Mansur PAD and Others Vs.Turkey

(b) The Government
51. The Government vigorously denied the applicants’ allegations that the Turkish security forces had carried out a cross-border operation in the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran on 7 May 1999 or that they had arrested and detained the victims. They claimed that the victims had illegally entered Turkish territory and had therefore come within the jurisdiction of Turkey. The Government further pointed out that the Iranian authorities had confirmed the acts of illegal trespassing by the victims.
2. The Court’s assessment
52. The Court reiterates that according to Article 1 of the Convention Contracting States must answer for any infringement of the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention committed against individuals placed under their “jurisdiction”. The exercise of jurisdiction is a necessary condition for a Contracting State to be held responsible for acts or omissions imputable to it which give rise to an allegation of the infringement of rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention (see Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 311, ECHR 2004-VII).
53. Although the words “within their jurisdiction” in Article 1 of the Convention must be understood to mean that a State’s jurisdictional competence is primarily territorial (see Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and 16 other Contracting States (dec.) [GC], application no. 52207/99, §§ 59-61, ECHR 2001-XII, and Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, § 76, ECHR 2001-IV), in exceptional circumstances the acts of Contracting States which are performed outside their territory or which produce effects there (“extraterritorial act”) may amount to the exercise by them of jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1 (see Issa and Others, cited above, § 68). Accordingly, a State may be held accountable for violations of the Convention rights and freedoms of persons who are in the territory of another State which does not necessarily fall within the legal space of the Contracting States, but who are found to be under the former State’s authority and control through its agents operating – whether lawfully or unlawfully – in the latter State (see Issa and Others, cited above, § 71; Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 91, ECHR 2005-IV; Sánchez Ramirez v. France, application no. 28780/95, Commission decision of 24 June 1996, Decisions and Reports (DR) 86, p. 155; Reinette v. France, no. 14009/88, Commission decision of 2 October 1989, DR 63, p. 189; and Freda v. Italy, no. 8916/80, Commission decision of 7 October 1980, DR 21, p. 250).
54. However, in the instant case, it was not disputed by the parties that the victims of the alleged events came within the jurisdiction of Turkey. While the applicants attached great importance to the prior establishment of the exercise by Turkey of extraterritorial jurisdiction with a view to proving their allegations on the merits, the Court considers that it is not required to determine the exact location of the impugned events, given that the Government had already admitted that the fire discharged from the helicopters had caused the killing of the applicants’ relatives, who had been suspected of being terrorists (see, a contrario, Issa and Others, cited above).

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Tags: 13, 14, 18 and 34 of the Convention, 3, 5, Articles 2, commit unintentional homicide, deprive an individual unlawfully of his or her lib, individual to torture or ill-treatment, intentional homicide