ABUSES: Protest For Disappearances
Amnesty International
International Secretariat
1 Easton Street
London WC1X 8DJ
United Kingdom
Tel: (44) (71) 413 5500
Fax: (44) (71) 956 1157
TURKEY
Mothers of "disappeared" take action.
PICTURE Emine Ocak, her son
"disappeared" on 21 March 1995
On 11 April 1995 Emine Ocak, mother of Hasan
Ocak, together with relatives of other
"disappeared" people, protested in the
court room of the State Security Court in Ankara
shouting: "We want our sons". On 17
April Emine Ocak was sentenced to one month in
prison by the Ankara State Security Court for
contempt of court. She served 12 days'
imprisonment in Ankara Central Closed Prison.
Since 1991 reports of "disappearance"
in Turkey have increased alarmingly. Between
1980 and 1990 the Turkish Human Rights
Association (HRA) registered about a dozen cases
of "disappearances" in police custody.
In 1991 there were a handful of reports, and
several more in 1992. In 1993 there were at
least 26. In 1994 there were at least 50
confirmed cases of "disappearances".
Many cases of "disappearance" follow
the patterns found in the
five cases described below. Many people
"disappear" because of their suspected
political activities, legal or illegal.
Particularly at risk are those active in
organizations working to foster rights for
Turkey's Kurdish minority, estimated to number
10 million. Several victims had a history of
repeated detention and ill-treatment by police.
Some also reported prior to their
"disappearance" that they received
frequent threats. Other "disappeared"
persons have refused to act as village guards.
Although in many cases there is clear testimony
from eye-witnesses that the victims were taken
into custody by security forces, local police
and prosecutional authorities seem hardly
interested investigating the case.
Very frequently "disappeared" persons
are later found killed.
Amnesty International observes that the practice
of "disappearance" is, like that of
extrajudicial execution, becoming established as
a tool of intimidation and elimination.
Government's reaction to recent allegations
of "disappearance"
At a press conference on 6 April 1995 Algan
Hacaloalu, the new State Minister responsible
for human rights, announced that his office had
investigated all cases of alleged
"disappearance" following the
disturbances which started on 12 March in the
GaziosmanpaCa district of Istanbul, and found
that all allegations were without foundation.
Paradoxically, however, the minister went on to
appeal to the public to inform the authorities
if they have any information about the 33 people
listed by the Turkish Human Rights Association
as having "disappeared" following
disturbances in the GaziosmanpaCa quarter of
Istanbul in March.
The aim of cooperation between government and
public in order to solve cases of
"disappearance" is obviously not
shared by all members of the cabinet. According
to the newspaper Cumhuriyet (Republic), the
Minister of Interior Nahit MenteCe stated, about
three weeks after the GaziosmanpaCa
disturbances, that the names of two persons
detained in subsequent operations were being
intentionally withheld.
Patterns of "disappearance"
Amnesty International is still receiving reports
of "disappearance" almost every day.
Usually, after much delay and considerable
distress to the family, the detainee is
eventually acknowledged as being held in police
custody. In other cases, nothing more is heard
until the discovery of a body. Still others
remain "disappeared". The following
five cases illustrate a pattern of
"disappearance" which extends
throughout Turkey, and is not confined to the
turbulent southeastern provinces where security
forces are fighting armed members of the Kurdish
Workers' Party (PKK). Four of the five are
clearly related to the ten-year-old conflict,
but the fifth - the "disappearance" of
Hasan Ocak - took place in the context of civil
disturbances in Istanbul.
PICTURE Hu["]seyin Koku
On 20 October 1994 at noon, Hu["]seyin Koku,
president of the Elbistan branch of HADEP
(People's Democracy Party), was walking in the
centre of town together with his wife Fatma Koku.
According to her, a car suddenly pulled up
beside them. Men in plain clothes emerged from
the car showed police identity cards, and then
made Hu["]seyin Koku get into their car.
Though the event was witnessed by several other
persons, all of them are reluctant, for fear of
possible reprisals to make a formal statement.
His wife, Fatma Koku, says that when she went to
the Police Headquarters in Elbistan on the first
day of Hu["]seyin Koku's detention, the
police confirmed that he was being held.
However, when she went again several times
during the following days, the police denied
holding her husband. The family then made
inquiries at police stations in AfCin and
KahramanmaraC, but did not receive an official
reply about Hu["]seyin Koku's whereabouts.
On 19 October 1994, a day before Hu["]seyin
Koku "disappeared", the now banned
Kurdish-owned O["]zgu["]r U["]lke
(Free Land) had published an article in which
the local governor was strongly criticized for
his repressive policy, particularly in those
districts of the town mainly populated by Kurds.
In the article Hu["]seyin Koku was quoted
as saying: "The members of the special team
act under order of the local governor. Our party
is constantly under pressure. Threats are made
against our people under order of the district
governor." Since 1991 more than 100 members
of HADEP and its predecessor parties
O["]ZDEP, DEP and HEP have been killed in
circumstances suggesting security forces
involvement, "disappeared" or died in
custody, apparently as a result of
torture.
In an article published on 11 November 1994 in
O["]zgu["]r
U["]lke, the president of HADEP in
KahramanmaraC Ali Go["]kot, reported that
Hu["]seyin Koku told him that he had been
threatened by the local governor in Elbistan.
Ali Go["]kot said: "At our last
meeting he (Hu["]seyin Koku) told me that
the threats were going on."
Hu["]seyin Koku was detained several times
prior to his "disappearance" and was
reportedly frequently followed by the police.
Following his detention in March 1994 on the day
of the local election, he was released by the
State Security Court in Malatya after three
months in custody. During interrogation in
police custody prior to being sent to prison
Hu["]seyin Koku was allegedly subjected to
torture which may have caused a partial stroke
for which he received constant medical treatment
after his release.
His family reported that following
Hu["]seyin Koku's "disappearance"
there were constantly plainclothes police
outside their house, and that the telephone line
was sometimes cut off. On 5 November
Hu["]seyin Koku's family received a
telephone call. The 13-year-old daughter who
picked up the phone first heard laughter, but
recognized her father's voice saying: "Do
what you can to save me, they are going to kill
me." Then there was the sound of crying or
screaming.
About two and a half months later the family
were called to the
Cumhuriyet district police station in Elbistan,
where they were asked about this phone call.
Fatma Koku asked the police why the police had
not investigated her husband's case
before. According to Fatma Koku one of the
police officers told her: "I knew
Hu["]seyin well, but if I saw him now, I
would not recognize him and neither would
you." She asked what he meant by
this, but was then sent away.
In the face of considerable intimidation, family
members and
fellow party members of HADEP made efforts to
find Hu["]seyin Koku. It appears that
Mustafa Yeter and Hanan Gu["]ner, both
members of the Elbistan branch of HADEP, were
detained and tortured in January 1995, because
of their repeated appeals to the district
governor about Hu["]seyin Koku's
"disappearance". Mustafa Yeter told
Amnesty International that during seven days in
incommunicado detention he was blindfolded and
interrogated under torture on several occasions.
He also stated that he was stripped of his
clothes sprayed with a high-pressure jet of
ice-cold water, hung up by his hands, beaten
with truncheons, and that during the
interrogation police repeatedly threatened to
kill him. While still blindfolded he was
allegedly forced to sign a statement that he was
not permitted to read.
Interrogators also wanted him to make a
statement to the effect
that he helped Hu["]seyin Koku to leave
Turkey. On 30 January 1995 an article appeared
in the local newspaper Elbistan Sesi (Voice of
Elbistan), claiming that Mustafa Yeter and Hanan
Gu["]ner had told the police that the PKK
(Kurdish Workers' Party) had sent
Hu["]seyin Koku to Europe.
On 26 January 1995 Mustafa Yeter and Hanan
Gu["]ner were brought before the local
prosecutor, who charged them with supporting the
PKK, but on 9 March 1995 they were acquitted by
Malatya State Security Court and released. On 18
March Mustafa Yeter was abducted in Elbistan by
three armed men who pulled him into a car.
Recalling the death threats to which he had been
subjected in police custody, Mustafa Yeter
decided that his life was at risk. He managed to
escape before the car left the town centre:
"I grabbed the driver around the body, and
he had to brake hard just in front of a school.
The local people came out thinking there had
been an accident. I threw myself out of the car.
The police swore at me. I shouted and shouted:
`They are kidnapping a man' and the people all
looked. The police had no choice but to drive
away." Mustafa Yeter later fled from
Turkey.
The maximum period of police detention permitted
under the
Turkish Criminal Procedure Code (TCPC) is 30
days in the southeastern provinces under
emergency legislation and 15 days in the rest of
Turkey. In abductions thought to be carried out
by the security forces or their proxies, or the
victim's body is usually found within a week or
ten days. For this reason the relatives of the
"disappeared" and other interested
parties believe that searches in the first weeks
are crucial. After the first month has passed,
hope begins to fade. On 4 April 1995 more than
five months after Hu["]seyin Koku
"disappeared", his relatives,
despairing that they would ever see him again,
published an obituary.
On 27 April 1995 the family of Hu["]seyin
Koku were informed by the police that a body in
an advanced state of decay was found by a
shepherd among some rocks near the town of
Pu["]tu["]rge, in Malatya province,
150 km from Elbistan. The cause of death is not
clear. On 28 April three relatives of
Hu["]seyin Koku, including father-in-law
Oruc[,] Gu["]zel and brother-in-law Ahmet
Gu["]zel, identified the body at
Pu["]tu["]rge State Hospital. When
they returned to Elbistan on the same day,
police detained them and took them to Elbistan
Police Headquarters, where they were allegedly
beaten.
At the time of writing, two weeks after
Hu["]seyin Koku's body was brought to
Pu["]tu["]rge State Hospital, no
proper autopsy had been conducted. In view
of the circumstances of the case - in particular
the suspicion that state agents from the
Elbistan area were involved in his death - the
family fear that evidence may be destroyed if
the autopsy is carried out locally and have
appealed to the authorities that the body should
be transferred to Istanbul or Ankara where
autopsy can be carried out by forensic experts
with proper facilities for full
examination.
PICTURE
On 13 November 1994 Ali Tekdaa, aged 45, was
detained by plain clothes police while he and
his wife, Hatice Tekdaa, were on their way to
the market in the DaakapΥ district of
DiyarbakΥr. They had got of a minibus at
the stop next to the "ώeker
Bank", when he told her to wait for him for
five minutes. Hatice Tekdaa gives detailed
testimony on the confusion of events leading to
his "disappearance": "I saw him
coming back but he did not appear to see me. I
called out, and he made a sign with his hands
meaning "Go!" At that moment I noticed
that there were some people following him with
long barrelled guns and radios. At that moment,
there was the sound of gunfire, and everyone
threw themselves on the ground. When the gunfire
ended everyone got up again. The soldiers who
were guarding the Refah Party Headquarters and
plain clothes police in the area came over. The
police with guns came towards us with my husband
between them. I noticed that he had blood stains
on his forehead. At first I thought that he had
been shot and I began to shout and cry. I
learned later that in order to protect himself
from being shot he had thrown himself to the
ground and had cut his forehead. Because I had
started shouting they dragged his jacket over
his head and shoved him into a building. Two
minutes later they took him out, put him in a
car, and left. It was a police car."
Hatice Tekdaa subsequently made repeated
applications to the
State Security Court Prosecutor in DiyarbakΥr
for information about her husband. After
appearing every day for a month at the entrance
of the State Security Court she was allowed to
speak to the Chief Prosecutor personally. On a
second meeting Hatice Tekdaa informed the Chief
Prosecutor about a witness, Seyfettin Demir,
remanded in DiyarbakΥr E-type prison, who
has reported that while he was detained at the
Anti-Riot (C[,]evik Kuvvet) Police Headquarters
between 1 and 20 December 1994, he shared a cell
with Ali Tekdaa. Seyfettin Demir also alleged
that Ali Tekdaa told him that the police wished
to "lose" him in custody, and begged
him to notify his family. According to Hatice
Tekdaa's account, the Chief Prosecutor took no
interest in investigating Seyfettin Demir's
allegations.
Asked about the political activities of Ali
Tekdaa, who had been
imprisoned for four and a half years following
the military coup
d'e[']tat in September 1980, his wife gives the
following picture: "He had no connections
with any [militant] organisation, but he was not
someone who could keep quiet about what went on
in the area. He worked to help people who had
fled to DiyarbakΥr during village
evacuations in the surrounding area. For all
these reasons he was often arrested." She
says that Ali Tekdaa, formerly a member of DEP
(Democracy Party), was detained and interrogated
19 times for periods between 15 and 30 days.
Ali Tekdaa and Hatice Tekdaa have four daughters
and four sons.
Their daughter Nuran Tekdaa had been active as a
distributor for the newspaper
O["]zgu["]r U["]lke. After having
been detained for five times, she gave up her
activities for the newspaper in 1994.
Ali Tekdaa's brother Mehmet Tekdaa was shot dead
on the street in DiyarbakΥr in 1992 by
unidentified gunmen. Following this event Ali
Tekdaa was detained several times and he moved
without his family to Izmir, Western Turkey,
where he worked in different jobs in order to
support his and his brother's family. At this
time he also changed his name. According to his
wife, Hatice Tekdaa, this was not meant to be a
code name but rather to avoid the suspicion and
harassment the name Tekdaa provoked. Two months
before his "disappearance" he had come
back to live in DiyarbakΥr.
It is now more than five months since Ali Tekdaa
was detained, but his detention was never
confirmed, nor has there been any further news
of him. Amnesty International wrote to the
Turkish authorities on 13 January 1995 noting
that were grounds to believe that Ali Tekdaa was
held in custody and asking that urgent inquiries
be made as to his whereabouts. By 1 May
1995 the Turkish authorities had not responded
this letter.
PICTURE
Shortly after midnight on 27 January 1995,
several men in plain clothes came to the house
of Faruk Du["]rre, aged 33, in Adana. When
his wife Hatun Du["]rre asked for their
identity, they told her that they did not have
to reveal it and that they were taking her
husband away who would be their
"guest" for a while. They then dragged
Faruk Du["]rre away, beating him. When his
family and lawyer sought information of his
whereabouts, the prosecutor's office and the
police in Adana first denied any knowledge of
it. According to the newspaper
O["]zgu["]r U["]lke, the
prosecutor later told his wife that Faruk
Du["]rre has been transferred to MuC, the
provincial city. However, authorities in MuC did
not acknowledge his detention.
Faruk Du["]rre, father of two children,
comes from the village of
KeranlΥk near MalazgΥrt in MuC
province. The village was burnt down by the
security forces in the autumn of 1993, after the
villagers, many of them members of the extended
Du["]rre family, had refused to join the
village guard militia. All 23 houses of the
village were destroyed and all the families were
forced to leave. Faruk Du["]rre settled
with his family in Adana, where he was without
work.
Reportedly Faruk Du["]rre himself was not
politically active but
his father, Abdurrahman Du["]rre, is a
well-known intellectual, writer and activist on
Kurdish and Islamic issues, now living abroad in
political exile. It is thought that Faruk
Du["]rre's detention may be in connection
with his father's activities abroad. An
interview with the father was published in
O["]zgu["]r U["]lke the day
before Faruk Du["]rre
"disappeared".
PICTURE
Osman Ku["]ndeC, married with six children,
was abducted in front of his house and has not
been seen or heard of since. Osman
Ku["]ndeC is the President of the Municipal
Workers' Union (Belediye-ώC SendikasΥ)
branch in the city of Batman, southeast Turkey,
centre of Turkey's petroleum industry.
Osman Ku["]ndeC came home from his office
at 4.30pm on 6 February 1995 in his trade union
car. His 16-year-old son saw him arrive and went
outside to greet his father. He then witnessed
two men aged between 20 and 25, who approached
his father asking him to come with them on
urgent business. Osman Ku["]ndeC told them
that he was hungry and would prefer to talk
after the evening meal or better still the
following day, but they insisted. Osman
Ku["]ndeC asked his son to come with them.
The son went briefly into the house to get his
coat. When he came out a couple of minutes
later, his father and the two men had gone. A
woman who had observed the scene, later told
that she saw Osman Ku["]ndeC sitting in the
front passenger seat of his trade union car,
while one of the men was driving and the other
was sitting in the back. A second car was
following them as they drove away. The car was
found abandoned the following day about 70
kilometres away on the road between Batman and
Kozluk.
Osman Ku["]ndeC's wife, Vesile
Ku["]ndeC, reports that a few days after
her husband's "disappearance" someone
rang them up, saying: "He is in the hands
of the Muslims". His family therefore
believes that he may have been abducted by
members of the illegal armed organization
Hizbullah*1.
Relatives of "disappeared" have told
Amnesty International that
they believe that Hizbullah is acting in
collusion with the security
forces. There have been several waves of arrests
of Hizbullah members from both wings and trials
opened against some Hizbullah defendants.
Amnesty International has repeatedly written to
the Turkish government asking for information
about the progress of these trials, but received
no reply. The Chief Prosecutor at DiyarbakΥr
State Security Court made a public statement in
October 1994 saying that he believed that
Hizbullah was confining its attacks to other
opposition groups in order to establish its
credentials while avoiding a heavy government
response. This confirms the impression that
security forces were turning a blind eye to
attacks by Hizbullah on people suspected of
"separatist" activities.
PICTURE of Hasan Ocak
Hasan Ocak, aged 30, has not been seen since 21
March 1995, when he was detained by police in
Istanbul. This follows widespread evidence of
police brutality during the recent disturbances
in the GaziozmanpaCa district of Istanbul. Video
footage clearly show police firing into the
crowd of demonstrators. 17 person were killed
and more than 100 injured.
At 3pm on 21 March Hasan Ocak received a
telephone call at his
father's home. Reportedly, he then left the
house, saying that he was going to the Aksaray
district of Istanbul and did not
return.
Suna YaCar was apparently the last person to see
Hasan Ocak. After being released from 11 days'
detention she told the press that she and Hasan
Ocak were both tortured in Aksaray police
station in Istanbul:
"I was tortured several times so I do not
exactly remember the date. I was being taken
back to my cell. I felt someone near me. I stole
a glance under my blindfold and saw Hasan."
Erdoaan Ocak, Hasan Ocak's father, told the
newspaper Cumhuriyet (Republic) that a detainee,
later remanded custody in SaamalcΥlar
prison stated that he noticed Hasan Ocak's name
listed at the Anti-Terror Branch of the Police
Headquarters. Similar information has been given
by other witnesses whose names are known to
Amnesty International. Hasan Ocak's sister
Maside Ocak reported that a police officer
unofficially spoke to her and said that Hasan
Ocak had been detained.
On 11 April 1995 Emine Ocak, mother of Hasan
Ocak, together with relatives of other
"disappeared" people, protested in the
court room of the State Security Court in Ankara
shouting: "We want our sons". Emine
Ocak and Gu["]lCen Birsen
Gu["]lu["]nay, wife of Hasan
Gu["]lu["]nay who
"disappeared" on 20 July 1992 (see EUR
44/68/92), both participated in this action and
were sentenced to one month in prison by the
Ankara State Security Court for contempt of
court. Both were sent to the Ankara Central
Closed Prison, where they served 12 days'
imprisonment.
PICTURE
The case of Hasan Ocak has received widespread
attention within
Turkey and in other European countries. On 4
April of Hasan Ocak's family held a press
conference in Istanbul which coincided with
actions by an alliance of groups in various
parts of the country - including trade unions,
women organizations, human rights organizations
and youth organizations - in order to push the
authorities to solve this alleged case of
"disappearance". On 10 April 1995
Hasan Ocak's family and relatives of other
"disappearances" organized a
demonstration in the KadΥko["]y
district of Istanbul, in which about 400 people
participated.
The Legal Background and Practice:
The most important safeguards against
"disappearance" are meticulous
registration of detainees and prompt
notification of their families as required by
international human rights standards:
* Rule 7 of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for
the Treatment of
Prisoners, which deals with the registration of
detainees, states:
(1) In every place where persons are imprisoned
there shall be kept a bound registration book
with numbered pages in which shall be entered in
respect of each prisoner received:
(a) Information concerning his identity;
(b) The reasons for his commitment and the
authority therefor;
(c) The day and hour of his admission and
release.
* Rule 92, which deals with untried prisoners,
states:
"An untried prisoner shall be allowed to
inform immediately his family of his detention
and shall be given all reasonable facilities for
communicating with his family and friends, and
for receiving visits from them, subject only to
such restrictions and supervision as are
necessary in the interests of administration of
justice, and of the security and good order of
the institution."
Similar provisions are contained in the European
Prison Rules (Appendix Part II, No.8) by the
Council of Europe of whom Turkey is a member.
Turkish domestic law contains restrictions on
these international
standards. Article 107 of the Turkish Criminal
Procedure Code (TCPC) states: "Where the
aim of the arrest will not be jeopardized, the
arrested person may be permitted to notify his
relatives or other persons with whom he is
closely associated. Upon the request of the
accused, these persons shall be given official
notice of the arrest."
Under the revisions to the TCPC of December 1992
contact with
family and legal counsel can be suspended for up
to a month. People suspected of offences under
the Anti-Terror Law (these include non-violent
offenses as well as armed activities) can be
held without access to family, friends or legal
counsel for up to 30 days in the 10 provinces
under a state of emergency, and for 15 days in
the rest of Turkey. Those held for common
criminal offences, can, with written approval by
a prosecutor, be interrogated for a maximum of
eight days.
"Disappearances" occur because the
safeguards contained in the
Turkish Criminal Procedure Code are not only
insufficient, but are also being almost
completely ignored. Detainees are very
frequently not registered for several days after
being taken into custody. Police records of
detention are not available for inspection by
relatives or lawyers. Amnesty International has
no information on the standard or methods of
record keeping in police stations and
gendarmerie. Police are required immediately to
register detentions with the Public Prosecutor,
or with the State Security Court Prosecutor. In
practice such notification is almost invariably
late - sometimes by a matter of days, sometimes
by more than a week. It is only possible to
guess at the reason for the delay. Since it is
well established that torture usually takes
place in the first days of police detention, the
reason is possibly to delay registration until
interrogation under torture is over, so that if
the detainee should die, the police or
gendarmerie can deny that the person was ever in
their custody.
In the absence of any official notification, a
family is only alerted to the fact that a family
member has been detained when they fail to
return home. Family members are often reluctant
to check at the police station for fear of being
detained themselves. Moreover, the best that can
be hoped from the police station is verbal
confirmation of the detention, which in some
cases of "disappearance" was given and
later denied. Until a detention is confirmed,
the family is thrown into panic. They will alert
local politicians, relatives in the civil
service, and the media. Often attempts are made
to bribe police officers or other police station
staff to make discreet inquiries. A member of
the Ankara Bar Association told Amnesty
International: "People do not worry so much
about torture nowadays - if your son or daughter
just comes out police detention alive, it is
cause for rejoicing. Because police now
habitually fail to register properly, every
detention is a crisis - the Human Rights
Association and lawyers are being worn
down." This, combined with official
indifference has created the present conditions
in which "disappearances" are
proliferating.
Amnesty International, therefore, recommends the
urgent implementation of the following steps to
prevent further cases of torture and
"disappearance"
1. Families should be informed immediately of
any arrest (as required by Article 107 of the
Turkish Criminal Procedure Code) and of the
whereabouts of the detainee at all times.
2. All detainees should be registered in a bound
book with numbered pages, and the time of and
reason for the detention be noted therein.
(Article 7 of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for
the Treatment of Prisoners)
3. The date, time and duration of each period of
interrogation should be clearly recorded, as
well as the names of all those present during
interrogation. These records should be open to
judicial examination and to inspection by
detainees and their lawyers.
4. All detainees must be given access to
lawyers. The revision of the Criminal Procedure
Code in December 1992 which provided such access
for those detained on account of ordinary
criminal offenses only must be extended to those
detained under the Anti-Terror Law. Detainees'
families and lawyers should be able to seek an
urgent court order requiring the police to
permit such access if it is being denied.
5. The practice of blindfolding detainees must
be prohibited. Reports of the practice must be
investigated and judicial proceedings taken
against those who continue to use the blindfold.
6. Because detainees in Turkey are at gravest
risk of torture and "disappearance"
while in police custody, the law should be
amended so that all detainees in all parts of
the country are brought before a court within 24
hours of arrest and thereafter kept in detention
only under the supervision of a court.
Amnesty International is appealing to the
Turkish authorities to establish impartial and
properly resourced commissions as a matter of
urgency to investigate the fate of the
"disappeared" in Turkey. Those
appointed as members of such commissions must be
recognized for their impartiality, competence
and independence. It recommends that:
1. The methods and findings of such commissions
should be made public.
2. Relatives of the victim should have access to
information relevant to the investigation.
3. Complainants, witnesses, lawyers and others
involved in the investigation should be
protected from intimidation and reprisals.
4. Any official suspected of responsibility for
a "disappearance" should be suspended
from active duty during the investigation.
TURKEY:
Mothers of "disappeared" take
action
Reports of "disappearance" in Turkey
have increased alarmingly. In 1991 there were a
handful of reports, and several more in 1992. In
1993 there were at least 26. In 1994 there were
at least 50 confirmed cases of
"disappearance".
Amnesty International appealed repeatedly to the
Turkish authorities to set up an impartial and
properly resourced commission to investigate the
fate of the "disappeared" in Turkey.
Emine Ocak, her son "disappeared"
Hu["]seyin Koku
Osman Ku["]ndeC
Hasan Ocak
Hasan Ocak's family joining a rally
Ali Tekdaa
Faruk Du["]rre
Women protesting about
"disappearance", on 14 May 1995
Hu["]seyin Koku, found dead after 6 month
of "disappearance"
Osman Ku["]ndeC, "disappeared"
since 6 February 1995
Hasan Ocak, "disappeared" since 21
March 1995
Hasan Ocak's family joining a rally
Ali Tekdaa, "disappeared" since 13
November 1994
Faruk Du["]rre, "disappeared"
since 27 January 1995
FOOTNOTES/ENDNOTES
*1Hizbullah is not the branch of the
Lebanon-based Shi'a Hizbullah which carried out
acts of political violence in Turkey in the
mid-1980s, but a shadowy organization
established in Batman in 1987 and belonging to
the Sunni branch of the Islamic faith, like most
of the Muslim Kurdish population in that area.
The movement is committed to the establishment
of a fundamentalist Islamic state in Turkey.
Hizbullah is divided between two wings - ώlim
and Menzil - named after bookshops which formed
a meeting place for each group. Many political
killings have been attributed to the ώlim
group.
