Alleged enforced disappearance of a Gülen movement supporter

Facts

The author, S.N.K., a Turkish national, submitted the communication on her behalf and on behalf of her brother, Y.T., also a Turkish national. She alleges that the State forcibly disappeared Y.T. due to his association with the Gülen movement, which Türkiye designated as a terrorist organisation (FETÖ) following the failed coup attempt in 2016. Y.T., a former public servant, was dismissed from his position under an emergency decree and barred from future public employment. He was under two criminal investigations: one for involvement with the Gülen movement, and another for allegedly obtaining exam answers fraudulently to benefit movement supporters. Fearing arrest and torture, he and his family went into hiding. On 6 August 2019, Y.T. left home and has been missing since. His car was found abandoned four days later. Despite repeated requests by his family, the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation. His wife and father lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court, which dismissed it as manifestly ill-founded. They also filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which declared it inadmissible on 22 February 2022, finding that Turkish authorities had taken reasonable steps to locate him and that no State involvement in his disappearance was established.

In the present communication, the author alleges violations of articles 6 (1), 7, 9 (1), 16, 17, and 23 (1), read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3), 14, 20, and 26 of the Covenant, arguing that the State is responsible for Y.T.’s disappearance and that she has suffered anguish and distress due to the lack of action and transparency by the authorities.

Admissibility

The Committee declared the communication inadmissible under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, citing Türkiye’s reservation that prevents it from reviewing cases already examined under another international procedure. It found that the ECtHR’s 20-page decision had considered the merits of the same claims under articles 6, 7, and 9, meeting the criteria to preclude it from further review. Additionally, regarding claims under articles 16, 17, and 23 (1) (on behalf of Y.T.) and articles 7, 17, and 23 (1) (on behalf of the author) the Committee again dismissed the same as it found them to be closely linked to the disappeared person’s situation and therefore cannot be examined independently without reassessing the matter already decided by the ECtHR.