SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 8699/16 and 6758/16
Mehmet BALCAL and Others against Turkey
and Ahmet KARADUMAN and Selahattin ÇİÇEK against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6 December 2016 as a Chamber composed of:
Julia Laffranque, President,
Işıl Karakaş,
Paul Lemmens,
Valeriu Griţco,
Ksenija Turković,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,
Georges Ravarani, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 12 February 2016 and 29 January 2016 respectively,
Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above applications under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court;
Having regard to the information submitted by the respondent Government on 15 and 19 February 2016,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The application no. 8699/16 was introduced by Mehmet Balcal, Mehmet Güri Ayaz, Mehmet Çağdavul, Abdullah Çıkmaz, Abdulkerim Özbek, Osman Tankan, H. Ömer Çörek, Meryem (Fidan) Dadak and Harun Barın. Following the demise of the applicant Meryem (Fidan) Dadak in February 2016, her father Mevlüt Dadak expressed his intention to pursue the application on her behalf. The complaints introduced by H. Ömer Çörek and Harun Barın were registered as a separate application (Çörek and Barın v. Turkey, no. 39409/16).
2. Mehmet Balcal, Mehmet Güri Ayaz, Mehmet Çağdavul, Abdullah Çıkmaz, Abdulkerim Özbek, Osman Tankan and Mevlüt Dadak, who were born in 1961, 1990, 1989, 1971, 1952, 1967 and 1992 respectively, will be referred to as the applicants in application no. 8699/16. They are Turkish nationals and are represented before the Court by Mr Ramazan Demir, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
3. The application no. 6758/16 was introduced by Ferhat Karaduman and Veli Çiçek. Following their demise in February 2016, their fathers Ahmet Karaduman and Selahattin Çiçek expressed their intention to pursue the application on behalf of their deceased relatives and submitted an application form.
4. Ahmet Karaduman and Selahattin Çiçek, who were born in 1976 and 1958 respectively, will be referred to as the applicants in application no. 6758/16. They are Turkish nationals and are represented before the Court by Mr Ramazan Demir.
A. The circumstances of the case
1. The applicants
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants and their deceased relatives, and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows.
a. Background to the events giving rise to the application
5. Since August 2015 a number of curfews have been imposed in certain towns and cities in south-east Turkey by the local Governors. The stated aim of the curfews was to clear the trenches dug up and the explosives planted by members of a number of outlawed organisations, as well as to protect the civilians from violence. Some of those curfews were lifted and then re-imposed on various dates.
6. On 14 December 2015 a curfew was imposed in the town of Cizre, prohibiting people from leaving their homes at any time of the day. The 24‑hour curfew in Cizre continued until it was modified on 2 March 2016, whereby people were allowed to leave their homes between the hours of 5 a.m. and 7.30 p.m. Another modification of the modalities of the curfew made on 28 March 2016 allowed people to leave their homes between 4.30 a.m. and 9.30 p.m. and a final modification made on 5 June 2016 limited the curfew hours to between 11 p.m. and 2.30 a.m.
7. According to a report published by the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey on 18 March 2016, the number of civilians killed between August 2015 and 18 March 2016 in areas under curfew ‐ including Cizre ‐ was at least 310. Of those 310 deceased persons, 72 were children, 62 were women and 29 were aged 60 and older. A further 79 persons killed in the area during that same period have not yet been identified.
8. The following was stated in an Amnesty International Briefing, entitled “Turkey: End abusive operations under indefinite curfews” (AI Index: EUR 44/3230/2016), which was published on 21 January 2016:
“Operations by police and the military in [curfew] areas have been characterised by abusive use of force, including firing heavy weaponry in residential neighbourhoods. The Turkish government must ensure that any use of firearms is human rights compliant, and doesn’t lead to the deaths and injuries of unarmed residents.
More than 150 residents have reportedly been killed as state forces have clashed with Revolutionary Patriotic Youth Movement (YDG-H), the youth wing of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). The dead include women, young children and the elderly casting serious doubt over the government’s claims that very few of the dead were unarmed.”
b. The incident and the proceedings before the Court
9. On 9 and 10 February 2016 lawyers representing a total of 31 persons, including the applicant Mehmet Balcal’s son Ferhat Balcal; the applicant Mehmet Güri Ayaz’s brother Hasan Ayaz; the applicant Mehmet Çağdavul’s brother Felek Çağdavul; the applicant Abdullah Çıkmaz’s daughter Yasemin Çıkmaz; the applicant Abdulkerim Özbek’s son Serdar Özbek; the applicant Osman Tantan’s daughter Çimen Tantan; the applicant Mevlüt Dadak’s daughter Meryem (Fidan) Dadak; the applicant Ahmet Karaduman’s son Ferhat Karaduman; and the applicant Selahattin Çiçek’s son Veli Çiçek, made an application to the Constitutional Court in Turkey. They claimed that their clients had been shot and injured and had taken refuge in the basements of three buildings in Cizre. They gave the address of one of the building as “No. 23 Bostancı Street, Cizre” and stated that they did not know the numbers of the remaining two buildings which were located on Narin Street and Beyazıt Street in Cizre. They requested an interim measure to ensure their clients’ immediate access to medical facilities and maintained that their clients and their family members had been unsuccessfully contacting the emergency services to ask for help.
10. On 12 February 2016 the Constitutional Court rejected the requests. According to the information which had apparently been provided to the Constitutional Court by the local governor, paramedics had gone to the addresses in question on a number of occasions but had been unable to find the injured persons. Instead, they had seen the bodies of a number of persons.
11. On 12 (application no. 8699/16) and 15 February 2016 (application no. 6758/16) the applicants requested the Court to indicate to the Turkish Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that they should enable, inter alia, the injured persons’ immediate access to hospitals. They stated that the injured persons were in the basement of a house in Narin Street in Cizre but that they did not know the number of the building. The applicants also stated that it was highly likely that the injured persons had all been killed but that they had no way of verifying it.
12. On 12 February 2016 the Court adjourned its examination of the requests and asked the Government to reply to the following questions by 15 February 2016:
“1. Were the nine persons, whose names are set out in the enclosed information, injured as alleged? What is their health status?
2. What attempts have been made by the emergency services to take the nice injured persons to hospitals?”
13. On 15 February 2016 the Government submitted their replies to the questions.
14. On 17 February 2016 the Court requested the following information from the Government and asked the Government to submit their replies by 19 February 2016:
“According to the information provided by the Şırnak Governor to the Constitutional Court on 11 February 2016 (see page 7 of the Constitutional Court’s decision in case no. 2016/2602), health professionals, who visited the addresses in question on a number of occasions, found no injured persons there but only the bodies of a number of deceased persons. According to the information provided by your Government, however, it was not possible to get close to the buildings in the street due to the barricades set up and the buildings could not be checked since the security of the medical personnel could not be safeguarded (see pages 3-4 of your Government’s submissions in the case of Balcal and Others v. Turkey, no. 8699/16 and page 4 of your Government’s submissions in the case of Koç and Others v. Turkey, no. 8536/16, submitted to the Court on 15 February 2016).
In view of the above, your Government are requested to clarify the current situation and to inform the Court whether any of the applicants are among the deceased persons whose bodies, according to the Constitutional Court, were found in the buildings in question.
You are also requested to submit factual information about the health status of the two applicants (application no. 6758/16) who also requested a similar interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on 15 February 2016. The documents submitted by those two applicants are enclosed with this letter.”
15. On 19 February 2016 the Government submitted their replies to the Court.
16. On 19 February 2016 the applicants’ legal representative informed the Court that he had been informed that day that all injured persons had been killed by the security forces. As all those persons had been burned beyond recognition, identification process would take a long time; out of the injured persons who are the subject matters of the present applications, only the bodies of Ferhat Karaduman and Serdar Özbek had been identified.
17. On 22 February 2016 the Court rejected the requests made for interim measures and decided to give priority treatment to the applications in accordance with Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
18. In their application forms the applicants informed the Court that, as the building in question had been completely destroyed in the course of the bombardments, the rubble from the building had been taken to a landfill. The applicants submitted to the Court photographs of the debris in the landfill in which a number of body parts can be seen. They alleged that the rubble from the buildings had been moved with a view to destroying the evidence which incriminated the security forces. They also informed the Court that the lawyers representing the families were not allowed to take part in the autopsies.
19. In their application forms the applicants also informed the Court that the bodies of the applicants’ deceased relatives Felek Çağdavul and Meryem (Fidan) Dadak had not yet been identified. The remaining bodies had been burned beyond recognition but it had been possible to identify them by DNA comparison.
20. The applicants submitted to the Court a report, prepared by the presidents of the Turkish Human Rights Association and the Turkish Human Rights Foundation following their visit to Cizre on 3 March 2016, that is the day after the curfew in Cizre was lifted during daytime (see paragraph 6 above). The report was drafted by Ms Şebnem Korur Fincancı, who is a professor in forensic medicine and president of the Human Rights Foundation. According to the report, Professor Korur Fincancı and a number of lawyers and NGO workers accompanying her entered one of the three buildings in question and in the basement they observed a large number of fire-damaged human bones and skulls and photographed them. The group members were told by the locals that a prosecutor had visited the building but had not entered in it on account of safety concerns.
21. The group also visited the locations of the remaining two buildings. They noted that one of those buildings had been completely destroyed and were told that the rubble and the body parts in it had been dumped in a landfill. The third building had been damaged so extensively that the group members did not deem it safe to enter.
c. Arrest and detention of the legal representative of the applicants
22. In the early hours of 16 March 2016 the applicants’ legal representative Mr Ramazan Demir’s house in Istanbul was raided by officers from the counter-terrorism department of the police and he was taken into custody.
23. In the evening of 17 March 2016 a prosecutor wanted to question him at the police station. Mr Demir refused to answer the prosecutor’s questions, stating that according to the applicable procedure he could only be questioned at a court house and not at a police station.
24. During the questioning the prosecutor asked Mr Demir questions such as whether he had ever been imprisoned for a PKK-related offence; whether he had any relatives who had links to the PKK or who were in prison for PKK-related activities; whether he visited any relatives or any of his clients in prison; whether he was a member of any association; whether he uses social media; and details of all telephone lines he has had.
25. Mr Demir did not answer any of the questions. In the same statement the prosecutor also accused Mr Demir of the following: “... it is considered that [Mr Demir] will be meeting and conducting interviews with a person, whom he named as Delegasyon, as part of his propaganda and agitation activities and as part of his activities to weaken our country inside and at the international arena by making allegations of torture and alleging violations of human rights.”
26. After his above-mentioned questioning Mr Demir continued to be detained at the police station until he was brought before a judge on 19 March 2016 and his release on bail was ordered by that judge. When questioned by the judge Mr Demir and the lawyers representing him referred to the above-mentioned accusation made by the prosecutor and argued that the real reason for his arrest was to prevent him from representing applicants before the European Court of Human Rights in cases concerning the curfews. They alleged that doing so was in breach of Article 34 of the Convention.
27. After his release the prosecutor objected to Mr Demir’s release and an arrest warrant was issued for Mr Demir on 22 March 2016.
28. On 6 April 2016 Mr Demir went to the courthouse and informed the judge that the reason why he had not surrendered immediately after the arrest warrant had been issued on 22 March 2016 was because he had had to complete a number of application forms and submit them to the Court as he owed a duty to his clients to do so. The judge ordered his detention in a prison, pending the introduction of criminal proceedings against him.
29. On 20 April 2016 Mr Demir authorised his legal representative Ms Ayşe Demir-Bingöl to act on his behalf before the Court regarding a total of 16 applications - including the present ones. Mr Demir was released from prison on bail on 7 September 2016.
2. The Government
30. On 15 and 19 February 2016 the Government provided information regarding the applicants’ allegations.
B. Relevant international materials
31. On 2 December 2016 the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights published his Memorandum on the “Human Rights Implications of Anti-Terrorism Operations in South-Eastern Turkey” (CommDH(2016)39). The Memorandum’s conclusions and recommendations are as follows:
“5. Conclusions and recommendations
118. The Commissioner is fully aware of the extent of the terrorist threat faced by Turkey and recognises the right and duty of the Turkish state to fight against terrorism in all its forms. The Commissioner also understands the circumstances in South-Eastern Turkey, where an armed, separatist organisation, recognised as terrorist by the EU, NATO and many countries, has systematically used violence and terror in a decades-long conflict which has claimed tens of thousands of lives. Nothing in this memorandum should be considered as justifying the actions of the PKK or any other terrorist activity in South-Eastern Turkey.
119. At the same time, the response of the Turkish state, in accordance with its international obligations, must adhere to the principles of rule of law and human rights standards, which require any interference with basic human rights to be defined in law, necessary in a democratic society and strictly proportionate to the aim pursued. In this respect, Turkey has a very long record of extremely grave human rights violations recognised as such by the European Court of Human Rights, with the most severe forms of violation having occurred in South-Eastern Turkey in the 1990s. Following a period of relative peace during the so-called “solution process”, the Commissioner deeply regrets the resumption of hostilities and their rapid escalation in South-Eastern Turkey.
120. For the purposes of this memorandum, the Commissioner examined the response of the Turkish authorities to the situation in the South-East since the summer of 2015, which mainly took the form of declaration of curfews accompanied by police and/or military operations. In the light of this examination as set out in the body of this memorandum and in view of the applicable international and European standards, as well as of the tremendous restrictions on the enjoyment of core human rights that they imposed, the Commissioner considers these measures to have been neither legal, in the sense of being sufficiently foreseeable and defined in law, nor roportionate to the legitimate aim pursued by Turkey.
121. In the opinion of the Commissioner, therefore, the response the Turkish authorities developed since August 2015, characterised by the declaration of open-ended, 24-hour curfews, have caused a number of very serious human rights violations simply by virtue of having been imposed on the affected local populations. The Commissioner urges the Turkish authorities in the strongest possible terms to put an immediate end to this practice. Any future measures deployed in the region must show much higher regard to the human rights of the local civilian population when balancing them against the imperative of the fight against terrorism.
122. As regards numerous allegations of human rights violations committed by security forces, the Commissioner finds them to be extremely serious and consistent. He considers many of these allegations to be credible, given their sources and considering past patterns of human rights violations committed by Turkish security forces during anti-terrorism operations in the South-East, as well as the Turkish authorities’ efforts to reinforce the immunity of security forces from prosecution during this period. At any rate, given the fact that these allegations concern violations in areas cut off from the world during operations which were under the complete control of the authorities, it is for the Turkish authorities to prove convincingly that they are unfounded.
123. The Commissioner observes that the Turkish authorities not only have not shown any willingness to tackle the long-standing problem of impunity and to implement the recurrent recommendations of the Commissioner’s Office on this issue, but that the patterns which have led to serious human rights violations in the past remained in operation during the period in question. All evidence indicates that the authorities did neither treat with the requisite seriousness the allegations of human rights violations, nor conduct ex officio criminal investigations into lives lost during the operations in a way that would be liable to shed light on the events. The priority seems to have rather been to reassure and shield from prosecution the security forces, who have only been subjected to disciplinary sanctions for particularly egregious forms of misconduct with the exception of very few criminal cases where members of security forces were treated as suspects, while at the same time vilifying human rights NGOs and lawyers bringing these allegations. In the Commissioner’s opinion, this situation falls woefully short of Turkey’s international obligations.
124. For investigations into these allegations to be considered effective, they should have been immediate, diligent and thorough. Unfortunately, given the elapsed time since some of the operations, the fact that evidence might have been actively destroyed with heavy machinery in the affected zones, as well as the general attitude of prosecutors, it seems very improbable that any future investigation will fully satisfy the criteria for effectiveness. Turkish authorities will therefore have to contend with the fact that Turkey will be presumed to have committed many serious human rights violations, including violations of the right to life, during the period in question.
125. This situation brings home the urgency for a mentality shift in Turkey when it comes to the accountability of state agents. The Commissioner considers that impunity has been a nefarious influence throughout Turkey’s recent history, legitimising and fostering behaviour fundamentally at odds with human rights, and undermining all efforts to protect and promote them. It is true that the authorities took swift action to punish state agents suspected of involvement in the coup attempt of 15 July 2016, but the Commissioner regrets that one of the first measures taken in this connection was to give administrative, legal and criminal immunity to other state agents enforcing emergency decrees. In the opinion of the Commissioner, a crucial test for human rights in Turkey is whether the same diligence can be shown when the actions are not directed against the state but the human rights of its individual citizens.
126. The Commissioner once more urges Turkey in the strongest possible terms to finally tackle the numerous root causes of impunity in Turkey (see paragraph 83 above) and implement the recommendations he repeatedly made to Turkey for combatting it.
127. In the light of his examination set out in this memorandum, the Commissioner considers that numerous human rights of a very large population in South-Eastern Turkey have been violated in the context of the anti-terrorism operations conducted since August 2015. The priority for Turkey must therefore be to abandon the approach which has led to this situation, followed by the demonstration of a clear will to remedy its effects.
128. This requires, firstly, public recognition by the authorities of the mistakes and human rights violations committed. This must be accompanied by serious efforts to compensate moral and material damages suffered by the people concerned, be it because of the failure of the Turkish state to protect them from terrorism or the direct effect of the anti-terrorist operations themselves. The Commissioner gained the impression that the Turkish authorities do not grasp the scale of the efforts needed in this connection and the existing framework for compensation appears clearly insufficient in many respects. Regarding the approach to expropriate the local population in certain cities affected by the operations, the Commissioner thinks that such a measure would represent a double punishment for the persons affected and cannot be considered a form of redress.
129. The Commissioner wishes to stress his willingness to pursue his constructive dialogue with the Turkish authorities and to offer his assistance and support to their efforts to improve the protection and promotion of human rights in Turkey.”
32. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights stated the following on 10 May 2016:
“UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein said Tuesday that he had received a succession of alarming reports about violations allegedly committed by Turkish military and security forces in south-east Turkey over the past few months, and urged the Turkish authorities to give independent investigators, including UN staff, unimpeded access to the area to verify the veracity of such reports.
“More and more information has been emerging from a variety of credible sources about the actions of security forces in the town of Cizre during the extended curfew there from mid-December until early March,” Zeid said. “And the picture that is emerging, although still sketchy, is extremely alarming.”
“I strongly condemn violence and other unlawful acts committed by the youth groups and other non-state agents, allegedly affiliated with the PKK, in Cizre and other areas, and I regret any loss of life as a result of terrorist acts wherever they have occurred,” Zeid said. “However, while Turkey has a duty to protect its population from acts of violence, it is essential that the authorities respect human rights at all times while undertaking security or counter-terrorism operations – and international law prohibiting torture, extrajudicial killings, disproportionate use of lethal force and arbitrary detention must be observed.”
The High Commissioner said he had received reports of unarmed civilians – including women and children – being deliberately shot by snipers, or by gunfire from tanks and other military vehicles.
“There also appears to have been massive, and seemingly highly disproportionate, destruction of property and key communal infrastructure – including buildings hit by mortar or shellfire, and damage inflicted on the contents of individual apartments and houses taken over by security forces,” he said. “There are also allegations of arbitrary arrests, and of torture and other forms of ill-treatment, as well as reports that in some situations ambulances and medical staff were prevented from reaching the wounded. On top of all this, there has been huge displacement triggered by the curfews and by subsequent fighting, shelling, killings and arrests in many places in the south-east.”
“Most disturbing of all,” the High Commissioner said, “are the reports quoting witnesses and relatives in Cizre which suggest that more than 100 people were burned to death as they sheltered in three different basements that had been surrounded by security forces.”
“All these allegations, including those levelled at the groups fighting against the security forces, are extremely serious and should be thoroughly investigated, but do not appear to have been so far,” Zeid said. “The Turkish Government has not responded positively to requests by my Office and other parts of the United Nations to visit the region to collect information first-hand.”
The UN Human Rights Chief noted that more information has emerged from Cizre compared to other districts, towns and villages in the south-east – including Silopi, Nusaybin and the Sur district of Diyarbakır, the main city in the region – which were sealed off for weeks on end, and are still next to impossible to access, because of the heavy security presence.
“In 2016, to have such a lack of information about what is happening in such a large and geographically accessible area is both extraordinary and deeply worrying,” Zeid said. “This black-out simply fuels suspicions about what has been going on. I therefore renew my call for access for UN staff and other impartial observers and investigators, including civil society organizations and journalists.”
Noting alarm bells rung by other international human rights entities in recent weeks,* Zeid called for a prompt investigation and prosecution of all those suspected of being involved in violations of the right to life, including extrajudicial killings and disproportional use of lethal force, and stressed that the judiciary should act independently from all other branches of the State, including the military and the Executive. He also called on the Turkish authorities to allow the return of all those who have been forcibly displaced, and urged them to ensure that, in future, curfews are limited to the minimum duration necessary and with due concern for human rights obligations and humanitarian considerations.
The High Commissioner noted Turkey’s continued engagement with UN human rights bodies, including the recent visit of UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances; the recent review of the country’s record by the UN Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families; and the ongoing review by the UN Committee against Torture which will issue its concluding observations on Friday 13 May.
* On 14 April, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights stated that “respect for human rights has deteriorated at an alarming speed in recent months in the context of Turkey’s fight against terrorism;” and the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, which visited Turkey from 14-18 March, stated its concern “at the increasingly worrisome situation in the South-East of the country and its wide impact on human rights.” The Working Group also stressed “the need to undertake a thorough and impartial investigation into all allegations of human rights violations in the context of the current security operations, including of families not being able to have access to the bodies of their killed loved ones or of bodies being disposed of.
...”
COMPLAINTS
33. The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that their relatives were shot and injured by members of the security forces and that the national authorities, instead of providing them medical assistance, killed them intentionally.
34. Under the same provision the applicants argue that no steps were taken by the prosecutors to investigate the deaths of their relatives. In that connection they highlight, in particular, that no investigative steps were taken by the prosecutors other than supervising the carrying out of a number of autopsies. The building in which their relatives had been killed was not visited by any prosecutor or any expert with a view to collecting the evidence, but was instead demolished in order to destroy the evidence implicating the security forces. None of the security forces members or any civilians were questioned and their lawyers were not allowed to take part in the autopsies.
35. The applicants complain that their suffering on account of the combination of factors (such as having to witness their relatives being burned to death; searching for the bodies of their relatives in a number of hospitals; inability of some of them to find the bodies of their loved ones; and their inability to give their relatives a burial for long periods of times during which the bodies deteriorated and lost their integrity) amounted to inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.
36. Under Article 5 of the Convention the applicants argue that the curfew was executed so strictly that their relatives were not permitted to leave the basement to get medical assistance and ambulances were not allowed to pick them up.
37. The applicants complain that the bodies of their relatives were not handed over to them and that the family members were not given the opportunity to organise and to be present during a funeral, in breach of their right to respect for their private lives within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.
38. Finally under Article 34 of the Convention the applicants allege that the real reason for the arrest and detention of their legal representative, Ramazan Demir, was his representation of applicants from the curfew areas and complain that Mr Demir’s arrest and detention constitute a serious interference with their right of individual application.
39. In addition to the above, the applicants in application no. 6758/16 also complain that their and their families’ inability to receive the bodies of their loved ones for a period of two to three weeks and their inability to be present during their funerals was in breach of their rights under Article 9 of the Convention.
40. Relying on Articles 1 and 34 of the Convention applicants in application no. 6758/16 also complain that, by failing to fulfil the Court’s request [made in another comparable case, Halil Yavuzel and Others v. Turkey, no. 5317/16] to take steps to protect the right to life of the injured persons and their physical integrity and by preventing other persons from offering them assistance, the respondent State failed to comply with their obligations under Article 34 of the Convention not to hinder their right of individual application.
THE LAW
A. Joinder of the applications
41. In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given their similar factual and legal background.
B. Complaints under Articles 2, 3, 8, 9 and 34 of the Convention
42. The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that their relatives lost their lives not only as a result of the national authorities’ failure to allow ambulances to pick them up from the basement and take them to hospital after they were shot and seriously injured, but also as a result of having been killed by the security forces. Under the same provision they also complain that the national authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the deaths. They further complain that their own rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention were breached on account of their inability to retrieve their relatives’ bodies. The applicants in application no. 6758/16 also complain that their rights under 9 of the Convention were breached on account of their inability to bury their children in a timely manner and be present during their funerals.
43. Finally, the applicants complain that the Government, by arresting and detaining their legal representative, acted in breach of their obligations under Article 34 of the Convention.
44. The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case-file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of them to the respondent Government.
C. Complaints under Article 5 of the Convention and the complaint under Article 34 of the Convention by the applicants in application no. 6758/16
45. The applicants argue under Article 5 of the Convention that the curfew was executed so strictly that their relatives were not permitted to leave the basement to get medical assistance and ambulances were not allowed to pick them up.
46. The applicants in application no. 6758/16 also argue that the respondent State failed in its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention by ignoring the Court’s request and by not providing assistance to their relatives.
47. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the provisions invoked. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaints under Articles 2, 3, 8, 9 and 34 of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 15 December 2016.
Hasan BakırcıJulia Laffranque
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy