Communicated on 6 December 2016
SECOND SECTION
Applications nos. 8699/16 and 6758/16
Mehmet BALCAL and Others against Turkey
and Ahmet KARADUMAN and Selahattin ÇİÇEK against Turkey
lodged on 12 February 2016 and 29 January 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. Have the applicants’ relatives’ right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?
In this connection, were they killed by agents of the State while they were 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 the applicants’ relatives’ lives after they were 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 deaths of the applicants’ relatives 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 the bodies of the applicants’ relatives.
3. Has the applicants’ suffering stemming from their inability to retrieve their relatives’ bodies for weeks and their alleged inability to give their relatives a burial, been in breach of their rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and in breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 9 of the Convention in application no. 6758/16?
4. Has there been a hindrance by the State with the effective exercise of the right of individual application of the applicants 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