Communicated on 13 September 2017
SECOND SECTION
Application no 72875/12
Kamile TERKOĞLU and Others
against Turkey
lodged on 29 August 2012
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the killing of the applicants’ close relative by soldiers in 2006 and the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation and the trial conducted into the killing. The applicants complain of a violation of Articles 2, 6 and 13 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicants’ relative İslam Terkoğlu’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?
In particular, are the conclusions reached by the Military Court in Van and subsequently by the Military Court of Appeal capable of establishing whether the use of force had been absolutely necessary and strictly proportionate? In this connection:
1.1. Were the weapon allegedly fired by İslam Terkoğlu during the incident (Kalashnikov type, serial no. EZ3218) and the 22 bullets found in its magazine examined by the forensic experts with a view to establishing whether they had İslam Terkoğlu’s fingerprints on them?
1.2. Do the domestic legal provisions, which regulate the use of force by law enforcement personnel and which were referred to by the investigating authorities and subsequently by the trial courts, meet the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention concerning necessity and proportionality?
1.3. Did the decision of the Military Court not to hear the defendants directly have a negative bearing on the effectiveness of the trial?
2. Did the authorities act in accordance with the positive obligation inherent in Article 2 of the Convention in order to ensure that İslam Terkoğlu was provided with the necessary medical treatment in a timely manner?
3. 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), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?
The Government are requested to submit a copy of the entire investigation file including, in particular, the following:
(i) incident report (olay yeri tutanağı) prepared by the soldiers;
(ii) footage of the prosecutor’s visit to the scene of the incident;
(iii) forensic reports pertaining to the swabs taken from İslam Terkoğlu’s hands (see the Yüksekova prosecutor’s instruction of 24 November 2006 during the post-mortem examination);
(iv) statements submitted by the complainants to the investigating authorities and the statements taken from the complainants by the investigating authorities;
(v) minutes of the hearings held both by the Hakkari Assize Court and subsequently by the Military Court in Van; and
(vi) the decision not to prosecute M. Reşit Soykan which was taken by the Yüksekova Prosecutor (see page 1 of the minutes of the hearing held by the Hakkari Assize Court on 29 June 2007) and documents concerning the outcome of that investigation against Mr Soykan.
APPENDIX
Kamile TERKOĞLU is a Turkish national who was born in 1983, lives in Hakkari and is represented by D. Uzunköprü Meryem TERKOĞLU is a Turkish national who was born in 1944, lives in Hakkari and is represented by D. Uzunköprü Ömer TERKOĞLU is a Turkish national who was born in 2006, lives in Hakkari and is represented by D. Uzunköprü
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy