Enforced Disappearances and the Conduct of Judiciary in Turkey

 

In Turkey, where democracy has continuously been interrupted by coups, state of emergency regimes and various antidemocratic forms of governing, it is an established fact that when there is an allegation that state agents are responsible for human rights violations, a colossal shield of impunity is put in effect, the responsible parties are protected and supported, and the evidences are immediately covered up.  Impunity is an extremely widespread state practice manifested across the board in a range of crimes committed against political dissidents, Armenians, Kurds, Greeks, women, human rights defenders, LGBTI individuals, the press, and during Gezi events.

Turkey has not brought to account those responsible for neither past nor recent and current human rights violations against Kurds, the systematic and widespread violence exerted in the 90s, or the savage practices perpetrated during periods of military coup regimes. This ongoing practice blatantly demonstrates that state authorities do not have the desire to truly struggle against this continuous state tradition, and do not have much regard for accountability.

The main obstacle to ending such practice of impunity in the judicial field is not only due to shortcomings in the law, but also the lack of will to enforce the law or the interpretation of the loopholes in favor of perpetrators, when the involvement of state authorities in lawless activities is alleged.

I – Enforced Disappearances and the Conduct of the Judiciary

Through its focus on the subject of enforced disappearances,

Hakikat Adalet Hafıza Merkezi (Hafıza Merkezi, engl. Truth Justice Memory Center) aims to analyze the state policy of impunity. Since its foundation in 2011, Hafıza Merkezi has conducted fieldwork of various scales in eight cities, namely Şırnak, Diyarbakır, Mardin, Batman, Hakkari, Bursa, İstanbul, Ankara and in numerous districts of these cities, to obtain information on how the judicial processes concerning forcibly disappeared people are carried out.

Toward this goal, legal data obtained through the fieldwork have been analyzed in accordance with the criteria of the state’s national law and obligations under international law. The materials studied include, in sum, case records/investigation files in trials on enforced disappearances, complaints filed, judgments relating to domestic law, and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments.

II – Analysis Results in Brief

Legal data pertaining to a total of 310 forcibly disappeared people had been obtained, and these data were compared with the factual narratives of the relatives of the disappeared and evaluated.

The results revealed that the complaints are specifically about five groups of government officials and/or paramilitary forces; primarily JİTEM, and also MİT (National Intelligence Organization), the Special Forces Command and police officers, informants and village guards affiliated with them.

II.a. Problems in the Investigation Process

Protracting investigations. Average time elapsed for investigations since the date of the crime to present day is 19 years and 9 months. Despite the long period of time elapsed since, the investigations into the disappearance of 202 people were protracted, the investigation concerning 9 people was closed with the decision of statute of limitations, and the decision of non-prosecution concerning 16 people led to no charges being pressed against their perpetrators. Criminal cases have been filed concerning the enforced disappearance of 83 people.

chart

Updated as of October 2016. To be updated periodically based on new documentation of legal cases.

On the contrary, it has been established that 69 applications have been made to the European Court of Human Rights concerning 133 of the 310 forcibly disappeared people whose legal data have been analyzed. According to the data, the European Court of Human Rights, contrary to the course of domestic proceedings, ruled that Turkey has violated the European Convention of Human Rights in 51 applications concerning 102 people. In seven applications concerning 14 people the state proposed friendly settlements. Thus, the responsibility of Turkey was established in 116 of the 131 forcibly disappeared people and 58 of the 69 applications on the whole. 11 applications concerning 17 people were found inadmissible and not reviewed.

Crime of Enforced Disappearance in Turkey. The crime of enforced disappearance is not defined in Turkish Criminal Code number 5237, which is in force, whereas crimes against humanity are defined in Article 77. However, the definition of crime against humanity is significantly different from the one in the International Criminal Court Statute. Some of the acts enumerated in the Statute are not included in the Turkish Criminal Code, which further seeks the condition of the perpetrator to act with specific intent thereby severely limiting the scope of the crime.

Statute of limitations. Since enforced disappearance is not a crime in Turkey, Articles 448-450 and 102/1 of the former Turkish Criminal Code, which was the law in effect when the crime was committed and regulating the crime of murder, is applied to enforced disappearances, and it is held that the statute of limitations is 20 years in investigations. The link between enforced disappearances and state authorities, and their systematic and widespread character is overlooked, and they are treated as singular cases of murder, so that subjected to the statute of limitations law of 20-years. Therefore it may be said that a large portion of the investigations into the crimes committed in the 1990s are either barred by the statute of limitations or under such risk.

Ineffective investigations. The analysis of Hafıza Merkezi led to the following conclusions:

  • Required inquiries and identifications were not completed, evidence was not collected at the crime scenes, and reasonable measures were not taken to protect the evidence, which might emerge over time;
  • Information/documents given by law enforcement officers, who are also suspects allegedly, were accepted as evidence;
  • In situations where the disappeared persons were killed as a result of torture, records were kept as if they were killed in clashes, and fake evidence was generated through falsified records;
  • Prevarication of the investigation on the basis of assumptions that there is a connection with the PKK although there is no concrete data to this effect;
  • Testimonies were generally not obtained from suspects, and in cases where they were obtained from them, very limited suspect statements were considered adequate;
  • Law-enforcement officers, government employees and administrative employees who could potentially provide information about the crime were not duly interrogated;
  • State agents who opposed the use of illegal methods and gave information on crimes could not be protected;
  • Even in cases including witnesses who saw the disappeared in police stations/gendarmerie/illegal interrogation rooms and in fact provided names, no testimony was obtained from them, and where their testimonies were actually heard, they were not deemed credible;
  • Relevant information was not obtained from relatives of the disappeared during investigations;
  • Inquests were rarely performed, and autopsy procedures were not carried out completely and in keeping with legal standards; and
  • There was no investigation of the organizational links among suspects, and the chain of command of which suspects were a part was not taken into consideration.

Problems arising from the absence of a separate judicial police force. In Turkish legal system, the police force has the dual task of preventing and investigating the crime. The first task is of an administrative nature and is carried out by the “administrative police”, whereas the second task is of a judicial nature and is carried out by the “judicial police”. With this the overlapping between judicial security forces and perpetrators or the existence of any kinds of relations creates the grounds for judicial security forces to obstruct the investigation.

Security officials carrying out the investigations are suspects. The security official, who carries out the investigation, is also the perpetrator for most of the cases. This leads to serious abuse and deficiencies in the collection, preservation and the spoliation of evidence. In cases where perpetrators are not the investigators in person, other persons, or units, affiliated with the same organization, and with which the perpetrator has professional, hierarchical and personal relationships have been observed to carry out investigations.

Perpetrator continuing to serve duty. The fact that the public officials facing claims that they have committed crimes continue to serve while the investigation continues forms an obstruction to the appropriate and reliable conduct of the investigation.

Subjection of the victims’ relatives to oppression during the investigation. The authority of public officials upon victims and complainants, leads, in practice, to hesitation regarding applications against public officials, the changing of testimonies as a result of pressure they face, or the withdrawal of applications.

The permission system. The adjudication of civil servants and other public officials for crimes they have committed in office is subject to a permission to be received from the relevant competent administrative authority. If a request for permission is rejected, the prosecutor’s investigation is blocked. Although the necessity of the separate investigation method is defended on the basis of the need for continuous and regular functioning of public services, in practice, this becomes a privilege and eliminates the accountability of public officials.

Non-specialized prosecutors. In March 2014, specially authorized courts were abolished with the Law no. 6526 on Amending Provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act, the Code of Criminal Procedures and Other Laws. It could be said that the aim of this abolishment is to end the imbalance of authority and power among judges and prosecutors in the judicial system. However, the files that were being examined by specially authorized prosecutors, which are mostly related to the gross violations of human rights in 1990s, were transferred to local prosecutors’ offices, where the prosecutors are not equipped to investigate these kinds of incidents.

II.b. Obstacles to Effective Prosecution

A total of 14 criminal cases were opened concerning the enforced disappearance of 83 people. Seven of these cases, which pertained to the enforced disappearance of 34 people, resulted in acquittals. Five cases concerning the enforced disappearance of 47 people are still continuing. Only two cases concerning 2 people resulted in decisions of conviction.[1]

chart-2

Updated as of October 2016. To be updated periodically based on new documentation of legal cases.

Four of these cases conducted in 1990s and resulted in the conviction of low level members of the security forces, who received nominal, low sentences[2] or decision of acquittal.[3] In the same manner, there was no attempt to examine higher level involvement of the state authorities or whether the violations were a matter of state policy.

Limited scope of the indictments. Prosecutions are initiated with limited scope. Each incident is considered as a stand-alone case and therefore the systematic, organized and widespread structure of the violations is disregarded.

Transfer of cases. Most of the prosecutions initiated have been transferred to another city other than the place of the offenses by the decision of the Ministry of Justice due to “security reason”.[4] Such transfers obstruct the relatives and lawyers of the victims to follow the proceeding properly and cause financial burdens due to transportation costs. Also most of the trials have been transferred to the cities where a strong Turkish nationalism is hegemonic and thus, it raises the question whether such transfers were politically motivated and intentional.

Excessive duration of trials. The duration of trials are excessive due to the fact that hearings are held by minimum 3-months intervals and the documentation requested from official authorities are not submitted to the courts in due time.

Lack of impartiality and independence. The difference in the attitudes of the judges towards victims and their lawyers in comparison with defendants and their lawyers is striking. Taking closer interest to the evidences submitted by the defendants, which are in fact usually prepared by themselves, affects the impartiality of the courts. The fact that the promotion, appointment and disciplinary procedures of judges and prosecutors are regulated by the Supreme Council of Judges and Prosecutors, in which the Minister of Justice and Undersecretary of the Ministry are natural members, exacerbates the conflict of interest, and exposes judges and prosecutors to political pressures applied by the executive power.

Non application of victim protection. The testimonies of witnesses in such trials are crucial due to lack of other material evidences. However, there is very limited application of witness protection in the trials relating to the crimes committed by state officials.


Table of the enforced disappearances cases

Name of the case The Case of Kızıltepe Jitem
Start date of the case 3 March 2015
Current Situation The case is pending adjudication
Defendants Kızıltepe Gendarmerie Commander Hasan Atilla Uğur, Diyarbakır Provincial Gendarmerie Commander of the period Colonel Eşref Hatipoğlu, former village guards İsmet Kandemir, Abdurrahman Kurga, Mehmet Salih Kılıçarslan, Mehmet Emin Kurga, former district president of MHP (Nationalist Movement Party) Ramazan Çetin, master sergeant Ünal Alkan and Ahmet Boncuk.
Offenses Establishing an armed organization, being a member of an armed organization and deliberately murdering.
Victims 22 people, who were either extra judicially and arbitrarily killed or forcibly disappeared, namely, Abdulvehap Yiğit, Süleyman Ünal, Mehmet Nuri Yiğit, Tacettin Yiğit, Zübeyir Birlik, Abdulbaki Birlik, Kemal Birlik, Zeki Alabalık, Menduh Demir, Nurettin Yalçınkaya, Necat Yalçınkaya, Mehmet Emin Abak, Hıdır Öztürk, Abdulvahap Ateş, Mahmut Abak, Yusuf Tunç, Şeyhmus Kaban, İzzettin Yiğit, Yusuf Çakar, Abdurrahman Öztürk, Mehmet Ali Yiğit, Abdulbaki Yiğit.
Date and place of the crime Between the years 1993 and 1996 / the town of Kızıltepe in Mardin province
Authorized court Ankara 5th High Criminal Court
Transferring status From Mardin to Ankara

 

 

Name of the case The Case of Temizöz and Others
Start date of the case 11 September 2009
End date of the case 5 October 2015
Case result Decision of acquittal of all the defandants
Current Situation The case is before the Supreme Court of Appeals
Defendants Gendarmerie Senior Colonel Cemal Temizöz, Kamil Atağ, Kukel Atağ, Temer Atağ, Adem Yakin, Abdulhakim Güven, Hıdır Altuğ and Burhanettin Kıyak
Offenses Establishing an organization to commit crimes, being a member of this organization, incitement to murder, committing murder
Victims 20 people, who were either extra judicially and arbitrarily killed or forcibly disappeared, namely, Ramazan Elçi, Ramazan Uykur, Abdullah Efelti, İbrahim Adak, Mehmet Gürri Özer, İbrahim Danış, Abdurrahman Afşar, Abdurrahman Akyol, İhsan Arslan, Beşir Bayar, Abdurrezzak Binzet, İzzet Padır, Abdullah Özdemir, Mustafa Aydın, Süleyman Gasyak, Abdülaziz Gasyak, Ömer Candoruk and Yahya Akman.
Date and place of the crime Between the years 1993 and 1995 / the town of the Cizre in Şırnak province
Authorized court Eskişehir 2nd High Criminal Court
Transferring status From Şırnak to Eskişehir
European Court Of Human Rights’ Judgment: Gasyak and others v. Turkey

Application no: 27872/03

The Court concluded that Turkey violated Article 2 (procedural aspect) of the European Convention on Human Rights on 19 October 2009.

 

 

Name of the case The Case of Yavuz Ertürk
Start date of the case 11 October 2013
Current Situation The case is pending adjudication
Defendants Bolu 2nd Commando Brigade Commander, retired General Yavuz Ertürk
Offenses To murder multiple persons for the same reason, to encourage people to revolt and murder each other, to establish an organization to commit crimes.
Victims 11 people, who were forcibly disappeared, namely, Bahri Şimşek, Nesrettin Yerlikaya, Turan Demir, Ümit Taş, Celal Aziz Aydoğdu, Abdo Yamuk, Mehmet Şerif Avar, Behçet Tutuş, Mehmet Salih Akdeniz, Mehmet Şah Atala and Hasan Avar.
Date and place of the crime 9 October 1993 / Alaca village of the town of Kulp in Diyarbakır province
Authorized court Ankara 7th High Criminal Court
Transferring status From Diyarbakır to Ankara
European Court Of Human Rights’ Judgment: Akdeniz and others v. Turkey

Application no: 23954/94

The Court concluded that Turkey violated Article 2 (both substantive and procedural aspect), Article 3 (in respect of both the eleven missing men and the applicants), Article 5 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights on 31 May 2001.

 

 

Name of the case The Case of Nezir Tekçi
Start date of the case 4 November 2011
End date of the case 11 September 2015
Case result Decision of acquittal of all the defendants.
Current Situation The case is before the Supreme Court of Appeals
Defendants Retired Lieutenant Kemal Alkan, retired Captain Ali Osman Akın
Offenses Murdering a person with monstrous feeling and torturing.
Victims Nezir Tekçi, who was forcibly disappeared.
Date and place of the crime In April of 1995 / Aşağı Ölçek hamlet of the town of Yüksekova in Hakkari province
Authorized court Eskişehir 1st Heavy Criminal Court
Transferring status From Hakkari to Eskişehir
European Court Of Human Rights’ Judgment: Tekçi and others v. Turkey

Application no: 13660/05

The Court ruled that Turkey violated Article 2 (both substantive and procedural aspect) of the European Convention on Human Rights on 10 December 2013.

 

Name of the case The Case of Mete Sayar
Start date of the case 5 November 2013
End date of the case 3 July 2015
Case result Decision of acquittal of all the defendants.
Current Situation The case is before the Supreme Court of Appeals
Defendants Gendarmerie Border Division Commander retired brigadier general Mete Sayar, Görümlü 1st Mechanized Infantry Battalion Commander retired Colonel Hasan Basri Vural, 3rd Squadron Commander Lieutenant İbrahim Kıraç, Captain Murat Ali Yıldız, Kayseri Airborne Brigade Lieutenant Serdar Tekin and Tansel Erok from 2nd Commando Battalion
Offenses To murder multiple persons.
Victims 6 people, , who were forcibly disappeared, namely, Şemdin Cülaz, İbrahim Akıl, Mehmet Salih Demirhan, Halit Özdemir, Hamdo Şimşek and Hükmet Şimşek.
Date and place of the crime 14 June 1993 / the town of Görümlü in Şırnak province
Authorized court Ankara 9th High Criminal Court
Transferring status From Şırnak to Ankara
European Court Of Human Rights’ Judgment: Culaz and others v. Turkey

Application nos: 7524/06, 39046/10  

The Court ruled that Turkey violated Article 2 (both substantive and procedural aspect) of the European Convention on Human Rights on 15 April 2014.

 

 

Name of the case The Case of Musa Çitil
Start date of the case 11 September 2012
End date of the case 21 May 2014
Case result Decision of acquittal
Current situation Supreme Court of Appeals approved the decision of acquittal on 2 June 2015.
Defendants Musa Çitil, who was the district gendarmerie commander with rank of captain in the town of Derik in Mardin province between the years 1992 and 1994 and continued to serve in Ankara gendarmerie regional command with the rank of brigadier general during the trials. On 8 June 2015, he was promoted to Major General promoted by Supreme Military Council (YAŞ) and appointed to Diyarbakır Gendarmerie Regional Commandership.
Offenses Murdering more than one person for the same reason.
Victims 13 people, who were either extra judicially and arbitrary killed or forcibly disappeared, namely, Seydoş Çeviren, Yusuf Çeviren, Abide Çeviren, Ahmet Çeviren, Ramazan Çeviren, Mehmet Nejat Arıs, Piro Ay, Vejdin Avcıl, Mehmet Erek, Ramazan Erek, Ahmet Erek, Mustafa Aydın and Mehmet Faysal Ötün.
Date and place of the crime Between the years 1992 and 1994 / Mardin province
Authorized court Çorum 2nd High Criminal Court
Transferring status from Mardin to Çorum

 

Name of the case The Case of Naim Kurt
Start date of the case 15 January 2014
End date of the case 22 December 2014
Case result Decision of acquittal
Current situation The case is now before the Supreme Court of Appeals
Defendants Muş Gendarmerie Commander Naim Kurt
Offenses To establish an organization to commit crimes, murdering multiple persons for the same reason, attempting to abet people to revolt and kill each other.
Victims 4 people, who were forcibly disappeared, namely, Mehmet Emin Bingöl, Mahmut Acar, Ali Can Öner and Yakup Tetik.
Date and place of the crime 6 November 1993 / Kızılağaç village of Muş province
Authorized court Muş High Criminal Court
Transferring status The case was transferred from Muş to Van. However it was transferred back to Muş after the abolishment of the specially authorized courts with the amendments made by Law No. 6526.

 

 

Name of the case The Case of Dargeçit Jitem
Start date of the case 1 October 2015
Current Situation The case is pending adjudication
Defendants Former Mardin Gendarmerie Commander Hurşit İmren, former Dargeçit Gendarmerie Commander Mehmet Tire (who is also former mayor candidate of Democrat Party for Gümüşlük town of Bodrum district in Muğla, and Çepni Beldesi, mayor for Çepni town in Sivas from People’s Republican Party), Gendarmerie Station Commander Mahmut Yılmaz, Gendarmerie Station Vice-Commander Haydar Topçam and driver in Gendarmerie Station Kerim Şahin
Offenses Murdering and instigating to murder.
Victims 8 people including one soldier Specialist Sergeant Bilal Batırır, who was tortured to death, Süleyman Seyhan, Nedim Akyön, Mehmet Emin Aslan, Seyhan Doğan, Davut Altınkaynak, Abdurrahman Olcay, Abdurrahman Coşkun, who were forcibly disappeared.
Date and place of the crime Between 30 October 1995 and 3 November 1995 / Dargeçit district of Mardin province
Authorized court Adıyaman 1st High Criminal Court
Transferring status from Midyat to Adıyaman
European Court Of Human Rights’ Judgment: Seyhan v. Turkey

Application no: 33384/96 

The Court concluded that Turkey violated Article 2 (procedural aspect) and Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights on 2 November 2004

 

 

Name of the case The Case of Jitem and Musa Anter
Start date of the case 23 December 2014
Current Situation On 29 January 2016, the Case of Musa Anter and the Case of JITEM were merged and the case is pending adjudication.
Defendants Mahmut Yıldırım (better known as Yeşil – Turkish for “Green”), Abdülkadir Aygan (Aziz Turan), Muhsin Gül, Fethi Çetin (Fırat Can Eren), Faysal Şanlı, Hayrettin Toka, Hüseyin Tilki (Hüseyin Eren), Ali Ozansoy (Ahmet Turan Altaylı), Adil Timurtaş, Recep Tiril (Recep Erkal), Kemal Emlük (Erhan Berrak), Saniye Emlük (Emel Berrak), İbrahim Babat (Hacı Hasan), Mehmet Zahit Karadeniz, Lokman Gündüz, Yüksel Uğur, chief village guard Hamit Yıldırım and Colonel Savaş Gevrekçi
Offenses Establishing an armed organization to commit a crime, murdering multiple persons, attempting to abet people to revolt and kill each other.
Victims 13 people, who were either extra judicially and arbitrary killed or forcibly disappeared, namely, Musa Anter, Harbi Arman, Lokman Zuğurli, Zana Zuğurli, Servet Aslan, Şahabettin Latifeci, Ahmet Ceylan, Mehmet Sıddık Etyemez, Abdülkadir Çelikbilek, Hasan Caner, Hasan Utanç, Tahsin Sevim, Mehmet Mehdi Kaydu
Date and place of the crime Between the years of 1992 and 1996 / Diyarbakır province
Authorized court Ankara 6th High Criminal Court
Transferring status from Diyarbakır to Ankara
European Court Of Human Rights’ Judgment: Celikbilek v. Turkey

Application No: 27693/95

 

The Court ruled that Turkey violated Article 2 (both substantive and procedural aspect), Article 13 and Article 38 of the European Convention on Human Rights on 31 May 2005.
European Court Of Human Rights’ Judgment: Arslan and others v. Turkey

Application No: 35880/05

 

The Court took note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties and satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols and found no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application.

 

 

Name of the case The case of Ankara Jitem
Start date of the case 16 May 2014
Current Situation The case is pending adjudication
Defendants Mehmet Ağar, İbrahim Şahin, Korkut Eken, Ayhan Çarkın, Ayhan Akça, Ziya Bandırmalıoğlu, Ercan Ersoy, Ahmet Demirel, Ayhan Özkan, Seyfettin Lap, Enver Ulu, Uğur Şahin, Alper Tekdemir, Yusuf Yüksel, Abbas Semih Sueri, Lokman Külünk, Mahmut Yıldırım, Nurettin Güven, Muhsin Korman
Offenses Murdering people within the scope of the activities of an armed organizations that established to commit crime
Victims 19 people, who were either extra judicially and arbitrary killed or forcibly disappeared, namely, Abdülmecit Baskın, Namık Erdoğan, Metin Vural, Recep Kuzucu, Behçet Cantürk, Savaş Buldan, Haci Karay, Adnan Yıldırım, İsmail Karaalioğlu, Yusuf Ekinci, Ömer Lutfi Topal, Hikmet Babataş, Medet Serhat, Feyzi Aslan, Salih Aslan, Lazem Esmaeili, Asker Smitko, Tarık Ümit, Faik Candan
Date and place of the crime In 1990s in Ankara province
Authorized court Ankara 1st High Criminal Court
Transferring status
European Court Of Human Rights’ Judgment: Buldan v. Turkey

Application No: 28298/95  

The Court ruled that Turkey violated Article 2 (procedural aspect) and Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights on 20 April 2004.
European Court Of Human Rights’ Judgment: Yıldırım and others v. Turkey

Application No: 56154/00

The Court ruled that Turkey violated Article 2 (procedural aspect) and Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights on 19 October 2006.
European Court Of Human Rights’ Judgment: Ulku Ekinci v. Turkey

Application No: 27602/95

The Court ruled that Turkey violated Article 2 (procedural aspect) and Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights on 16 July 2002.


[1] The case of Mehmet Şerif Avşar, who was forcibly disappeared in the province of Diyarbakır on 22.04.1994 by seven persons consisting of village guards and confessors, resulted in six years imprisonment sentences of five persons for deprivation of liberty and thirty years imprisonment sentences of the others for murder. The case of Şeyhmus Yavuz, who was forcibly disappeared in the province of Diyarbakır on 11.03.1994 by two polices and a confessor, resulted in ten years imprisonment sentence of only confessor for murder.

[2] The case of Mehmet Şerif Avşar, who was forcibly disappeared in the province of Diyarbakır on 22.04.1994 by seven persons consisting of village guards and confessors, resulted in six years imprisonment sentences of five persons for deprivation of liberty and thirty years imprisonment sentences of the others for murder. The case of Şeyhmus Yavuz, who was forcibly disappeared in the province of Diyarbakır on 11.03.1994 by two polices and a confessor, resulted in ten years imprisonment sentence of only confessor for murder.

[3] The case of Abdullah Canan, who was forcibly disappeared in the town of Yüksekova in Hakkari province on 17.01.1996 and the case of Mikdat Özeken, Münir Sarıtaş and Şemsettin Yurtseven, who were forcibly disappeared in Yüksekova on 27.10.1995 resulted in the decisions of acquittal.

[4] Please see the table of enforced disappearances cases.