SECOND SECTION
\nCASE OF \u0130NC\u0130N v. TURKEY
\n(Application no. 3534\/06)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n9 January 2018<\/p>\n
FINAL
\n28\/05\/2018<\/p>\n
This judgment has become final under Article 44 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of \u0130ncin v. Turkey,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:<\/p>\n Robert Spano, President, Having deliberated in private on 5 December 2017,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 3534\/06) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by fifteen Turkishnationals (\u201cthe applicants\u201d) on 27\u00a0December 2005.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants, whose names, dates of birth and places of residence are set out in the attached table, were represented by Mr CemalDemir, a lawyer practising in Van. The Turkish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants alleged, in particular, that the investigation and the trial concerning the killing of their relative in June 1995 had been in breach of the procedural obligation inherent in Article 2 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 November 2015 the complaint under Article\u00a02 of the Convention concerning the effectiveness of the investigation and trial conductedafter 22 March 2005 was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant,Habibe\u0130ncin, is the wife of Kerim\u0130ncin; the second to seventh applicants are his children; the eighth applicant is his mother and the remaining seven applicants are the siblings of Kerim\u0130ncin.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 March 2005 the applicants Halima\u0130ncin and Haz\u0131m\u0130ncin, with the assistance oftheir lawyer, submitted a petition to the Hakkari prosecutor. In their petition thetwo applicants alleged that after severe military clashes had taken place in the vicinity of their village, in 1994 they and their family members had left Turkey and moved to live with their relatives in Iraq. In June 1995 Kerim\u0130ncin hadgone back to their village in Turkey to collect a sum of money he was owed. While he was having dinner in the village headman\u2019s house, village guards had arrived and taken him to the nearby Ge\u00e7imli military station. While at the military station Kerim\u0130ncin had been questioned and subjected to ill-treatment. After having detained him at the station for a week,the soldiers had taken him back to the village, where they had shot him and buried him.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0In the petition the lawyer representing the applicants stated that the applicantHaz\u0131m\u0130ncinhad recently returned to Turkey from Iraq and wanted to lodge anofficial complaint concerning the killing of his father. In their petition the two applicants also gave the prosecutor the names of a number of people who they alleged had witnessed the incident in question. They asked the prosecutor to carry out an investigation, to identify and question all the eyewitnesses, to exhume the body of Kerim\u0130ncin and to find and punish those responsible for the killing.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The prosecutor started an investigation into the applicants\u2019 allegations immediately. In the course of the investigation, between 2005 and 2006 the prosecutor questioned the applicants and other members of their family. During the same period the prosecutor also identified, summoned and questioned a large number of witnesses and members of the military who had lived or worked in the region at the time of the events but who, in the years that had elapsed since the killing,had moved to different parts of the country. A number of witnesses told the prosecutor that they had seen Kerim\u0130ncin being taken away from the village by the soldiers and added that shortly afterwards a large-scale military operation had been conducted in the area and they had heard that Kerim\u0130ncin had been killed in the course of that operation.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0Some members of the military forces told the prosecutor during their questioning that they had no recollection of the events while others stated that no such incident had taken place.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0As a result of the questioning the prosecutor found it established that Kerim\u0130ncin had indeed been killed and that his body had been buried in Ta\u015fba\u015f\u0131 village cemetery.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 26 May 2006 the prosecutor asked the Hakkari Gendarmerie Command whether there would be any security concerns if he were to visit that cemetery with a view to exhuming a body. The prosecutor was informed in reply that it was not a good idea to do so because the security forces conducted spontaneous operations in the area during the summer months.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0The prosecutor continued to request security updates from the military until 2009 and sent approximately twenty letters requesting that the military inform him as soon as it was possible to visit the village. In respect of the requests made during winter months the military informed the prosecutor that it would not be safe to go to the area because of adverse weather conditions. In their replies during spring, summer and autumn months, the soldiers informed the prosecutor that it was not a good idea to go to the area in question because a military operation could be conducted there at any time.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0Finally, on 11 June 2009 the prosecutor informed the military of his intention to go to the cemetery on 18 June 2009 and instructed the military to take the necessary security measures for his planned visit.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 18 June 2009 the prosecutor went to the cemetery in question and a body was exhumed from a grave in his presence.It was subsequently established by DNA analysis that it was the body of Kerim\u0130ncin.Forensic examinations showed that there were ten holes in the clothes in which Kerim\u0130ncin had been buried and that the cause of death had been numerous firearms injuries inflicted on his body and skull.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 March 2010 the prosecutor took a decision not to prosecute ten of the suspects who had been working as members of the military at the time of the events, for lack of evidence. The following day the prosecutor prepared an indictment and charged Y.K.\u2212 who had been the commander of the Ge\u00e7imli military station where Kerim\u0130ncin had allegedly been taken at the time of the events\u2212 with the offence of murder.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The trial before the Hakkari Assize Court started on 12 April 2010. The two applicants who had introduced the complaint with the prosecutor on 22 March 2005 (see paragraph 6 above), namely Halima \u0130ncin and Haz\u0131m\u0130ncin, joined the criminal proceedings as interveners. In the course of the trial a total of twenty hearings were held. On 27\u00a0November 2014 the Hakkari Assize Court acquitted Y.K. for lack of evidence. The same day the applicants appealed against the judgment acquitting Y.K. and the proceedings before the Court of Cassation are still pending.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0At the request of the Court, the Government stated that, in accordance with the applicable statute of limitations, the criminal proceedings against Y.K. would not become time-barred until 2025.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0Relying on Article 2 of the Convention the applicants complained that the right to life of their relative Kerim\u0130ncin had been breached. They also alleged that, notwithstanding their statutory obligation to start an investigation, the authorities had not taken any steps to investigate the killing until the family lodged their official complaint in 2005. The investigation that was started after their complaint was received in 2005 had not been concluded for many years and that failure had entailed the consequence that, despite the abundance of evidence in the possession of the investigating authorities, the true circumstances surrounding the killing had not been established.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested that argument.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0The Government invited the Court to declare the application inadmissible because they considered that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies for two reasons. Firstly, the Government argued that the applicants had not lodged an objection against the prosecutor\u2019s decision of 25 March 2010 not to prosecute the ten members of the military who had been working in the area at the time of the events (see paragraph\u00a015 above). Secondly, as the proceedings were still pending before the Court of Cassation, the applicantsstill had the possibility of making an individual application to the Constitutional Court in Turkey.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0As for the Government\u2019s argument that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies by not lodging an objection against the decision not to prosecute the ten military personnel, it must be reiteratedthat lodging objections against a prosecutor\u2019s decision to stop an investigation into a killing is regarded by the Court as an effective remedy in Turkish law (see, in particular, Ep\u00f6zdemir v. Turkey(dec.), no. 57039\/00, 31 January 2002). In the present case the Court observes, however, that the applicants do not specifically allege that it was those ten members of the military who had been responsible for the killing of their relative. Indeed, they do not accuse any particular individual of the killing, but assert that it was soldiers from the Ge\u00e7imli military station who shot their relative. To that end, when the prosecutor charged the commander of the Ge\u00e7imli station with the offence of murder,the applicants Halima \u0130ncin and Haz\u0131m\u0130ncin, that is the mother and the son of the deceased, joined the criminal proceedings as interveners (see paragraph 16 above) and when the commander was acquitted, they appealed against the trial court\u2019s judgment. Thus, in the circumstances of the present case, the Court finds that the applicants did not fail to comply with the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies by not lodging an objection against the prosecutor\u2019s decision not to prosecute the ten military personnel.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0Concerning the Government\u2019s argument that the applicants failed to make an individual application to the Constitutional Court, the Court observes that it has already examined and dismissed similar objections raised by the Turkish Government in comparable cases (see, in particular, \u015e\u00fckr\u00fcY\u0131ld\u0131z v. Turkey, no. 4100\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 42-46, 17\u00a0March 2015; see also, more recently, M\u0131zrak and Atay v. Turkey, no. 65146\/12, \u00a7\u00a047, 18\u00a0October 2016, and\u00d6nkol v. Turkey, no. 24359\/10, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a068-69, 17\u00a0January 2017). The Court finds no particular circumstances in the instant case requiring it to depart from its findings in the above-mentioned cases. It therefore rejects the Government\u2019s second objection to the admissibility of the application.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0The applicantsalleged that the authorities had not,of their own motion, instigated an investigation into the killing and had instead waited for the family to lodge an official complaint. Even after the family had lodged the complaint, the investigation and the trial had been conducted half-heartedly and had been very slow. For example, although their relative had been buried in a village with a civilian population, the military had told the prosecutor on many occasions that the area was not safe to visit and had thus attempted to prevent the prosecutor from investigating the killing.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The Government admitted that they were aware of the length of the investigation process but argued that the delays in the investigation and the trial had been due to the difficulties encountered by their authorities in identifying, locating and questioning a total of 163 witnesses and 11\u00a0suspects and in accessing the cemetery to exhume the body. As for the trial, the Government submitted that some of the hearings had had to be postponed on account of the failure of the lawyers representing the parties to attend the hearings and also on account of the difficulties in ensuring the attendance of a number of witnesses.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0The Court points out at the outset that its examination of the applicants\u2019 complaints under Article 2 of the Convention will be limited to the steps taken in the investigation after the applicantslodged their official complaint on 22 March 2005, although it cannot lose sight of the fact that the applicants\u2019 relative had been killed in 1995. The complaints concerning the actual killing of the applicants\u2019 relative in 1995 and the effectiveness of the investigation conducted between the date of the killing and the lodging of the official complaint by the applicants on 22 March 2005 were declared inadmissible by the Court in its partial decision of 10 November 2015 on account of the applicants\u2019 failure to comply with the six-month time-limit set out in Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see \u0130ncin v. Turkey (dec.), no.\u00a03534\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a037-44, 10 November 2015). In the same decision the Court considered that the lodging of the complaint in 2005 and the subsequent developments \u2212such as the exhumation of the body, the diligence shown by the applicants and the steps taken in the investigation \u2212had revived the obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into the killing (ibid., \u00a7\u00a7 45-47).<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State\u2019s general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to \u201csecure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention\u201d, requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force. The investigation must be thorough, impartial and careful (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27\u00a0September 1995, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0161-63, Series A no. 324). In that connection, the Court points out, in particular, that a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context. It must be accepted that there may be obstacles or difficulties which prevent progress in an investigation in a particular situation. However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating a use of lethal force may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see McKerr v.\u00a0the\u00a0United Kingdom, no. 28883\/95, \u00a7 114, ECHR 2001\u2011III and the cases cited therein; see also Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos.\u00a010865\/09, 45886\/07 and 32431\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 316-325, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Mustafa\u00a0Tun\u00e7 and FecireTun\u00e7 v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014\/05, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0169-182, 14\u00a0April 2015).<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0Concerning the promptness in the present application of the criminal proceedings conducted after 2005, the Court reiterates that Article\u00a02 of the Convention requires investigations to begin promptly and to proceed with reasonable expedition (see, inter alia, McCaughey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no.\u00a043098\/09, \u00a7 130, ECHR 2013, and Armani Da Silvav.\u00a0the\u00a0United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878\/08, \u00a7 237, ECHR 2016).<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that, after the applicants made the official complaint on 22 March 2005 the prosecutor immediately started an investigation and managed to locatea very large number of witnesses and military personnel who, in the years that had elapsed since the killing, had moved to different parts of the country (see paragraph 8 above). The prosecutor questioned those persons and, in the light of the information he obtainedfrom them, found the place where the applicants\u2019 relative had been buried.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes, however, that the subsequent period of over three years \u2013 that is to say between 26 May 2006 and 11 June 2009 (see paragraphs\u00a011-13 above) \u2212 was devoted exclusively to corresponding with the military and asking them whether the area was safe to visit and exhume the body. Having examined the correspondence between the prosecutor and the military, the Court remains unconvinced that the concerns highlighted by the military about the safety of or the weather conditions in the area were so serious as to prevent the prosecutor\u2019s visit to a village with a civilian population for such an extended period of time(see paragraphs 9 and 24 above).<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that the trial of the commander of the Ge\u00e7imli military station started on 12 April 2010 and the proceedings are still pending before the Court of Cassation (see paragraph 16 above). Other than arguing that some of the hearings had had to be postponed on account of the failure of the lawyers representing the parties to attend the hearings and on account of the difficulties in ensuring the attendance of a number of witnesses, the Government have not sought to justify the delays and have not, in particular, offered an explanation as to why the Court of Cassation, before which the matter wasbrought on 27 November 2014, has not yet examined the appeal lodged by the applicants.<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that the above-mentioned delays in the criminal proceedings, which havebeen ongoing for over 12 years since 2005, the death of the applicant\u2019s close relative having occurred 22 years ago in 1995, cannot be regarded as compatible with the State\u2019s obligation under Article2 of the Convention to ensure the effectiveness of investigations into suspicious deaths, in the sense that the investigative process, however it is organised under national law, must be commenced promptly and carried out with reasonable expedition. To this extent, the foregoing finding of excessive delays in the investigation and the trial in the present case gives rise to the conclusion that the investigation was ineffective for the purposes of Article2 of the Convention. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural aspect (see Cerf v. Turkey, no.\u00a012938\/07, \u00a7\u00a081, 3 May 2016).<\/p>\n II.\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants claimed a total of 1,080,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and EUR 1,080,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. They also asked the Court to make an award in respect of their costs and expenses incurred before the Court but they did not specify an amount.<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0The Government considered that there was no causal link between the claim for pecuniary damage and the alleged violations of the applicants\u2019 rights under the Convention. They also considered that the applicants\u2019 claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage was excessive.<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, it awards EUR\u00a016,800 jointly to the applicants Habibe\u0130ncin, Veysi\u0130ncin, Saniye\u0130ncin, Fevzi\u0130ncin, Faruk\u0130ncin, Haz\u0131m\u0130ncin and Hatice\u0130ncin, who are the wife and children of Kerim\u0130ncin, in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage. It also awards EUR 3,200 jointly to the applicants Halima \u0130ncin, Hedice\u0130ncin, Sabriye\u0130ncin, Delila\u0130ncin, Do\u011fila\u0130ncin, Re\u015fit\u0130ncin, Nuri \u0130ncin and Abdullah \u0130ncin, who are the mother and siblings of Kerim\u0130ncin,in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Court\u2019s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the applicants\u2019 failure to quantify and document their costs and expenses, the Court rejects their claim for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Declaresthe application admissible;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its procedural aspect on account of the failure to conduct an effective investigation and trial after 2005;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article\u00a044\u00a0\u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 16,800 (sixteen thousand eight hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, jointly to the applicants Habibe\u0130ncin, Veysi\u0130ncin, Saniye\u0130ncin, Fevzi\u0130ncin, Faruk\u0130ncin, Haz\u0131m\u0130ncin and Hatice\u0130ncinin respect of non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 3,200 (three thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, jointly to the applicants Halima \u0130ncin, Hedice\u0130ncin, Sabriye\u0130ncin, Delila\u0130ncin, Do\u011fila\u0130ncin, Re\u015fit\u0130ncin, Nuri \u0130ncin and Abdullah \u0130ncinin respect of non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicants\u2019 claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 January 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Robert Spano ______________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Habibe \u0130NC\u0130N, born in 1946, Mahmur Refugee Camp in Iraq
\nJulia Laffranque,
\nI\u015f\u0131l Karaka\u015f,
\nNeboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107,
\nPaul Lemmens,
\nJon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro,
\nSt\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m, judges,
\nand Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131, DeputySection Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\n2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Veysi\u0130NC\u0130N, born in 1977,Mahmur Refugee Camp in Iraq
\n3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Saniye\u0130NC\u0130N, born in 1985, Mahmur Refugee Camp in Iraq
\n4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Fevzi\u0130NC\u0130N, born in1985, Mahmur Refugee Camp in Iraq
\n5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Faruk\u0130NC\u0130N, born in 1990, Mahmur Refugee Camp in Iraq
\n6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Haz\u0131m\u0130NC\u0130N, born in1986
\n7.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Hatice\u0130NC\u0130N, born in 1994, Van
\n8.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Halima \u0130NC\u0130N, born in 1926
\n9.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Hedice\u0130NC\u0130N, born in 1950, Van
\n10.\u00a0 Sabriye\u0130NC\u0130N, born in 1944, Van
\n11.\u00a0 Delila\u0130NC\u0130N, born in 1952, Hakkari
\n12.\u00a0 Do\u011fila\u0130NC\u0130N, born in 1955, Hakkari
\n13.\u00a0 Re\u015fit\u0130NC\u0130N, born in 1956, Mahmur Refugee Camp in Iraq
\n14.\u00a0 Nuri\u0130NC\u0130N, born in 1966, Mahmur Refugee Camp in Iraq
\n15.\u00a0 Abdullah \u0130NC\u0130N, born in 1971<\/p>\n