34 HOUSING RIGHTS of Turkey, the external pressure resulting from the accession process to the European Union and to conform to human rights standards, provided a platform for Kurds and other oppressed groups in Turkey to lobby for internal reform. Ultimately, successful advocacy is about making choices based upon informed research and creative thinking. There are many mechanisms ranging from international treaty and non-treaty bodies and experts, to internal inspection regimes of international institutions, to regional tribunals and domestic courts. Litigation can be a long and costly process with often, in the case of UN mechanisms, no binding decision and remedy at the end, even after a finding of a violation. However, for many parts of the world such as Asia and the Pacific, the UN system provides the only possible avenue after all domestic remedies have been exhausted.36 Moreover, using such mechanisms strengthens their credibility and at least provides an effective means of ‘naming and shaming’. What is required is familiarity with the appropriate rules of procedure and mandates of each body and expert. Case study 1 – Using the ECHR to protect Kurdish housing and land rights Prior to the 1990s, the ECHR had not addressed large-scale systematic abuses. This changed with the establishment of the Kurdish Human Rights Project (KHRP) in the UK in 1992 by exiled activists and lawyers based in London and at the Human Rights Centre of the University of Essex. Working in partnership with local lawyers and human rights groups in the region, the KHRP’s strategy was to use international and regional human rights mechanisms to hold states to account for their treatment of the Kurdish minorities. Turkey provided the best opportunity for securing redress since it was a member of the Council of Europe and had ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In addition, the treatment of the Kurds in south-east Turkey amounted to gross and systematic abuse.37 Kurds were denied political or cultural autonomy, and were the victims of a brutal military campaign waged by the Turkish military against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) separatist group, resulting in extra-judicial killings, torture, rape, and the burning and destruction of villages and farms. The KHRP gathered evidence via local contacts, such as the Turkish Human Rights Association, and field visits carried out by its legal staff. Establishing the facts of what had happened was a major challenge, given that the area was under a permanent state of emergency, and given the tradition of oral testimony among the people. The ability of the ECHR to conduct its own investigations greatly assisted with establishing the authenticity of violations. A major breakthrough was the case of Akdivar,38 which concerned the destruction of nine houses and forced evacuation of a village following a raid by the security forces. The latter claimed that the PKK had