothes in a
stream. Another villager had allegedly seen Mehmet Salim being taken to
the riverbank, where five other people had been waiting in another car.
Mehmet Salim's hands and feet were tied, he was blindfolded and his mouth
was taped. The two cars had reportedly driven off in the direction of
Bismil. Nothing has been heard from Mehmet Salim since. 37. Mehmet
Salim's family filed a series of petitions and complaints about his
disappearance to the authorities, including the Deputy Governor and the
Bismil gendarmerie, in order to find out where and why he was being
detained. 38. On or around 27 August 1994, Mehmet Salim's sister Meliha
Dal personally handed a petition about her brother's disappearance to the
Deputy Governor of Diyarbakır. After reading the petition and, in her
presence, speaking on the telephone with Ahmet Korkmaz, a non-commissioned
officer (NCO) of the gendarmerie, the Deputy Governor told her that Mehmet
Salim was in the hands of the State and that there was nothing that she
could do for the time being. 39. When leaving the Deputy Governor's
office, Meliha Dal was approached by a police officer, Mehmet Şen, who
volunteered to make enquiries about her brother with a friend in the
“torture place” of the Bismil gendarmerie station. This police officer
rang Meliha Dal three days later and told her that he had seen Mehmet
Salim at the Bismil gendarmerie command and that he could take him some
clothes and cigarettes. After Meliha Dal had fetched some clothes, the
police officer told her that he would take them to her brother in one or
two days' time. On 31 August 1994 the police officer called Meliha Dal
again and told her that her brother had been taken away from the Bismil
gendarmerie command but that he did not know where he had been taken to.
40. On 29 August 1994 Hüsna Acar, Mehmet Salim's mother, filed a petition
with the Bismil public prosecutor requesting an investigation into her
son's disappearance. On 2 September 1994 the public prosecutor took
statements from Hüsna, Halise and İhsan Acar, and the farmer İlhan Ezer.
41. On 19 October 1994 Hüsna Acar asked the Bismil Chief Public
Prosecutor for information about the progress of the investigation, but
she received no reply. 42. In letters of 29 November 1994 and 19 January
1995, the applicant asked the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır National
Security Court to investigate the whereabouts of his brother Mehmet Salim.
These letters went unanswered. 43. On 15 March 1995 the Bismil public
prosecutor wrote to the Bismil gendarmerie commander, seeking a reply to
his enquiry about the case. He wrote again on 17 May 1995 to enquire
whether or not the detention of Mehmet Salim Acar might have been
politically motivated. 44. On 20 July 1995 the applicant asked the Bismil
Chief Public Prosecutor for information about the case of Mehmet Salim
Acar and accused gendarmerie officers İzzetin and Ahmet and village guard
Harun Aca of being responsible for his brother's abduction. 45. On 26 and
27 July 1995 the applicant sent letters to the Minister for Human Rights
and the Minister of Justice, seeking information about his brother's
whereabouts and condition. On 24 August 1995 the Minister for Human Rights
informed the applicant that his petition had been transmitted to the
office of the Diyarbakır Governor. In his reply of 30 August 1995, the
applicant requested the Minister for Human Rights to ensure his brother's
safety and to take urgent action. 46. On 8 September 1995 gendarmes took
further statements from Hüsna, Halise and İhsan Acar. 47. On 22 September
1995 the applicant spoke on the telephone with gendarmerie captain İrfan
Odabaş, of the Bismil gendarmerie command, who told him that Mehmet Salim
Acar's whereabouts were unknown and asked him whether the abductors had
made any ransom demand. The applicant replied that no such demand had been
made but that he would pay in return for his brother's release. 48. On 27
September 1995 the applicant was contacted by an unknown person who asked
for 1,100,000,000 Turkish liras in return for his brother's release. The
applicant accepted immediately. He was told that his brother would be
interrogated at the Bismil gendarmerie command and that he would be able
to meet him within a week. 49. On 5 October 1995 Mehmet Salim's family
were contacted by a person called Murat, who informed them that Mehmet
Salim had been detained in Bolu and subsequently at a military base. He
was alive and was working as an agent for the authorities. In order to
have him released, the family would have to comply with the conditions of
the Diyarbakır Regiment Commander, namely to keep secret the names of
those who had abducted him, as well as the place where and the persons by
whom he had been detained. The family refused to accept these conditions.
On 10 October 1995 Murat contacted the family again and asked them to
reconsider their position, otherwise Mehmet Salim would not be released.
50. On 25 October 1995 Meliha Dal made a statement to the Bismil
gendarmerie command to the effect that, in her opinion, the gendarmerie
officers İzzet Cural and Ahmet Korkmaz and the former PKK (Workers' Party
of Kurdistan) member Harun Aca, who had become a village guard, were
responsible for her brother's abduction. 51. On 30 October 1995 the home
of Meliha Dal was raided by officers of the anti-terrorism branch of the
Diyarbakır police, who threatened her with death and attempted to abduct
her 12-year-old son. 52. In November 1995 the applicant was informed by
the Diyarbakır general gendarmerie command that his brother had not been
apprehended by the gendarmerie but had been abducted by two unidentified
civilians claiming to be policemen. 53. The applicant also filed a
petition about his brother's disappearance with the Investigation
Commission for Human Rights of the Turkish Grand National Assembly. On 1
December 1995, in reply to a request for information, the office of the
Diyarbakır Governor informed the Investigation Commission for Human Rights
that the case had been investigated, that the two gendarmerie officers
whose names had been given by the applicant and his sister had not
apprehended Mehmet Salim, that he had been abducted by two unidentified
individuals and that the investigation of the case by the Bismil public
prosecutor was ongoing. This information was transmitted to the applicant
by the Human Rights Commission on 18 December 1995. 54. On 10 June 1996
Hüsna Acar asked the Bismil public prosecutor for information about the
progress of the investigation. 55. On 17 June 1996 the Bismil public
prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction (görevsizlik kararı) and
transmitted the investigation opened in respect of gendarmerie officers
İzzet Cural and Ahmet Babayiğit and village guard Harun Aca to the
Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council for further proceedings under
the Law on the prosecution of civil servants (Memurin Muhakematı Kanunu).
56. On 25 November 1996 Meliha Dal requested the Diyarbakır Governor to
open an investigation into Mehmet Salim's disappearance. On 10 December
1996 the applicant wrote a letter to the President of Turkey and filed a
further petition with the Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council. On
11 December 1996 Hüsna Acar wrote a letter to the President of Turkey and
to the Minister of the Interior, asking them to investigate the
disappearance of her son Mehmet Salim. Both petitions were transmitted to
the office of the Batman Governor. 57. On 17 January 1997 the Diyarbakır
Governor informed Meliha Dal in reply to her petition of 25 November 1996
that an investigation into the matter had been carried out by the Bismil
Chief Public Prosecutor and that those responsible for the abduction of
her brother remained unidentified. 58. In a decision of 23 January 1997,
the Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council decided not to take
proceedings against the two gendarmerie officers and the village guard on
the ground that there was insufficient evidence. This decision was
confirmed by the Supreme Administrative Court (Danıştay) on 14 January
2000. 59. On 2 February 2000 at 11 p.m., Meliha Dal and Hüsna and Halise
Acar watched a news broadcast on the NTV television channel. The
newsreader announced that four persons had been apprehended in Diyarbakır,
one of whom was named Mehmet Salim Acar. Pictures of the apprehended men
were shown and all three of them recognised Mehmet Salim Acar. The three
women continued to watch the news all night and saw him again on the
following day during the 8 a.m. television news broadcast. 60. On 4
February 2000 Meliha Dal and Hüsna and Halise Acar informed the Bismil
public prosecutor in person of what they had seen. The public prosecutor
telephoned the office of the Diyarbakır public prosecutor and told the
women afterwards that three persons by the name of Mehmet Salim Acar had
been apprehended, but that, apart from the name, the particulars of the
three men did not match those of their relative. 61. Two days later, the
Bismil public prosecutor informed Meliha Dal that her brother had in fact
been apprehended, that he was being held in prison in Muş, and that he
would be released after making a statement. 62. On 16 February 2000
Meliha Dal told the Diyarbakır public prosecutor that she had seen her
brother on television and asked the public prosecutor for information
about his fate. The public prosecutor referred her to the Şehitlik police
station, from where she was referred to the police headquarters for
verification of the police computer records. There she was told that she
would be informed about her brother and was asked to leave. She
subsequently received no further information from the police headquarters.
63. On 18 February 2000 Meliha Dal made a similar request to the office
of the Diyarbakır Governor, and was again referred to the Şehitlik police
station, which directed her to the anti-terrorism branch, where a police
officer took a statement from her and recorded her particulars. After
about an hour, Meliha Dal was told that her brother had not agreed to see
his family. When she refused to accept this answer and insisted on seeing
him, she was asked to leave. She was informed three days later that her
brother was not in fact at the anti-terrorism branch. She was subsequently
told to go to the prison in Muş. When she and İhsan Acar went to the
prison, they were shown a person who was not Mehmet Salim Acar. 64. On 23
March 2000 three officers from the anti-terrorism branch came to Halise
Acar's home and asked her for a copy of her family's entry in the
population register. She was told that they were looking for Mehmet Salim
Acar throughout Turkey and that it was not established that he was dead.
65. According to a decision of non-jurisdiction issued on 2 May 2000 by
the Muş Chief Public Prosecutor, the person placed in pre-trial detention
in Muş was a Mehmet Salih Acar whose year of birth and parents did not
match the particulars of the applicant's brother. 66. On 11 May 2000
Meliha Dal filed a petition with the Diyarbakır public prosecutor seeking
an investigation into the sighting of her brother Mehmet Salim Acar during
the television news broadcast. 67. On 30 May 2000 the Diyarbakır Chief
Public Prosecutor issued a decision not to open an investigation
(tapiksizlik kararı) on the basis of the petition of 11 May 2000. 68.
Later in 2000 Meliha Dal spoke with a prison officer at Muş Prison. The
officer confirmed that he had seen Mehmet Salim Acar when he and five or
six others had been apprehended and taken to Muş Prison. According to
Meliha Dal, the officer's description of Mehmet Salim corresponded to her
brother's appearance. 69. On 29 August 1994 the applicant's mother filed
a petition with the Bismil public prosecutor's office requesting an
investigation into the whereabouts of her son Mehmet Salim Acar, who had
been kidnapped by two men. 70. The public prosecutor opened an
investigation, in the course of which statements were taken from Hüsna and
Halise Acar and from the two eyewitnesses to the events, İhsan Acar and
İlhan Ezer. İhsan Acar stated that two Turkish-speaking men wearing hats
and glasses had asked his father to show his identity card and that he was
then put in a grey car without licence plates. İlhan Ezer declared that a
grey Renault TX-model car without licence plates had approached them, that
one of the two men in the car, speaking with a western Anatolian accent
and wearing glasses, had forced them to show their identity cards, saying
they were police officers. The men did not give back Mehmet Salim's
identity card, saying that they would bring him back after he had shown
them someone's land. 71. On 19 October 1994 Hüsna Acar filed another
petition with the Bismil public prosecutor. 72. On 15 March 1995 the
Bismil public prosecutor requested the Bismil gendarmerie command to
investigate whether or not Mehmet Salim Acar had been kidnapped. In a
letter of 17 May 1995, the Bismil public prosecutor asked the Bismil
gendarmerie commander for information about the case. 73. In a letter of
20 July 1995 to the Bismil public prosecutor, the applicant claimed that
village guard Harun Aca, gendarmerie captain İzzettin and gendarmerie
officer Ahmet had been involved in the kidnapping of his brother. On the
basis of this letter, the public prosecutor decided to hear those
allegedly involved and summoned all gendarmerie officers named Ahmet who
worked at the Bismil gendarmerie command at the material time to be heard.
74. On 8 September 1995 gendarmes took statements from Hüsna, Halise and
İhsan Acar and from İlhan Ezer. On the basis of the applicant's allegation
that Mehmet Salim Acar had been taken away by two officers of the Bismil
gendarmerie and a local village guard, İlhan Ezer was asked whether the
persons who had abducted Mehmet Salim Acar had worked at the Bismil
gendarmerie command, which he denied. He further stated that Mehmet Salim
Acar's behaviour had also not indicated that he knew these men. 75. On 25
October 1995 İlhan Ezer made a statement to the Bismil notary public, in
which he stated that he had seen the persons who had abducted Mehmet Salim
Acar and that they were not Captain İzzet Cural and Sergeant Ahmet as
alleged. 76. On 6 November 1995 the Bismil public prosecutor took a
statement from the gendarmerie officer Ahmet Uyar, who stated that he had
just taken up his duties at the time of the incident and that he did not
know anything about it. He further stated that there were two other
gendarmerie officers named Ahmet, namely Ahmet Korkmaz, who had been
killed by the PKK, and Ahmet Babayiğit, who had been transferred to a
region with a different climate on medical grounds. 77. On 23 November
1995 Harun Aca made a statement to both the gendarmerie and the Bismil
public prosecutor, on which occasion he submitted a document proving that
he had not been in Bismil between 19 July and 6 September 1994, when he
had been participating in a security forces operation in Mardin. 78. On
17 June 1996 the Bismil public prosecutor issued a decision of
non-jurisdiction and referred the case to the Diyarbakır Provincial
Administrative Council. The Administrative Council appointed Captain İrfan
Odabaş as inspector for the investigation into the applicant's allegations
that his brother had been taken into detention by gendarmerie captain
İzzet Cural and NCO Ahmet Babayiğit under the guidance of temporary
village guard Harun Aca. 79. On 9 December 1996 İlhan Ezer made another
statement to the gendarmerie in which he declared that he knew Captain
İzzet and NCO Ahmet very well and that they were definitely not the men
who had abducted Mehmet Salim Acar. 80. On 25 December 1996 the
gendarmerie took a statement from NCO Ahmet Babayiğit, who stated that he
had not witnessed the incident and that he did not know anything about it.
81. On 1 January 1997 the gendarmerie took a statement from Captain İzzet
Cural, who denied that Mehmet Salim Acar had been apprehended and
detained. 82. On 23 January 1997 the Provincial Administrative Council
issued a decision of non-prosecution, finding that there was insufficient
evidence to take proceedings against İzzet Cural, Ahmet Babayiğit or Harun
Aca. 83. Mehmet Salim Acar has been included on the list of persons who
are being searched for by the gendarmerie throughout Turkey, and the
search for him continues. 84. The person who was apprehended and shown
during a television news broadcast in February 2000 was not the
applicant's brother. Several persons being held in detention have the same
name as the applicant's brother. However, their dates and places of birth
and particulars are different from his. 85. The parties have produced
various documents concerning the investigation into the abduction of
Mehmet Salim Acar[2]. 86. On 29 August 1994 Hüsna Acar filed a petition
with the public prosecutor's office in Bismil requesting an investigation
into the disappearance of her son Mehmet Salih Acar, who had been abducted
ten days before by two unknown persons – armed with Kalashnikov rifles and
wearing civilian clothes – in a taxi. In her petition Hüsna Acar further
stated that her family had already made enquiries with the gendarmerie and
the police, who had told them that they knew nothing about it. Hüsna Acar
requested the public prosecutor to issue the necessary instructions in
order to find her son as soon as possible. 87. On 19 October 1994 Hüsna
Acar filed a second petition with the Bismil public prosecutor, in which
she requested an investigation into the disappearance of her son. She
asked the public prosecutor in particular to verify whether her son had
been apprehended and was being held by the security forces. 88. By a
letter of 20 July 1995, the applicant requested the Bismil public
prosecutor to grant his family permission to visit his brother Mehmet
Salim Acar who, according to the applicant, had been apprehended in August
1994 by the Bismil gendarmerie commander. The applicant stated that
gendarmerie captain İzzettin, NCO Ahmet and Harun Aca, an inhabitant of
Ambar, were responsible for his brother's life. 89. By a letter of 26
July 1995, the applicant complained to the Ministry of Human Rights that
in August 1994 his brother Mehmet Salim Acar had been apprehended by
Captain İzzettin, NCO Ahmet and counter-guerrilla agent Harun Aca, and
that since then his brother was being held at the Bismil gendarmerie
command. The applicant further stated that his family had not received a
positive reply from the Bismil public prosecutor and the Diyarbakır
National Security Court, to which they had applied, and that they were
disconcerted not to have been granted permission to contact Mehmet Salim
even though they had evidence that he was being detained. 90. The
applicant submitted a similar petition to the Ministry of Justice on 27
July 1995. 91. In a further letter of 30 August 1995 to the Ministry of
Human Rights, the applicant stated that, in addition to his letter of 26
July 1995, he had learned from an official, who wished to remain
anonymous, that his brother Mehmet Salim Acar had been taken into
detention by Captain İzzet Cura on the basis of information supplied by
the “confessor”[3] Harun Aca. Having interrogated him, Captain İzzet had
concluded that Mehmet Salim was innocent and that Harun Aca's information
had been incorrect. However, as Captain İzzet feared sanctions for having
detained Mehmet Salim incommunicado and for too long, for having denied
him the necessary medical care and for having failed to respect his
defence rights, he had kept Mehmet Salim in detention. Considering that
his brother risked being killed by Captain İzzet in order to conceal the
matter, the applicant requested the Ministry of Human Rights to intervene
as a matter of urgency. 92. In an undated petition, Hüsna Acar requested
the Investigation Commission for Human Rights of the Turkish Grand
National Assembly to examine the case of her son Salih Acar, claiming that
he had been taken into detention by Captain İzzet of the Ambar gendarmerie
on 6 July 1994 and that nothing had been heard from him since. Hüsna Acar
sent similar petitions, also undated, to the Ankara Human Rights Centre,
the Diyarbakır Governor and the General Gendarmerie Command in Ankara.
93. On 10 November 1995 the President of the Investigation Commission for
Human Rights of the Turkish Grand National Assembly informed the applicant
that the petition concerning Salim Acar had been registered on 3 November
1995 under no. 4467/2872, that the matter would be investigated and that
he would be informed of the results of the investigation. 94. By a letter
of 10 June 1996 to the Bismil public prosecutor, Hüsna Acar requested to
be provided with information about the steps taken in the investigation
into the abduction on 29 August 1994 of her son Mehmet Salim Acar by
Captain İzzet Cural and Sergeant Ahmet Kormaz. She further claimed that,
on the day her son had been abducted, two other persons – whose names she
did not mention – had been abducted in the same car, that one of them had
been released and that her son had initially been taken to Bismil, then to
Cınar and subsequently to Diyarbakır. 95. On 5 August 1996 Hüsna Acar
requested the Ministry of the Interior to take the necessary steps to find
out whether her son Mehmet Salim Acar, who had been abducted in 1994 in a
white taxi by two persons whose identities she did not know, was dead or
alive. 96. On 23 August 1996 Hüsna Acar and Halise Acar filed a criminal
complaint of abduction and disappearance with the Bismil public
prosecutor. They claimed that, three days before his disappearance, Mehmet
Salim Acar had quarrelled with Mehmet Açan, who was also living in Ambar,
about a pump. Mehmet Açan had told Mehmet Salim that he would definitely
“disappear” within three days at the most. Three days later, Mehmet Salim
was taken away by Captain İzzettin, Mehmet Açan and Harun Açan. Hüsna and
Halise Acar requested the public prosecutor to carry out an investigation
and to hand the three perpetrators over to the courts. 97. On 25 November
1996 Meliha Dal lodged a complaint with the Diyarbakır Governor, claiming
that her brother Mehmet Salim Acar had had a quarrel with the brothers
Mehmet and Harun Açan. On that occasion, Harun Açan had threatened her
brother with death. Three days later, her brother had been taken away by
Captain İzzettin and Mehmet and Harun Açan. Meliha Dal further stated that
the petitions filed by Halise and Hüsna Acar with the Bismil public
prosecutor and the Ministry of the Interior had not led to any results and
that the Bismil Governor and the Bismil gendarmerie authorities had not
even contacted Halise and/or Hüsna Acar to discuss the matter. Meliha Dal
requested the Governor to question Captain İzzettin and the brothers
Mehmet and Harun Açan, as she believed that her brother might have been
killed by them. 98. On 10 December 1996 the applicant sent a letter to
the president of the Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council
claiming, inter alia, that his brother Mehmet Salim Acar had been taken
into detention by Captain İzzet Cural and Sergeant Ahmet Korkmaz on the
basis of incorrect information provided by Harun Aca (see paragraph 142
below).
On the same day, the applicant sent a similar letter to the President of
Turkey, requesting him to investigate what had happened to his brother.
99. On 11 December 1996 Hüsna Acar filed a petition with the Ministry of
the Interior, claiming that the Ambar villager Şakir Gün had extorted
money and jewellery from her family in exchange for the release of her son
Mehmet Salim. Considering that Şakir Gün was thus aware of her son's
whereabouts and involved in his abduction, Hüsna Acar requested the
Ministry of the Interior to intervene and investigate the matter.
On the same date Hüsna Acar sent an identical petition to the President of
Turkey. 100. The submitted copy of the custody records of the Bismil
gendarmerie for the period between 8 July and 13 November 1994 does not
contain an entry in the name of Mehmet Salih Acar or Mehmet Salim Acar.
(b) Preliminary investigation by the Bismil public prosecutor 101. On 29
August 1994, in an instruction written by hand at the bottom of the
petition filed on that day by Hüsna Acar (see paragraph 86 above), the
Bismil public prosecutor ordered the taking of a detailed statement from
Hüsna Acar and the making of enquiries with the gendarmerie and the
security forces. On 31 August 1994 he instructed the Bismil gendarmerie to
ensure that Hüsna Acar came to his office to make a statement. 102. On 2
September 1994 Hüsna Acar made a statement to the Bismil public
prosecutor. She confirmed that she had filed a petition and stated that,
about ten days before 29 August 1994, her son Mehmet Salih Acar had been
taken away in a taxi by two men, who were wearing civilian clothes and
armed with Kalashnikov rifles. Nothing had been heard from him since. Her
grandson İhsan Acar had witnessed the incident. It appeared that the men
had spoken Turkish and that they had driven off in the direction of
Bismil. 103. On the same day, Halise Acar also made a statement to the
Bismil public prosecutor. She stated that her husband had disappeared ten
or fifteen days earlier when he was in a cotton field with their son İhsan
Acar. Two armed men had forced him to get into a taxi, which had driven
off in the direction of Bismil. Nothing had been heard from him since. She
further declared that she had been told that her husband had been with
İlhan Ezer when he was taken away and that the taxi was a dark grey
Renault without licence plates. 104. Also on 2 September 1994, İhsan Acar
(born in 1983) was heard by the Bismil public prosecutor. He stated:
“On the day of the incident, my father and I were working in the field.
When we went to sit under a tree to have lunch, İlhan Ezer, who was
working in the field, joined us. There was a twenty-metre distance between
my father and me. At this point, a grey-coloured taxi with no number
plates came and stopped near my father. The persons in the car spoke with
my father. I saw them take the identity cards of my father and of the
person called İlhan and then return İlhan's identity card, and I saw my
father get into the taxi. This taxi immediately headed towards the village
of Ambar. Later, I went home and informed my mother. As I was far away, I
was unable to recognise these people, but I heard that they were speaking
Turkish. These people were wearing hats and glasses. That is all I know
and what I have witnessed.” 105. İlhan Ezer, who was also heard by the
Bismil public prosecutor on 2 September 1994, declared:
“On the day of the incident, while Mehmet Salih Acar and I were having
lunch in the field below the village of Ambar, a Renault TX-model grey
taxi without number plates approached us. The persons in the car asked us
to hand over our identity cards. When we refused, they forced us by saying
that they were the police and that we were therefore obliged to hand over
our identity cards. The persons who asked for our cards had a western
accent. Both of them were about 25 or 26 years old. One of them was
wearing glasses. They did not give back Mehmet Salih's identity card. They
said: 'Mehmet Salih will show us someone's field and then we will send him
back.' That is all I know and what I have witnessed in relation to the
incident.” 106. On 13 September 1994 the Bismil public prosecutor
informed the Bismil gendarmerie command that, about ten days before 29
August 1994, Mehmet Salih Acar had been abducted by two unknown persons –
aged 25 or 26, speaking with a western Anatolian accent and one of them
wearing glasses – who had come in a gunmetal Renault TX-model taxi without
licence plates. The public prosecutor instructed the gendarmerie to carry
out an investigation into the persons who had abducted Mehmet Salih Acar
and, when found, to bring them to his office. 107. On 25 January 1995 the
Bismil public prosecutor sent a reminder to the Bismil gendarmerie
command, urging the gendarmerie to speed up compliance with his
instruction of 13 September 1994. 108. By a letter of 7 February 1995,
the Bismil gendarmerie district commander Captain İzzet Cural informed the
Bismil public prosecutor that the requested investigation had been
completed. Captain Cural appended to his letter a record dated 31 January
1995, signed by the gendarmerie officers İlhan Yücel, Ahmet Uyar and
Yılmaz Pala of the Bismil central gendarmerie command, stating that
enquiries had been made, but that it had not been possible to identify the
persons who had abducted Mehmet Salih Acar. 109. On 15 March 1995 the
Bismil public prosecutor instructed the Bismil gendarmerie command to
conduct a thorough investigation into the alleged abduction of Mehmet
Salih Acar and, if this had in fact taken place, to tell him who was
responsible and whether it had been politically motivated. He sent a
reminder of this instruction to the Bismil gendarmerie command on 17 May
1995. 110. By a letter of 22 June 1995, the Bismil gendarmerie district
commander Captain İzzet Cural informed the Bismil public prosecutor that
the investigation requested on 25 January 1995 had been completed. Captain
Cural appended to his letter a record dated 20 June 1995, signed by the
gendarmerie officers İlhan Yücel, Ismail Özden and Ahmet Uyar of the
Bismil central gendarmerie command, stating that it had not been possible
to locate or identify the persons who had abducted Mehmet Salih Acar.
111. On 14 August 1995, acting on the petition filed on 27 July 1995 by
the applicant (see paragraph 90 above), the Ministry of Justice requested
the Bismil public prosecutor, as a matter of urgency, to provide
information about Mehmet Salim Acar, who had allegedly been taken into
detention at the Bismil gendarmerie command in August 1994 and who had not
been allowed to see his relatives since, and about the legal steps taken
in his case. 112. By a letter of 21 August 1995, the Bismil central
gendarmerie station commander Sergeant İlhan Yücel informed the Bismil
district gendarmerie command that it was not known whether the abduction
of Mehmet Salih Acar had, in some way or other, been politically
motivated, that it was not known who had abducted him and that no news
from him had been received since his abduction. Sergeant Yücel appended to
his letter a record dated 14 August 1995, signed by himself, the
gendarmerie officer Mustafa Candar and the Ambar muhtar[4] Mehmet İhsan
Tuncay, with the same contents as the letter. 113. Also on 21 August 1995
and in reply to the request of 14 August 1995, the Bismil public
prosecutor informed the Ministry of Justice that it was asserted that
Mehmet Salih Acar had been abducted about ten days before 2 September 1994
by two armed and unidentified persons, who had forced him to get into a
taxi while he was working in the fields with his son İhsan Acar. The
responsible authorities had been contacted in order to proceed with the
search for him. However, the persons who had abducted Mehmet Salih Acar
had not, to date, been identified and the investigation of the case was
ongoing. 114. On 18 September 1995 the Bismil public prosecutor
instructed the Bismil gendarmerie command to ensure that Harun Acar from
the village of Ambar reported to his office in connection with the
investigation into the disappearance of Mehmet Salim Acar. On 21 September
1995 the Bismil gendarmerie district command instructed the Bismil central
gendarmerie command to find Harun Acar's address. 115. On 29 September
1995 Sergeant İlhan Yücel, the Bismil central gendarmerie commander,
informed the Bismil gendarmerie district command that Harun Acar did not
live in Ambar, that he was currently serving in an anti-terrorism unit and
that his current address could be obtained from the Derik and Mazıdağı
gendarmerie district commands. Sergeant Yücel appended to his letter an
undated report, signed by the gendarmerie officers Mustafa Candal and Özay
Yalbul, and the Ambar muhtar, Mehmet İhsan Tuncay, stating that Harun Acar
had left no address when he was released from Diyarbakır E-type Prison but
that he could be found by asking the Derik or Mazıdağı gendarmerie
command. This information was transmitted to the Bismil public prosecutor
on 10 October 1995. 116. On 12 October 1995 the Ministry of Justice
requested the Bismil public prosecutor to provide information about the
steps taken in the investigation into the disappearance of Mehmet Salih
Acar, which formed the subject matter of a complaint filed by the
applicant with the European Commission of Human Rights, in which he
alleged that his brother had been taken into custody in Bismil on 20
August 1994 and that he was being tortured. The Bismil public prosecutor
was asked in particular to inform the Ministry if an investigation into
the matter had been opened and, if so, whether it had been opened
automatically or in response to a request in respect of Mehmet Salih Acar.
117. On 16 October 1995 the Bismil public prosecutor sent a reminder to
the Bismil gendarmerie command of his instruction of 18 September 1995. On
the same day he instructed the Bismil gendarmerie command to ensure that
Halise Acar and all gendarmes who had served at the Bismil gendarmerie
command at the material time and who were named “Ahmet” reported to his
office in order to make statements. Finally, he instructed the Bismil
gendarmerie command to provide him with the current address of Captain
İzzettin Cural, who had left Bismil after being posted elsewhere. 118. On
the same day the Bismil public prosecutor informed the Ministry of Justice
that an investigation into the disappearance of Mehmet Salih Acar had been
opened, in which statements had been taken from the complainants Halise
and Hüsna Acar and from the witnesses İhsan Acar and İlhan Ezer, and that
steps had been taken to obtain a statement from Captain İzzettin, NCO
Ahmet and Harun Aça, and an additional statement from Halise Acar. He
further informed the Ministry that, as it was possible that Mehmet Salih
Acar had been kidnapped, letters had been written to the central police
and gendarmerie authorities requesting that Mehmet Salih Acar be found.
119. On 20 October 1995 the Bismil public prosecutor requested the public
prosecutors in Derik and Mazıdağı to summon and take a statement from
Harun Aça in relation to the disappearance of Mehmet Salih Acar. 120. On
3 November 1995 the Bismil gendarmerie district command informed the
Bismil public prosecutor of the current address of Captain İzzet Cural.
121. On 6 November 1995 the Bismil gendarmerie district command informed
the Bismil public prosecutor that, in response to his request of 16
October 1995, Sergeant Ahmet Uyar had been sent to his office. In a
statement of the same day to the Bismil public prosecutor, Ahmet Uyar
declared, in his capacity as a person suspected of an offence, that he had
no information about the incident and that he had not witnessed it. He had
taken up his duties at the Bismil district gendarmerie eight days before
the incident took place. The person who had served before him was Sergeant
Ahmet Korkmaz, who had been killed by the PKK. Ahmet Babayiğit had also
served before him, but had had a road accident and was currently on sick
leave. Ahmet Uyar denied having been involved in the incident and stated
that he did not know the person mentioned by the public prosecutor. 122.
On 10 November 1995 the Mazıdağı gendarmerie district command informed the
Mazıdağı public prosecutor that Harun Aça did not serve at that command.
123. On 16 November 1995 the Bismil gendarmerie district command informed
the Bismil public prosecutor of the current address of Harun Aça, who had
been found to serve at the Derik gendarmerie district command. 124. On 23
November 1995 Harun Aca made a statement at the Bismil gendarmerie central
command, in which he declared that he had left Ambar in 1988. He had later
joined the PKK until he had surrendered himself voluntarily on 4 April
1994 to the Derik gendarmerie district command. Owing to his participation
in military anti-terrorist operations as a guide, it was impossible for
him to return to Ambar. He had only done so on very rare occasions and for
reasons of security had then always stayed on the premises of the Bismil
gendarmerie district command. His parents, his spouse and family lived in
Ambar. They did not have a hostile relationship with the other families
living there, but owing to his personal position his family had become a
PKK target. He confirmed that Mehmet Salim Acar and his family also lived
in Ambar, but he had not seen them since 1988 and no longer had any
contact with them. For security reasons, he would only enter and leave
Ambar during the day and in secret, and was particularly careful not to be
seen by anyone. He denied having given any information about Mehmet Salih
Acar to gendarmerie captain İzzet Cural or to NCO Ahmet, as he had had no
mission to Bismil and did not know what was going on there. The PKK had
incurred many losses in the provinces of Mardin and Şırnak on the basis of
information provided by him and he was convinced that the PKK had
organised the abduction as a result of those losses. He further denied
having apprehended anyone with the assistance of gendarmes serving in the
Bismil district. In any event, he had no such powers. His function was
limited to giving information to the security forces, which he could not
provide in respect of the Bismil district or even the Diyarbakır province
as he did not have any. 125. Also on 23 November 1995 Harun Aca, in his
capacity as a person suspected of an offence, made a similar statement to
the Bismil public prosecutor. In addition, Harun Aca declared that he had
a document proving that he had participated in an operation conducted in
the Kelmehmet mountains near Mardin between 19 July and 6 September 1994,
and submitted, inter alia, a letter of commendation from the command of
the Mardin gendarmerie commando battalion at Kızıltepe certifying that he
had participated in an operation conducted between 19 July and 20 August
1994 in the Şırnak and Mount Cudi area. He again denied that he had
provided any information to Captain İzzet or NCO Ahmet and maintained that
he knew nothing about the disappearance of Mehmet Salim Acar, whom he had
not seen since 1988. 126. On 30 November 1995 the Bismil public
prosecutor requested the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor to summon and take
a statement from Captain İzzet Cural in relation to the applicant's claim
that his brother Mehmet Salih Acar had been abducted in August 1994 by
Captain İzzettin and NCO Ahmet of the Bismil gendarmerie on the basis of
information provided by Harun Aça. 127. On 19 December 1995 the Bismil
public prosecutor requested the Bismil gendarmerie command to provide him
with the current address of Sergeant Ahmet Babayiğit for the purposes of
obtaining a statement from him. On 25 December 1995 Captain İrfan Odabaş,
the Bismil gendarmerie district commander, provided the Bismil public
prosecutor with Ahmet Babayiğit's current address. 128. On 27 December
1995 Captain İzzet Cural, in his capacity as a person suspected of an
offence, made a statement to the Ankara public prosecutor Osman Aşrafoğlu
in which he declared that, in response to a report that Mehmet Salih Acar
had been abducted, an investigation by the gendarmerie had been carried
out which had not resulted in finding the abducted person or in
identifying the perpetrators. He further stated that he did not know where
Mehmet Salih Acar currently was. 129. On 8 January 1996 the Bismil public
prosecutor took a further statement from Halise Acar, who maintained the
account contained in her previous statement and complaint. She added that,
three days before his disappearance, her husband had had a quarrel with
Mehmet Aça about a water pump. Mehmet Aça was the brother of Harun Aça, a
former PKK member who had later joined the security forces, for whom he
was still working. That is why she believed that her husband had been
taken away by the security forces acting on instructions given by Harun
Aça. 130. On 9 January 1996 the Bismil public prosecutor requested the
Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor to summon and take a statement from Ahmet
Babayiğit in relation to the applicant's claim that his brother Mehmet
Salih Acar had been abducted in August 1994 by Captain İzzettin and NCO
Ahmet of the Bismil gendarmerie on the basis of information provided by
Harun Aça. 131. On 26 January 1996 Captain İrfan Odabaş, the Bismil
gendarmerie district commander, informed the Bismil public prosecutor, in
reply to his request of 16 October 1995, that no officers or NCOs called
Ahmet were currently serving under his command. Captain Odabaş further
informed the Bismil public prosecutor that the expert gendarmerie sergeant
Ahmet Uyar had been ordered to report to the public prosecutor's office as
he was present, that the expert sergeant Ahmet Babayiğit was currently on
sick leave and that Ahmet Korkmaz had been killed on 31 October 1994 in an
armed clash in Bismil. 132. On 5 February 1996, at the request of the
Bismil public prosecutor, Ahmet Babayiğit made a statement at Dikmen
police station to the police constable Mehmet Cabbar. He declared that he
knew nothing about the alleged abduction of Mehmet Salih Acar by Captain
İzzettin and NCO Ahmet of the Bismil gendarmerie apparently acting on
instructions given by Harun Aça. He did not remember any incident of that
nature. He further stated that he did not at present remember the persons
named Captain İzzettin and NCO Ahmet. 133. In a certified document, dated
25 February 1996 and signed by the Mardin gendarmerie commando battalion
commander Major Hurşit İmren, it is stated that Harun Aça, who had been
serving as a village guard under the orders of the Derik gendarmerie
district command since 27 May 1994, had participated in operations carried
out from 19 July to 6 September 1994 by the Mardin gendarmerie commando
battalion command in the Şırnak province and the Kelmehmet mountains.
134. In the Bismil public prosecutor's decision of non-jurisdiction of 17
June 1996, the stated offence is abuse of authority. Mehmet Salih Acar is
mentioned as the victim of this offence, Hüsna and Halise Acar and the
applicant as the complainants, and the gendarmes İzzet Cural and Ahmet
Babayiğit and the village guard Harun Aça as the accused. Since, at the
material time, İzzet Cural and Ahmet Babayiğit were serving at the Bismil
gendarmerie and Harun Aça was working with the gendarmerie, the Bismil
public prosecutor held that he was not competent to deal with the matter
and that, pursuant to section 15(3) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act
(Law no. 3713 of 12 April 1991), the case was to be determined by the
Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council.
(c) Proceedings before the Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council
135. On 26 June 1996 the Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council
transmitted the decision of non-jurisdiction of 17 June 1996 and the
relevant case file on the preliminary investigation carried out by the
Bismil public prosecutor to the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command,
requesting it to examine the facts on which this decision was based, to
conduct – if necessary – an investigation and to communicate the results
thereof. 136. On 24 September 1996, in connection with the applicant's
petition of 27 July 1995 (see paragraphs 90 and 111 above), Captain İrfan
Odabaş took a statement from Harun Aça who declared that between 19 July
and 6 September 1994 he had participated in the security forces'
operations in the provinces of Şırnak and Mardin. He denied the accusation
against him, stating that he had nothing to do with the matter and that he
had no information about it. He added that, since he had taken up his
duties with the gendarmerie, he had only been able to go on leave when
given permission to do so and that his leave record could be checked at
his duty station. 137. On 9 December 1996, in connection with the
applicant's petition of 27 July 1995, İrfan Odabaş took statements from
İlhan Ezer, İhsan Acar, Hüsna Acar and Halise Acar. 138. İlhan Ezer made
the following statement:
“On the day of the incident I was eating lunch in the field below Ambar
with Mehmet Salih Acar, who has been abducted. A grey Renault TX-model car
without licence plates with two people in it drove towards us. They asked
for our identity cards. After looking at them, they returned my card, but
did not return that of my friend Mehmet Salih Acar. They told us to get
into the car. I said that I definitely would not get into a car belonging
to people I did not know. Mehmet Salih Acar got into the car without
making any objection. The men said: 'Mehmet Salih will show us a field. We
will bring him back', and they drove off towards Ambar. I then asked
Mehmet Salih's son whether he knew the men. He said 'No', so I told him to
go to the village and tell the people that strangers had taken his father
away. The child went to the village. I know Captain İzzet and NCO Ahmet
very well. If I saw them in the village, I would recognise them. The men
who came were definitely not them. If they had been, I would have
recognised them. I had not seen the men who abducted Mehmet Salih Acar
before and did not recognise them. One was about 25 to 26 years old and
the other 18 to 20. Both were wearing hats and the older one was wearing
glasses and had a moustache.” 139. İhsan Acar's statement to İrfan Odabaş
reads:
“On the day of the incident I was working with my father in the field we
leased. Our neighbour İlhan Gezer was working alongside us on his own
land. We had gone under a tree in our field to eat our lunch, but there
was a distance of about ten metres between my father and myself. Then a
grey Renault without licence plates with two people in it came towards us.
It stopped by my father. İlhan Gezer also came over. They began to talk to
the two of them. I was watching because I was further away. They asked my
father and Uncle İlhan for their identity cards. They then returned İlhan
Gezer's card. The conversation between them was in Turkish. Then, they
took my father towards Ambar. There was no argument or struggle when they
took him away. The men who came had a Kalashnikov rifle. They wore hats
and the older one had a moustache. Then İlhan Gezer asked me if I knew
them. After answering that I did not know them, I ran to inform the
village. Since that day we have not heard anything from my father.” 140.
Hüsna Acar made the following statement:
“Mehmet Salim Acar is my son. He has been missing since the date of the
incident. I have no direct knowledge of the disappearance of my son Mehmet
Salim Acar. I only know what my grandson İhsan Acar told me when we came
to the village on the day of the incident. I do not know anything more
than this. I do not know who abducted my son Mehmet Salim Acar or for what
reason. I do not think that the gendarmerie took my son. The only thing
that I want from my State is for my son to be found dead or alive and to
be handed over to me. Apart from this, I have no complaint against Captain
İzzet or Expert Sergeant Ahmet. I do not know these people and I have no
feelings of animosity towards them. Because my son is not a terrorist, we
had not had any dealings with the gendarmerie until then. I want those who
abducted my son to be found and punished. Apart from that, I do not wish
to complain about anyone.” 141. Halise Acar made the following statement
to İrfan Odabaş:
“Mehmet Salim Acar, who has gone missing, is my husband. On the day of the
incident he had gone to work in the field with my son İhsan Acar. My son
later came running back to the house saying that Mehmet Salim Acar had
been made to get into a car by two people whom he did not know and had
driven off towards Ambar. I did not see the abduction of my husband Mehmet
Salim Acar myself. I do not know who took my husband or why. We have been
unable to get any news from him. All I want from the State is that they
find my husband dead or alive and hand him over to me. I am making a
formal complaint against those who abducted my husband. But I have no
complaint against Captain İzzet or Expert Sergeant Ahmet as I do not
believe that they abducted my husband. At the moment I am living with my
mother-in-law and her daughter at [address]. My mother-in-law's son Tahsin
Acar works in Sweden and has filed various petitions in order to find my
husband.” 142. On 10 December 1996 the applicant wrote a letter to the
President of the Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council, claiming
that his brother Mehmet Salim Acar had been taken into detention by
Captain İzzet Cural and Sergeant Ahmet Korkmaz on the basis of incorrect
information provided by Harun Aca. The applicant further stated that an
officer of the anti-terrorism branch of the Diyarbakır police had
investigated the case in July 1995 and that the Bismil gendarmerie had
admitted that his brother was being held by them. However, Captain İzzet
Cural had later told this police officer that the person who was detained
was not Mehmet Salim Acar but someone called Mahmut Acar, from Nusaybin.
The applicant also described a telephone conversation he had had on 22
September 1995 with Captain İrfan Odabaş, who had replaced Captain İzzet
as commander of the Bismil gendarmerie and who had asked the applicant
whether a ransom had been demanded. The applicant had told Captain Odabaş
that no such demand had been made, but that he would be willing to pay a
ransom. On 27 September 1995 the applicant's family had been contacted by
someone demanding a ransom in exchange for his brother's release. On 5
October 1996 another person – identified by the applicant as Namık Keser,
from Diyarbakır – contacted the family and said that Mehmet Salim Acar was
being held by the Diyarbakır gendarmerie and would be released if the
applicant agreed to work as an informer for the authorities, which the
applicant refused to do. 143. On 25 December 1996 İrfan Odabaş took a
statement from Ahmet Babayiğit, who declared that he had not seen the
abduction of Mehmet Salim Acar and that he knew nothing about it. 144. On
1 January 1997 İrfan Odabaş took a statement from Captain İzzet Cural, who
declared:
“We received a report that Mehmet Salim Acar from Ambar, which lies within
our command's jurisdiction, had been abducted by unidentified persons. I
was at the unit centre when the report was received. I immediately gave
the necessary information to the authorities concerned. We started to
conduct the necessary searches at the entrances to and the exits from
Bismil and Ambar, but we could not find the men in question. I do not know
who abducted Mehmet Salim Acar or for what purpose. In spite of all our
searches, we were unable to find the perpetrators or the victim. As a
result of our search and investigation in and around the village, we
established that he had been abducted by two persons, but we were unable
to establish their identities. We definitely did not apprehend or detain
this man, as alleged. It has still not been possible to obtain any
information about the abduction of Mehmet Salim Acar.” 145. İrfan Odabaş
submitted the report on his investigation to the Diyarbakır Provincial
Administrative Council on 15 January 1997. The report names Tahsin Acar as
the complainant, İzzet Cural, Ahmet Babayiğit and Harun Aca as the persons
accused of the offence of abuse of authority, and İlhan Ezer, Halise Acar,
İhsan Acar and Hüsna Acar as witnesses. The report contains, inter alia, a
summary of the statements taken from the accused and the witnesses, and
Captain Odabaş's advisory opinion that the applicant's claims remained
unsubstantiated and found no support in the statements obtained, which
indicated that the accused had not been involved. He therefore concluded
that there was no need to open a judicial or administrative inquiry and
that a decision not to prosecute would be appropriate. 146. In its
unanimous decision of 23 January 1997, in which Hüsna Acar is named as the
complainant, and Captain İzzet Cural, NCO Ahmet Babayiğit and Harun Aca as
defendants, the Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council found that
the accusation of abuse of authority allegedly committed by former Bismil
gendarmerie district commander Captain İzzet Cural, NCO Ahmet Babayiğit
and temporary village guard Harun Aca by having abducted Mehmet Salih Acar
in August 1994 was not supported by evidence against the defendants that
could be regarded as sufficient for instituting proceedings against them.
It therefore decided to reject the request to take proceedings, in
accordance with section 5 of the Law on the prosecution of civil servants
and Article 164 of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure. 147. In its
unanimous decision of 14 January 2000, following ex officio appeal
proceedings, the Second Division of the Supreme Administrative Court held
that the evidence available was insufficient to send the defendants for
trial and thus upheld the decision of 23 January 1997 by the Diyarbakır
Provincial Administrative Council.
(d) Other domestic investigations 148. On 24 August 1995 Minister Algan
Hacaloğlu informed the applicant that his petition of 26 July 1995 (see
paragraph 89 above) had been transmitted to the Diyarbakır Provincial
Governor. 149. On 8 September 1995, on the basis of the applicant's
allegations set out in his petition of 26 July 1995, statements were taken
from İhsan Acar, İlhan Ezer, Halise Acar and Hüsna Acar at the Bismil
central gendarmerie command. 150. İhsan Acar made the following
statement:
“I live in the village of Ambar with my family. Tahsin Acar is my paternal
uncle. Mehmet Salim Acar is my father. Last summer we were irrigating the
cotton field. I, my father and İlhan Ezer from the village of Üçtepe
decided to take a break for lunch in the shade of a tree. A car approached
us. It was a dark grey or grey Renault car without licence plates. It
stopped near to us. Two men got out of the car. One was short and wearing
a hat. The other one was young, tall and wearing a hat and glasses. They
asked my father and İlhan from Üçtepe to show their identity cards. They
refused, saying: 'We will not show you our identity cards because we do
not know who you are.' The two men replied that they were from the police.
So my father and İlhan showed them their identity cards. The two men
looked at the cards and gave İlhan his card back. They did not give my
father his card back. They spoke to us in Turkish. They said to my father:
'Get into the car with us, you will show us a field.' They made my father
get into the car by force. They told me: 'We will bring your father back
in half an hour.' They left and did not come back. I ran home to warn my
mother and I told her what had happened. My mother left in order to tell
the muhtar about what had happened. ... I had never seen those men before.
I have never seen them in the area. They do not resemble any person living
in my village. Moreover, they never got out of the taxi. It was my father
and İlhan who approached the car in order to talk to them. They were not
military or gendarmes. They both had moustaches. They had weapons under
the seats of the car. Afterwards, we went to the Bismil tribunal and made
statements. A search for my father was begun, but, to date, it has not led
to any news from him.” 151. İlhan Ezer declared:
“I live in the village of Üçtepe. I do not share any property with Mehmet
Salim Acar, but we have a cotton field in the village of Ambar. We planted
cotton in the same place as him. I do not know his brother Tahsin Acar. I
only heard his name in connection with the letter in question. This is
what I can tell you about the events. In August last year I was irrigating
the cotton we had planted. I went in the shade of a tree to have lunch. I
noticed a dark grey-coloured taxi coming from the direction of Ambar. The
vehicle had no licence plates. It stopped near to us. I was with Mehmet
Salim Acar and his son. We were asked to show our identity cards. We
refused, as we did not know these two men. A discussion took place between
us and the two men, but we still did not show our identity cards. They
said they were policemen. So we asked them to show us their police
identity papers. They did not do so. They took our identity cards and told
us that they would give them back. They looked at them and asked us to get
into the car. We did not get into the car. They forced us, but I continued
to refuse to get in. I noticed that at that moment Mehmet Salim Acar kept
silent, he did not speak. They returned my identity card to me and the
card of Mehmet Salim Acar. Subsequently, Mehmet got into the car. They
told me: 'Your friend will accompany us to a field and then he will come
back.' He left and did not return. I had never seen those two men before.
They were dressed in civilian clothes. I did not know them. They were both
wearing hats[5]. I had never seen them before in the area. ... The two men
were not officers of the Bismil gendarmerie district command. As I have
already pointed out, I had never seen them before. Nor had Mehmet Salim
Acar; he did not behave as if he knew them.” 152. Halise Acar stated that
on the day in question her husband Mehmet Salim Acar and their son İhsan
had left in the morning to work in a field close to the neighbouring
village of Sarıtoprak. Around noon, her son had come running home, telling
her that his father had been taken away in a car without licence plates.
He also told her that there had been two men in the car. Halise Acar
further stated that this Renault taxi had already been seen several times
in the village. Her daughter had told her that she had seen her father in
that car on the Dicle river bank and that she had thought that he was
going somewhere. Halise Acar lastly stated that her family had alerted all
the administrative authorities and the Bismil gendarmerie that her husband
had disappeared, that they had made statements about the matter to the
Bismil public prosecutor and that her husband had been searched for but
without any results to date. 153. Hüsna Acar declared that she was the
mother of Mehmet Salim Acar, that she was living with his family and that,
in August 1994, her son had left in the morning to irrigate the cotton
field. Her grandson, who had accompanied Mehmet Salim, had come running
home around noon, saying that a car had stopped close to his father, that
he had been told that they were going to look at a field and that they
would return, that he had waited for an hour and that nobody had come
back. Hüsna Acar further stated that nothing had been heard from her son
since, that the Bismil gendarmerie had been informed and that the Bismil
public prosecutor had summoned and questioned her and her relatives. 154.
On 3 October 1995 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting on the
Commission's decision of 4 September 1995 (see paragraph 4 above),
requested the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior to
gather and transmit information about the case of Mehmet Acar who,
according to his brother Tahsin Acar, had been forcibly taken away by
plain-clothes police officers and placed in detention. The respective
ministries were requested to inform the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
whether Mehmet Acar had been taken into detention, whether any proceedings
had been taken against him and, if not, whether there were indications
that he had been abducted by or joined the PKK. 155. By a letter of 22
November 1995, the Diyarbakır Provincial Governor, Mehmet Doğan Hatıpoğlu,
informed the Ministry of the Interior that an investigation into the facts
alleged by the applicant had been carried out. The conclusions of this
investigation were that Mehmet Selim Acar had not been apprehended by
Captain İzzet Cural and NCO Ahmet Korkmaz (deceased in the meantime) or by
Hasan Acar. No mention of a taking into custody of Mehmet Selim Acar had
been found in the custody records of the Bismil gendarmerie district
command. The victim had been abducted by two unknown persons claiming to
be policemen in a dark grey-coloured taxi without licence plates. The
subsequent investigation of these leads had not led to any results. The
matter had been raised before the judicial authorities and the Bismil
public prosecutor had conducted the necessary investigations. The two
eyewitnesses to the incident, İhsan Acar (Mehmet Selim Acar's son) and
İlhan Ezer had made statements in which they had declared that they did
not know the identities of the persons who had abducted Mehmet Selim Acar,
that they knew gendarmerie captain İzzet Cural as well as the other
officers of the gendarmerie, and that the two men who had abducted Mehmet
Selim Acar were certainly not gendarmes. The Governor finally stated that
Tahsin Acar's other allegations concerning the detention of his brother at
the Bismil gendarmerie command thus remained wholly unfounded. 156. In a
letter dated “November 1995”, the Diyarbakır gendarmerie regional
commander, referring to a letter of the General Gendarmerie Command of 7
November 1995 and a letter of the provincial gendarmerie command of 24
November 1995, informed the applicant – in reply to a complaint filed by
Hüsna Acar and/or the applicant to the General Gendarmerie Command (see
paragraph 92 above) – that, according to the results of an investigation
that had been carried out, Mehmet Selim Acar had not been apprehended by
gendarmes but had been abducted in a car without licence plates by two
unknown persons claiming to be plain-clothes policemen. 157. Appended to
this letter were statements taken from İhsan Acar and İlhan Ezer, who had
seen the incident, including a certified statement made by İlhan Ezer on
25 October 1995 to the Bismil notary public. This statement reads:
“While we were working in the cotton field situated within the boundaries
of the village of Ambar in the district of Bismil, province of Diyarbakır,
we took shelter in the shade of a tree in order to take a rest. A taxi
arrived from the direction of Ambar. It was a Renault TX-model car without
licence plates. Mehmet Salim Acar, his son İhsan Acar and I were sitting
in the shade. We were asked to show our identity cards. We refused. The
men then announced that they were policemen and took our identity cards.
After looking at them, they gave them back. They asked us to get into the
car. İhsan Acar and I were not willing to get into the car. Mehmet Salih
Acar got into the car without objecting. They told us: 'Your friend is
going to accompany us to a field and he will return later.' We have not
had any news from our friend since then. I had never seen the men who
arrived in the car before, I do not know them. It is being said that they
were gendarmerie captain İzzet Cural and NCO Ahmet, of the central
gendarmerie. I know these two men personally; they are not the ones who
abducted my friend.” 158. On 18 December 1995, in reply to the petition
filed by Hüsna Acar and/or the applicant (see paragraph 92 above), the
President of the Investigation Commission for Human Rights of the Turkish
Grand National Assembly informed the applicant that the petition
registered under no. 4467/2872 had been examined. The Governor of
Diyarbakır had conducted an investigation into the matter, in the course
of which statements had been taken from İlhan Ezer and İhsan Acar, who had
both stated that gendarmerie captain İzzet Gürlo and NCO Ahmet Korkmaz had
not taken Mehmet Salim Acar away but that he had been abducted by two
unknown men claiming to be police officers, who had made him get into a
car without licence plates. The applicant was further informed that an
investigation had been opened by the Bismil public prosecutor and was
still ongoing. 159. In a letter of 14 May 1996 sent by fax, apparently on
the basis of the applicant's reply of 20 March 1996 to the observations
submitted by the Government to the Commission (see paragraph 4 above), the
Ministry of Justice requested the Bismil public prosecutor to examine the
various allegations set out in this reply of 20 March 1996. 160. On the
same day the Bismil public prosecutor informed the Ministry of Justice
that the investigation into the incident referred to by the applicant had
been registered under no. 1994/445 in the preliminary investigation
register at the Bismil public prosecutor's office. He further informed the
Ministry that, in the course of this investigation, statements had been
taken from the complainants Halise and Hüsna Acar, from the witnesses
İhsan Acar and İlhan Ezer, and from the accused, Sergeant Ahmet Uyar,
former Bismil gendarmerie commander İzzet Cural and Harun Aça, and that a
request for judicial assistance had been sent to the Ankara Chief Public
Prosecutor for the purposes of obtaining a statement from Ahmet Babayiğit.
The Bismil public prosecutor lastly stated that, upon receipt of Ahmet
Babayiğit's statement, he would issue a decision. 161. On 21 August 1996
the Ministry of the Interior transmitted Hüsna Acar's petition of 5 August
1996 (see paragraph 95 above) to the Diyarbakır police headquarters,
requesting the latter to investigate the allegations set out in the
petition, to institute the required proceedings and to communicate the
results of the investigation to the Ministry of the Interior and to Hüsna
Acar. 162. On 29 August 1996, referring to an order of 21 August 1996,
the Diyarbakır police headquarters informed the Bismil District Governor
that Hüsna Acar's daughter Meliha Dal was living in Diyarbakır and
transmitted a statement that had been taken from her on 29 August 1996 in
connection with the petition filed with the Ministry of the Interior on 5
August 1996 by Hüsna Acar. 163. In her statement Meliha Dal declared that
she had lived in Diyarbakır for seven years. She stated that Mehmet Açan,
who – like her older brother Mehmet Salim Acar – was living in Ambar, had
had a quarrel with her brother in the café about a water pump in the
course of which Mehmet Açan had threatened her brother with
“disappearance” within three days. Three days later the Bismil gendarmerie
station commander, Captain İzzettin, and another person had come to the
village in a car without licence plates and asked for Mehmet Salim Acar.
He was told that Mehmet Salim was in the cotton field. Captain İzzettin
had then gone to the cotton field, where her brother was with his son
İhsan Acar and a man called İlhan. Captain İzzettin asked Mehmet Salim
Acar to show him the way to a place, made Mehmet Salim get into the car
and left. Nothing had been heard from Mehmet Salim since. According to
Meliha Dal, Captain İzzettin had handed Mehmet Salim Acar over to the
brothers Mehmet and Harun Açan in return for money. Her mother Hüsna and
her sister-in-law Halise knew this but, as Captain İzzettin was involved
and as he was a State official, they could not tell the truth as they were
frightened of being killed as well. Meliha Dal had heard from them what
she was now stating. 164. By a letter of 25 December 1996, sent in reply
to Hüsna Acar's petition of 11 December 1996 (see paragraph 99 above), the
Office of the President of Turkey informed Hüsna Acar that an instruction
had been issued to the Batman Provincial Governor to investigate her claim
and to inform the Office of the President of the result of the
investigation. Her petition was transmitted to the Batman Provincial
Governor on 27 December 1996.
On 2 January 1997 the Office of the Prime Minister wrote a letter with a
similar content to Hüsna Acar in respect of another petition she had sent
on 11 December 1996. 165. On 17 January 1997 the office of the Governor
of Diyarbakır informed Meliha Dal, in reply to her petition of 25 November
1996 (see paragraph 97 above), that an investigation had been conducted.
According to the findings of this investigation, Mehmet Selim Acar had
been abducted from his field in July 1994 by two unknown armed persons.
The gendarmerie district command had been informed about the matter and
had carried out an investigation. According to statements obtained from
witnesses, the two perpetrators were unknown in the region. The witnesses
further specified that they personally knew Captain İzzet Cural, NCO Ahmet
Korkmaz and Harun Aca and that these three men were definitely not among
the perpetrators. When the Bismil gendarmerie command had been informed of
the abduction, it was Captain İzzet Cural himself who had given the
necessary instructions, and the investigation conducted by the Bismil
public prosecutor was currently ongoing. 166. On 16 February 2000 Meliha
Dal informed the Diyarbakır public prosecutor that she had seen her
brother Mehmet Salih Acar on an NTV news broadcast on 3 February 2000. Her
brother's name and surname had been mentioned in this broadcast. It was
reported that her brother and two others had been apprehended in
Diyarbakır and taken into detention in Muş. She requested the Diyarbakır
public prosecutor to investigate the matter and to inform her whether her
brother was alive or dead. She sent an identical petition to the Governor
of Diyarbakır on 18 February 2000. 167. On 24 March 2000 the applicant
submitted a petition to the President of Turkey in relation to the
disappearance of his brother Mehmet Salim Acar. In this petition, the
applicant stated that, in the NTV news broadcast on 3 February 2000 around
11 p.m., it had been reported that three persons had been apprehended and
taken into detention in Muş and that one of them was called Mehmet Salih
Acar. His family had then applied to the Bismil police, the Bismil public
prosecutor, the Governor of Diyarbakır, the public prosecutor at the
Diyarbakır National Security Court, the Diyarbakır anti-terrorism police
authorities and the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie authorities. They
were told by the anti-terrorism branch that Mehmet Salim Acar did not wish
to see them and they were not given any information about his whereabouts
or his condition. The applicant requested the President to intervene in
order to find out what had happened to his brother. 168. In a written
statement dated 27 March 2000, Meliha Dal declared that she had gone to
the Bismil public prosecutor to enquire about her brother Mehmet Salim
Acar. She was told that three men by the name of Mehmet Salim Acar had
been apprehended but that their particulars (parents' names, date and
place of birth) did not match those of her brother. When she left the
public prosecutor's office, the latter's clerk, Mehdi, told her that her
brother was alive, that he was in the hands of the State and that he had
been sent into exile. He further told her that they had scared her brother
by threatening to destroy his family and that this was why he was
concealing himself from them. 169. By a letter of 18 April 2000, Meliha
Dal informed the Diyarbakır public prosecutor that two men had been sent
to her house and that she had made statements about having seen her
brother on television and having heard his name on television during a
news broadcast in which it was reported that three men had been
apprehended in Muş. The public prosecutor had, on her behalf, written and
sent a petition to Muş. The public prosecutor had said at the end of their
meeting that, as far as he understood, her brother was in the hands of the
authorities in Muş. 170. By a letter of 19 April 2000, the applicant's
representative informed the European Court of Human Rights that Meliha
Dal, Hüsna Acar and Halise Acar had been watching the news on NTV on 3
February 2000 around 11 p.m. when the newsreader announced that four men
had been apprehended in Diyarbakır, one of whom was named as Mehmet Selim
Acar. Pictures of the apprehended men had been shown and they had
recognised Mehmet Selim Acar as one of them. The women had continued to
watch television all night and they had seen him again the following day
at 8 a.m. The applicant's representative further informed the Court that,
on 4 February 2000, the three women had gone to the Bismil public
prosecutor to report their sighting on television of Mehmet Selim Acar and
that, on 16 February 2000, Meliha Dal had filed a petition about the
matter with the Diyarbakır public prosecutor and, on 18 February 2000,
with the Governor of Diyabakir. The family had further attempted to obtain
a video recording of the NTV news broadcast of 3 February 2000, but
without success. Referring to the applicant's petition of 24 March 2000 to
the President of Turkey, the applicant's representative finally informed
the Court that, so far, no information had been obtained from the
authorities contacted by the applicant about the whereabouts of Mehmet
Selim Acar. 171. Appended to this letter were, inter alia, Meliha Dal's
petitions of 16 and 18 February 2000 (see paragraph 166 above), a
statement dated 23 March 2000 in which Meliha Dal had declared that she
had seen her missing brother on television on 3 February 2000, the
applicant's petition of 24 March 2000 (see paragraph 167 above), Meliha
Dal's statement of 27 March 2000 (see paragraph 168 above), an undated
statement by Meliha Dal in which she declared that she had seen her
brother Mehmet Salim Acar on a television news broadcast on 1 February
2000 around 11 p.m. and 2 February 2000 around 8 a.m., an undated
statement by Halise Acar stating that she had seen her husband Mehmet
Salih Acar on television one day, and an undated statement by Hüsna Acar
stating that, quite a long while after his disappearance, she had seen her
son Mehmet Salih Acar on television. 172. On 28 April 2000, having taken
note of the letter of 19 April 2000 and the appended documents, the Court
requested the Government to submit a copy of the NTV news broadcasts
referred to by the applicant's representative, to confirm that Mehmet
Salim Acar had in fact been shown and named during these broadcasts, to
inform the Court of the circumstances of Mehmet Salim Acar's arrest, and
to confirm whether he was currently being detained and, if so, to indicate
in which detention facility. 173. By a letter of 22 May 2000, in response
to the Court's request of 28 April 2000, the Diyarbakır Chief Public
Prosecutor informed the Ministry of Justice that a person named Mehmet
Selim Acar (son of Süleyman and Pevruze, born in 1965 in Sivrice) had been
detained on 9 December 1996 and was currently serving a prison sentence in
Gaziantep, and that a person named Salih Acar (son of Musa and Besnadan,
born in 1979 in Batman) had been detained on 19 April 2000 and was
currently being held in pre-trial detention in Batman. 174. On 30 May
2000, in response to the complaint filed by Meliha Dal, the Diyarbakır
public prosecutor decided not to open an investigation. This decision
reads:
“The complainant stated in her petition that her brother had disappeared
six years ago and that nothing had been heard from him since, that she
recognised one of the men shown on a news programme in February about
persons apprehended during operations conducted against the terrorist
organisation Hizbullah, that this man's name was the same as her
brother's, and that she wished to be given the opportunity to watch a
video recording [of the news broadcast] so that she could identify her
brother.
It has been stated in the Muş Chief Public Prosecutor's decision of
non-jurisdiction dated 2 May 2000 that the person detained in the province
of Muş – a man called Mehmet Salih Acar, born in 1964 and the son of Yahya
and Ayşe – is not the complainant's brother, and it appears from the above
decision of non-jurisdiction and from the register of births that the
person detained in Muş, who was put on trial by the Chief Public
Prosecutor of the Van National Security Court, is not the complainant's
brother.
It is therefore concluded, in accordance with Article 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and subject to the right of appeal, that there is no
basis for pursuing the matter ...” 175. On 6 July 2000 the Government
informed the Court that the person apprehended and named in the NTV news
broadcast was not the applicant's brother and that there were several
persons in detention with similar names to the applicant's brother.
According to the Government, it was in all probability a case of a
confusion of names. 176. On 13 July 2000 the Court reminded the
Government of its still outstanding request of 28 April 2000 to be given
the video recording of the NTV news broadcast referred to by the
applicant's representative. 177. In a statement dated 28 September 2000,
submitted to the Court on 4 October 2000, Meliha Dal declared that she had
seen her brother Mehmet Salim Acar in an NTV news broadcast on 2 February
2000 at 8 p.m. and 3 February 2000 at 8 a.m. 178. On 18 October 2000 the
Court requested the applicant's representative also to submit a video
recording of the news broadcast referred to by the applicant's relatives.
179. By a letter of 24 January 2001, the NTV administration informed the
applicant's representative that it could not grant his request. The
required footage could only be made available upon a request made by the
applicant himself. On the same day the applicant sent by fax a request to
the NTV administration to be provided with a video recording of the NTV
news programmes broadcast on 2 February 2000 at 11 p.m. and 3 February
2000 at 8 a.m. 180. In the meantime, on 17 January 2001, the Government
had submitted to the Court a video recording containing the NTV news
broadcasts of 3 February 2000 at 11 a.m. and 11 p.m. 181. On 16 February
2001 the applicant sent a reminder of his request of 24 January 2001 to
the NTV administration, explaining that the video recording submitted by
the Government to the Court did not contain the relevant news broadcasts.
182. On 20 February 2001 the applicant informed the Court that the video
recording submitted by the Government did not contain the relevant news
broadcasts, namely, those of 2 February 2000 at 11 p.m. and 3 February
2000 at 8 a.m. 183. On 26 February 2001 the Court requested both parties
to submit a video recording containing the NTV news broadcasts of 2
February 2000 at 11 p.m. and 3 February 2000 at 8 a.m. 184. On 30 March
2001 the applicant informed the NTV administration that he had received
the video recordings of the NTV news broadcasts of 2 February 2000 at 11
p.m. and 3 February 2000 at 8 a.m., but that these did not contain the
relevant news item. He requested the NTV administration to search for the
news item reporting the arrest of four men in Diyarbakır and their
subsequent taking into detention in Muş or Van in the television news
programmes broadcast between 31 January 2000 and 6 February 2000. 185. By
a letter of 2 May 2001, in reply to a request made by the Government in
April 2001, a lawyer employed by NTV informed the Government that their
request to be provided with a copy of the NTV news programmes broadcast on
2 February 2000 at 11 p.m. and 3 February 2000 at 8 a.m. could not be met
as it concerned broadcasts of more than one year ago. It was pointed out
that, under section 28 of Law no. 3984 and Article 23 of the Regulation on
Procedures concerning Radio and Television Programmes, broadcasting
organisations were obliged to keep copies of each broadcast programme for
one year. The Government informed the Court of this outcome on 13 June
2001.
sentences:
- >-
Individual applications The Court may receive applications from any
person, nongovernmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to
be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of
the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. The
High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the
effective exercise of this right.
- >-
Right to life 1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No
one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of
a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this
penalty is provided by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded
as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the
use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence
of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful
arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c) in
action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or
insurrection.
- >-
Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled
to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent
and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced
publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of
the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security
in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the
protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the
extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special
circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent
until proved guilty according to law. 9 3. Everyone charged with a
criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed
promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate
time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend
himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if
he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it
free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have
examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and
examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as
witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter
if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
- source_sentence: >-
9. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bingöl. 10. On 15 October
1993 the applicant and two days later his wife, Mrs N.F., were taken into
police custody in Bingöl on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal
terrorist organisation, namely the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan). 11.
Mrs F. was held in police custody for four days, during which period she
was allegedly kept blindfolded. The police officers allegedly hit her with
truncheons, insulted her verbally and threatened her with rape. 12. On 20
October 1993, following her detention in police custody, Mrs F. was
examined by a doctor, who reported that there were no signs of
ill-treatment on her body. On the same day she was taken to a
gynaecologist for a further examination. The police requested that the
report should indicate whether she had had vaginal or anal intercourse
while in custody. Despite her refusal, Mrs F. was forced by the police
officers to undergo a gynaecological examination. The police officers
remained on the premises while Mrs F. was examined behind a curtain. The
doctor reported that she had not had any sexual intercourse in the days
preceding the examination. 13. On the same day Mrs F. was taken to the
Bingöl public prosecutor's office, where she complained about her forced
gynaecological examination. The public prosecutor did not record her
complaints and ordered her release. 14. On 28 October 1993 the public
prosecutor at the Diyarbakır National Security Court charged the applicant
and his wife with aiding and abetting members of the PKK. 15. On 23 March
1994 the Diyarbakır National Security Court acquitted the applicant and
his wife for lack of evidence. 16. On 9 February 1995, the applicant and
his wife complained to the Bingöl public prosecutor about their
ill-treatment while in police custody. They further complained that Mrs F.
had been forced to undergo a gynaecological examination without her
consent. 17. The police officers denied the allegations in statements
made before the Bingöl public prosecutor. They submitted that it had been
necessary for a gynaecological examination to be performed in order to
determine whether Mrs F. had been sexually assaulted while in police
custody. They further submitted that the examination had been performed
with her consent. 18. On 5 October 1995 the Bingöl public prosecutor
decided not to prosecute the police officers for lack of evidence. The
applicant and his wife appealed. 19. On 29 November 1995 the Muş Assize
Court quashed the public prosecutor's decision on the ground that there
had been insufficient examination of the evidence in the investigation
file. 20. On 19 December 1995 the Bingöl public prosecutor charged three
police officers with, inter alia, violating Mrs F.'s private life by
forcing her to undergo a gynaecological examination. 21. On 16 May 1996
the Bingöl Assize Court acquitted the defendant police officers on the
ground that the complainants had not provided sufficient convincing
evidence in support of their allegations. The court held that the police
officers had had no intention of subjecting the applicant's wife to
degrading and humiliating treatment when they made her undergo a
gynaecological examination, but were trying to protect themselves against
a possible accusation of rape. The applicant and his wife appealed. 22.
On 7 May 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the Bingöl Assize Court's
judgment.
sentences:
- >-
Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right
to respect for his private and family life, his home and his
correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority
with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the
law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of
national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the
country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of
health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of
others.
- >-
Prohibition of torture No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Have agreed as follows:
- >-
Right to life 1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No
one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of
a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this
penalty is provided by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded
as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the
use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence
of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful
arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c) in
action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or
insurrection.
- source_sentence: >-
7. The applicants were born in 1945 and 1941 respectively and live in
Gdańsk. 8. The applicants share a plot of land and a house with another
family (hereinafter: the neighbours). 9. On 17 June 1987 they filed with
the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a petition in which they
requested that the co-ownership of the plot of land and the house be
dissolved. 10. On 19 April 1989 the court forbade the neighbours to carry
out any modifications in the cellar until the completion of the
proceedings. On 27 September 1989 a similar order concerning the whole
house was issued in respect of the applicants. 11. On 3 June 1992 the
Gdańsk District Court gave judgment. The neighbours appealed and on 11
March 1993 the Gdańsk Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the
case for re-examination. 12. Subsequently, the District Court held a
number of hearings and ordered several expert opinions. 13. On 28 October
1996 it forbade the neighbours to carry out any works in the house. On 23
May 1997 the Regional Court dismissed their appeal against that decision.
14. In its letter of 30 January 1997 the Ministry of Justice confirmed
that the proceedings were lengthy and found that the applicants’
neighbours had contributed to the delay by their petitions contesting the
expert opinions. It further noted that since 1994 the President of the
Gdańsk Regional Court had supervised the course of the proceedings and
made monthly reports on their progress. However, the Ministry found these
measures ineffective and decided to take the proceedings under its
administrative supervision. 15. The proceedings are still pending.
sentences:
- >-
Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right
to respect for his private and family life, his home and his
correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority
with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the
law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of
national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the
country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of
health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of
others.
- >-
Right to marry Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry
and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the
exercise of this right.
- >-
Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled
to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent
and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced
publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of
the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security
in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the
protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the
extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special
circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent
until proved guilty according to law. 9 3. Everyone charged with a
criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed
promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate
time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend
himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if
he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it
free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have
examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and
examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as
witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter
if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
pipeline_tag: sentence-similarity
library_name: sentence-transformers
SentenceTransformer based on nlpaueb/legal-bert-base-uncased
This is a sentence-transformers model finetuned from nlpaueb/legal-bert-base-uncased. It maps sentences & paragraphs to a 768-dimensional dense vector space and can be used for retrieval.
Model Details
Model Description
- Model Type: Sentence Transformer
- Base model: nlpaueb/legal-bert-base-uncased
- Maximum Sequence Length: 512 tokens
- Output Dimensionality: 768 dimensions
- Similarity Function: Cosine Similarity
- Supported Modality: Text
Model Sources
- Documentation: Sentence Transformers Documentation
- Repository: Sentence Transformers on GitHub
- Hugging Face: Sentence Transformers on Hugging Face
Full Model Architecture
SentenceTransformer(
(0): Transformer({'transformer_task': 'feature-extraction', 'modality_config': {'text': {'method': 'forward', 'method_output_name': 'last_hidden_state'}}, 'module_output_name': 'token_embeddings', 'architecture': 'BertModel'})
(1): Pooling({'embedding_dimension': 768, 'pooling_mode': 'mean', 'include_prompt': True})
)
Usage
Direct Usage (Sentence Transformers)
First install the Sentence Transformers library:
pip install -U sentence-transformers
Then you can load this model and run inference.
from sentence_transformers import SentenceTransformer
# Download from the 🤗 Hub
model = SentenceTransformer("sentence_transformers_model_id")
# Run inference
sentences = [
'7. The applicants were born in 1945 and 1941 respectively and live in Gdańsk. 8. The applicants share a plot of land and a house with another family (hereinafter: the neighbours). 9. On 17 June 1987 they filed with the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a petition in which they requested that the co-ownership of the plot of land and the house be dissolved. 10. On 19 April 1989 the court forbade the neighbours to carry out any modifications in the cellar until the completion of the proceedings. On 27 September 1989 a similar order concerning the whole house was issued in respect of the applicants. 11. On 3 June 1992 the Gdańsk District Court gave judgment. The neighbours appealed and on 11 March 1993 the Gdańsk Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for re-examination. 12. Subsequently, the District Court held a number of hearings and ordered several expert opinions. 13. On 28 October 1996 it forbade the neighbours to carry out any works in the house. On 23 May 1997 the Regional Court dismissed their appeal against that decision. 14. In its letter of 30 January 1997 the Ministry of Justice confirmed that the proceedings were lengthy and found that the applicants’ neighbours had contributed to the delay by their petitions contesting the expert opinions. It further noted that since 1994 the President of the Gdańsk Regional Court had supervised the course of the proceedings and made monthly reports on their progress. However, the Ministry found these measures ineffective and decided to take the proceedings under its administrative supervision. 15. The proceedings are still pending.',
'Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 9 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.',
'Right to marry Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.',
]
embeddings = model.encode(sentences)
print(embeddings.shape)
# [3, 768]
# Get the similarity scores for the embeddings
similarities = model.similarity(embeddings, embeddings)
print(similarities)
# tensor([[1.0000, 0.7361, 0.2542],
# [0.7361, 1.0000, 0.3289],
# [0.2542, 0.3289, 1.0000]])
Training Details
Training Dataset
Unnamed Dataset
- Size: 12,180 training samples
- Columns:
sentence1,sentence2, andsentence3 - Approximate statistics based on the first 1000 samples:
sentence1 sentence2 sentence3 type string string string details - min: 149 tokens
- mean: 448.29 tokens
- max: 512 tokens
- min: 15 tokens
- mean: 216.86 tokens
- max: 422 tokens
- min: 15 tokens
- mean: 111.68 tokens
- max: 422 tokens
- Samples:
sentence1 sentence2 sentence3 11. At the beginning of the events relevant to the application, K. had a daughter, P., and a son, M., born in 1986 and 1988 respectively. P.’s father is X and M.’s father is V. From March to May 1989 K. was voluntarily hospitalised for about three months, having been diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia. From August to November 1989 and from December 1989 to March 1990, she was again hospitalised for periods of about three months on account of this illness. In 1991 she was hospitalised for less than a week, diagnosed as suffering from an atypical and undefinable psychosis. It appears that social welfare and health authorities have been in contact with the family since 1989. 12. The applicants initially cohabited from the summer of 1991 to July 1993. In 1991 both P. and M. were living with them. From 1991 to 1993 K. and X were involved in a custody and access dispute concerning P. In May 1992 a residence order was made transferring custody of P. to X. 13. K. was again hospitalis...Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens Collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited.9. In June 1949 plots of agricultural land owned by the applicant’s father were expropriated by the former Doksy District National Council (okresní národní výbor) under the Czechoslovak New Land Reform Act No. 46/1948 (“the 1948 Act”). The applicant’s father had never obtained any compensation. In 1957 some of these plots were transferred to the ownership of natural persons in an assignment procedure under the 1948 Act. In 1977 the applicant’s father died and the applicant’s rights over his estate were confirmed. 10. After the fall of the communist regime in Czechoslovakia, the Act No. 229/1991 on Adjustment of Ownership Rights in respect of Land and Other Agricultural Property (“zákon o půdě”, the “Land Ownership Act”) entered into force on 24 June 1991. The Act provided that the 1948 Act was no longer applicable and that under certain conditions property confiscated pursuant to that Act without compensation could be returned to its former owners or their heirs if it was still in th...Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 9 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the acc...Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the...8. In 1991 Mr Dušan Slobodník, a research worker in the field of literature, published an autobiography entitled Paragraph: Polar Circle. He described in it, inter alia, his conviction by a Soviet military tribunal in 1945 on the ground that he had been ordered to spy on the Soviet army after having been enrolled, in 1944 when he was 17 years old, in a military training course organised by Germans. In the book, Mr Slobodník also wrote about his detention in Soviet gulags and his rehabilitation by the Supreme Court of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics in 1960. In June 1992 Mr Slobodník became Minister for Culture and Education of the Slovak Republic. 9. On 20 July 1992 the newspaper Telegraf published a poem by the applicant. It was dated 17 July 1992 (the day when the sovereignty of the Slovak Republic was solemnly proclaimed) and entitled “Good night, my beloved” (“Dobrú noc, má milá”). One of its verses read as follows:“In Prague prisoner Havel is giving up his president... Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.Prohibition of torture No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Have agreed as follows: - Loss:
MultipleNegativesRankingLosswith these parameters:{ "scale": 20.0, "similarity_fct": "cos_sim", "gather_across_devices": false, "directions": [ "query_to_doc" ], "partition_mode": "joint", "hardness_mode": null, "hardness_strength": 0.0 }
Training Hyperparameters
Non-Default Hyperparameters
per_device_train_batch_size: 16learning_rate: 2e-05warmup_steps: 0.1fp16: True
All Hyperparameters
Click to expand
do_predict: Falseprediction_loss_only: Trueper_device_train_batch_size: 16per_device_eval_batch_size: 8gradient_accumulation_steps: 1eval_accumulation_steps: Nonetorch_empty_cache_steps: Nonelearning_rate: 2e-05weight_decay: 0.0adam_beta1: 0.9adam_beta2: 0.999adam_epsilon: 1e-08max_grad_norm: 1.0num_train_epochs: 3max_steps: -1lr_scheduler_type: linearlr_scheduler_kwargs: Nonewarmup_ratio: Nonewarmup_steps: 0.1log_level: passivelog_level_replica: warninglog_on_each_node: Truelogging_nan_inf_filter: Trueenable_jit_checkpoint: Falsesave_on_each_node: Falsesave_only_model: Falserestore_callback_states_from_checkpoint: Falseuse_cpu: Falseseed: 42data_seed: Nonebf16: Falsefp16: Truebf16_full_eval: Falsefp16_full_eval: Falsetf32: Nonelocal_rank: -1ddp_backend: Nonedebug: []dataloader_drop_last: Falsedataloader_num_workers: 0dataloader_prefetch_factor: Nonedisable_tqdm: Falseremove_unused_columns: Truelabel_names: Noneload_best_model_at_end: Falseignore_data_skip: Falsefsdp: []fsdp_config: {'min_num_params': 0, 'xla': False, 'xla_fsdp_v2': False, 'xla_fsdp_grad_ckpt': False}accelerator_config: {'split_batches': False, 'dispatch_batches': None, 'even_batches': True, 'use_seedable_sampler': True, 'non_blocking': False, 'gradient_accumulation_kwargs': None}parallelism_config: Nonedeepspeed: Nonelabel_smoothing_factor: 0.0optim: adamw_torch_fusedoptim_args: Nonegroup_by_length: Falselength_column_name: lengthproject: huggingfacetrackio_space_id: trackioddp_find_unused_parameters: Noneddp_bucket_cap_mb: Noneddp_broadcast_buffers: Falsedataloader_pin_memory: Truedataloader_persistent_workers: Falseskip_memory_metrics: Truepush_to_hub: Falseresume_from_checkpoint: Nonehub_model_id: Nonehub_strategy: every_savehub_private_repo: Nonehub_always_push: Falsehub_revision: Nonegradient_checkpointing: Falsegradient_checkpointing_kwargs: Noneinclude_for_metrics: []eval_do_concat_batches: Trueauto_find_batch_size: Falsefull_determinism: Falseddp_timeout: 1800torch_compile: Falsetorch_compile_backend: Nonetorch_compile_mode: Noneinclude_num_input_tokens_seen: noneftune_noise_alpha: Noneoptim_target_modules: Nonebatch_eval_metrics: Falseeval_on_start: Falseuse_liger_kernel: Falseliger_kernel_config: Noneeval_use_gather_object: Falseaverage_tokens_across_devices: Trueuse_cache: Falseprompts: Nonebatch_sampler: batch_samplermulti_dataset_batch_sampler: proportionalrouter_mapping: {}learning_rate_mapping: {}
Training Logs
| Epoch | Step | Training Loss |
|---|---|---|
| 0.6562 | 500 | 2.5875 |
| 1.3123 | 1000 | 2.3216 |
| 1.9685 | 1500 | 2.2555 |
| 2.6247 | 2000 | 2.1670 |
Training Time
- Training: 44.4 minutes
Framework Versions
- Python: 3.12.13
- Sentence Transformers: 5.4.1
- Transformers: 5.0.0
- PyTorch: 2.10.0+cu128
- Accelerate: 1.13.0
- Datasets: 4.0.0
- Tokenizers: 0.22.2
Citation
BibTeX
Sentence Transformers
@inproceedings{reimers-2019-sentence-bert,
title = "Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks",
author = "Reimers, Nils and Gurevych, Iryna",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
month = "11",
year = "2019",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10084",
}
MultipleNegativesRankingLoss
@misc{oord2019representationlearningcontrastivepredictive,
title={Representation Learning with Contrastive Predictive Coding},
author={Aaron van den Oord and Yazhe Li and Oriol Vinyals},
year={2019},
eprint={1807.03748},
archivePrefix={arXiv},
primaryClass={cs.LG},
url={https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.03748},
}