Many historical artifacts are moved to the new settlement area while some of the artifacts will be flooded due to Ilisu dam to be contracted in Batman's Hasankeyf district.

The European Court of Human Rights [ECHR] finalized its decision on the complaint filed by Prof. Zeynep Ahunbay, Prof. Metin Ahunbay, Prof. Oluş Arık, Özcan Yüksek and lawyer Murat Cano on accusations that the cultural heritage has been destroyed.

The ECHR stated that the applicants who are two professors, an architect-archaeologist, a journalist and a lawyer, are or were involved in various projects on the Hasankeyf archaeological site.

The complaint included that National Water Board began exploratory work on the Ilısu project, focused on the constructing of a dam and a hydro-electric power station on the river Tigris in 1954 that the plans threatened the Hasankeyf archaeological site, which was officially classified as a category-one archaeological site in 1978.

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 3 March 2006.

Relying in essence on Article 8 (right to respect for private life) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education), the applicants complained that the planned construction of the dam was liable to destroy the Hasankeyf archaeological site, which they submitted would amount to a violation of humanity’s right to education, now and for future generations.

They also alleged that the plan to move certain monuments from the site would be impossible to implement and that many of the archaeological remains did not lend themselves to such treatment. In consequence, they asked the Court to indicate preventive measures to the Government before the Hasankeyf site was flooded or the monuments were moved unduly.

Lastly, the applicants complained of the project's disastrous effects on the environment, and more specifically about the irreversible impact the destruction of the site and the dam's construction would have on the region's ecology and landscape.

Decision of the Court

The Court reiterated that the provisions of the Convention could not be interpreted and applied in a vacuum.

The following statement issued by the ECHR:

The Court noted that the gradual increase in awareness of the values linked to conservation of the cultural heritage and access to it could be regarded as having created a certain international legal framework and that the present case could consequently be falling within an evolving subject area.

In this context, and in view of the relevant international instruments and the common ground contained in the norms of international law, even if these were not binding, the Court was prepared to consider that there existed a shared European and international perception of the need to protect the right of access to the cultural heritage.

However, that protection generally focused on situations and regulations pertaining to the right of minorities to enjoy their own culture freely and the right of indigenous peoples to maintain, control and protect their cultural heritage.

In contrast, it did not perceive, to date, any European consensus or even a trend among the member States of the Council of Europe which might have required the scope of the rights in question to be challenged or which would have made it possible to infer from the Convention’s provisions that there existed a universal individual right to the protection of one or another part of the cultural heritage, as requested in the present application.

ILKHA