Communicated on 6 December 2016
SECOND SECTION
Applications nos 4133/16 and 31542/16
Ahmet TUNÇ and Zeynep TUNC against Turkey
and Ahmet TUNÇ and Guler YERBASAN against Turkey
lodged on 19 January 2016 and 11 February 2016 respectively
The facts and complaints in these applications have been summarised in the Court’s decision, which is available in HUDOC.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Has the applicants’ relative’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?
In this connection, was he killed by agents of the State while he was in the basement of the building?
Also in this connection, what steps were taken by the authorities which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to protect Orhan Tunç’s life after he was shot and injured (see Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 116, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑VIII)?
Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph 104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), has an investigation been opened into the death of the applicants’ relative by the domestic authorities, as required by Article 2 of the Convention? If so, is that investigation being conducted in compliance with the requirements of an effective investigation, within the meaning of the Court’s case-law under Article 2 of the Convention?
The Government are requested to submit a copy of the investigation file, including a copy of the documents pertaining to the discovery and identification of Orhan Tunç’s body.
3. Having regard to the circumstances surrounding his death, was the applicants’ relative Orhan Tunç subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
4. Have the applicants’ suffering stemming from their inability to retrieve Orhan Tunç’s body from the basement for weeks, their inability to give him a burial during that period, and finally, the national authorities’ alleged indifference to their calls for help to retrieve the body for many weeks, been in breach of their rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention?
5. Having regard to the applicants’ allegation that the Government have failed to comply with the interim measure indicated on 19 January 2016 in the case no. 4133/16, has there been any hindrance by the State in the present case with the effective exercise of the applicants’ right of individual application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 128, ECHR 2005‑I)? In response to this question the Government are requested to submit a detailed timeline of the steps taken by their authorities in order to protect Orhan Tunç’s life and physical integrity, as required by the interim measure indicated by the Court on 19 January 2016.
6. Has there been a hindrance by the State with the effective exercise of the right of individual application of the two applicants in the case no. 4133/16 on account of the arrest and detention of their legal representative Mr Ramazan Demir (see Colibaba v. Moldova, no. 29089/06, §§ 59-69, 23 October 2007)? In this connection, which activities of Mr Demir were referred to by the prosecutor when that prosecutor accused Mr Demir of carrying out “activities to weaken our country inside and at the international arena by making allegations of torture and alleging violations of human rights” (see Ramazan Demir’s statement dated 17 March 2016)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy