The Status of Internally Displaced Kurds in Turkey: - Kurdish Human ...

KHRP / BHRC 2006disappearance or the use of torture. 16 The Court has found a series of violations ofArticle 13 in particular because of the ineffectiveness of the criminal law system inrespect of actions of the security forces in south-east Turkey in the 1990s, includingin relation to IDPs. It is clear that a serious need existed to provide redress for thevictims of forcible displacement.However, although restitution and compensation are established remedies underinternational law, the European Court has never, in the case of Kurds of southeastTurkey, ordered the applicants property to be returned to them. The Court,in ordering that compensation should be awarded, is respecting the principle ofrestitutio in integrum: that the Respondent State should ‘make reparation for itsconsequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existingbefore the breach’. Where, due to the ongoing security situation, it is not possibleto order Turkey to allow IDP applicants to return, the Court cannot order that suchsteps are taken. However, in Akdıvar v Turkey, 17 the Court hinted that if there was achange in circumstances, with less conflict in the southeast, the Government shoulddevelop positive policies to allow for the return of IDPs to their villages and homes.Since the lifting of the state of emergency in the region in 2002, applicants beforethe European Court were hopeful that they might be afforded the opportunity toreturn to their villages and start rebuilding their lives. Yet, as highlighted by thisreport, the mission has found that obstacles still remain.5. EU AccessionTurkey became a candidate for EU membership in 1999, and a set of requirementswas mandated by the European Commission as a condition for the opening ofaccession talks. These became known as the ‘Copenhagen Criteria’, and involve ‘thestability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights andrespect of and protection of minorities.’ 18 Following the European Commission’sfinding that Turkey sufficiently met the Copenhagen Criteria to begin the processof accession; negotiations were officially opened on 3 October 2005, provided thatTurkey brought into force specific pieces of outstanding legislation. In particular,the European Commission’s 2005 Proposal for a Council Decision on the Principles,Priorities and Conditions contained in the Accession Partnership with Turkeysuggest that the village guard system in southeast Turkey be abolished; that measuresbe pursued to facilitate the return of IDPs to their original settlements in line withthe recommendations of the UN Secretary General’s Special Representative forDisplaced Persons; and that fair and speedy compensation be given to those who16 Aksoy v Turkey Application No 21987/9317 I Eur. Ct. HR 137 (1996)18 Copenhagen European Council, European Parliament, 21-22 June 199318