CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 28 novembre 1994

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                          Application No. 23182/94                        by Rabia DÜNDAR                        against Turkey        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 28 November 1994 , the following members being present:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  A. WEITZEL                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            MM.    F. MARTINEZ                  C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  G.B. REFFI                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  D. SVÁBY                  G. RESS              Mr.    H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 20 December 1993 by Rabia Dündar against Turkey and registered on 5 January 1994 under file No. 23182/94;        Having regard to :   -     the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of      the Commission;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant, a Turkish national of Kurdish origin, born in 1953, was resident in the village of Güldiken in the Lice district. She and her family are now resident in the city of Diyarbakir. She is represented before the Commission by Professor Kevin Boyle and Ms. Françoise Hampson, both university teachers at the University of Essex.        The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows:        On 24 June 1993, a raid was organised on the 200-household village of Güldiken by around 600 soldiers and Special Team members. The village were blockaded.        At around 6 a.m. 25 soldiers of the Lice and Diyarbakir Gendarme stations surrounded the applicant's house. The applicant, her spouse and her 8 children were in the house. The security forces, under the order of N.A., the Lice Gendarme Station commander, came inside and took them all out by the arm.        Then the soldiers collected the 5 quilts, 8 pillows, 5 mattresses, 3 carpets, 5 blankets, the sideboard, all the kitchenware, 2 sacks of flour, 2 sacs of bulgar, 2 sacks of rice and everything in the house, put them in one room, poured petrol on them and set them alight. The soldiers waited until everything had completely burnt. During the fire, they said to the applicant's family "You help terrorists, if the terrorists are fish in water, then you represent the water, and we shall kill the fish by drying up the water". The soldiers left the house without taking anyone into custody.        The applicant did not apply to any institution in relation to this incident.        After their house was burnt down the applicant and her family moved to Diyarbakir. They rented a 2-roomed house there. They have no income other than the help of people around.   COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains of violations of Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 14 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of the First Protocol.        As to Article 3 she states that the military operation which involved the destruction of her home and possessions and the forced expulsion of the villagers, including herself and her family, is a form of collective punishment and constitutes inhuman treatment or punishment. She also refers to discrimination on grounds of race or ethnic origin.        As to Article 5 she complains of complete lack of security of the person.        As to Article 6 she refers to the lack of a procedure whereby she may have a fair and public hearing and challenge in an independent court or tribunal the deprivation of her civil rights.        As to Article 8 the applicant complains of the destruction of her home and personal belongings.        As to Article 14 she complains of discrimination which has affected the enjoyment of her rights under Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of the First Protocol.        As to Article 18 she alleges that the interferences in the exercise of her Convention rights were not designed to secure the ends permitted under the Convention.        As to Article 1 of the First Protocol, the applicant complains of the destruction of her goods and property.        As to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the applicant states that the acts of destruction of villages are officially approved policies of the State. She also states that as part of a counter insurgency strategy the respondent Government is targeting civilians. The applicant claims that she is released from any obligation to pursue a domestic remedy under Article 26 of the Convention, because no remedy in the circumstances could possibly prove adequate or effective. In this regard she refers to arguments presented in two previous applications (Nos. 21893/93 Akduvar v. Turkey and 21895/93 Cagirge v. Turkey).     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 20 December 1993 and registered on 7 January 1994.        On 5 April 1994 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the Turkish Government who were invited to submit their observations on its admissibility and merits before 8 July 1994. At the Government's request, this time-limit was subsequently extended until 8 August 1994.        By letter of 6 September 1994 the Commission's Secretary pointed out to the Government that the period for the submission of the Government's observations had expired long ago and that no extension of that time-limit had been requested. It was added that the application was being considered for inclusion in the list of cases for examination by the Commission at its October or November session.        No observations have been submitted by the Turkish Government.   THE LAW        The applicant complains of violations of Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 14 and 18 (Art. 3, 5, 6, 8, 14, 18) of the Convention and Article 1 of the First Protocol (P1-1) in connection with a military raid on her village, in the course of which her home and possessions were destroyed.        The Government, which have been informed that the application was considered for inclusion in the agenda of the Commission at its present session, have submitted no observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.        It is the normal practice of the Commission, where a case has been communicated to the respondent Government, not to declare the application inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, unless this matter has been raised by the Government in their observations. The Commission considers that the same principle should be applied where, as in the present case, the respondent Government have not submitted any observations at all.        It follows that the application cannot be rejected on the ground that the domestic remedies have not been exhausted.        Moreover, the Commission is of the opinion that the application raises important questions of fact and law which cannot be resolved at the stage of the admissibility but require an examination on the merits. The application cannot therefore be considered manifestly ill- founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention and no other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.   For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,   DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the Commission             President of the Commission          (H.C. KRÜGER)                     (C.A. NØRGAARD)