Published on 21 October 2024
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 27913/21
Ekrem ZİL against Türkiye
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 30 September 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the death of the applicants’ relative, Erdem Zil, during a police operation in Istanbul. The applicants are the mother, father and two siblings of the deceased.
The applicants allege that the substantive and procedural limbs of the right to life of their relative have been violated as the domestic authorities failed to protect the life of their relative and to carry out an effective investigation into his death. In particular, they argue that:
- their relative was shot and died because of a police officer’s use of him as a human shield, and
- in the decision of non-prosecution issued following the investigation against the police officers, the testimonies of eyewitnesses were disregarded and the public prosecutor relied solely on the statements of the police officers.
In this connection, they allege a violation of both the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 2 of the Convention. They complain about the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation also under Article 6 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicants’ relative’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?
In particular, were all necessary steps taken by the domestic authorities in organising and regulating the operation with a view to minimising to the greatest extent possible any risk to the right to life (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 194, Series A no. 324; Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 60, ECHR 2004-XI; Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus, 9 October 1997, § 181, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI; and Elvan v. Türkiye, no. 64937/19, §§ 93-94, 7 February 2023)?
2. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII; Avşar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, §§ 393-395, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts); and Tkhelidze v. Georgia, no. 33056/17, §§ 58-59, 8 July 2021), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention? In particular:
- Did the domestic judicial authorities carry out an effective investigation to establish whether the police officers who conducted the police operation in question had had a responsibility in the incident?
- Did the public prosecutor from the office for investigating offences allegedly committed by civil servants (Memur Suçları Soruşturma Bürosu), attached to the Istanbul public prosecutor’s office, duly collect and assess all the relevant evidence, including the testimonies of eyewitnesses, within the scope of the criminal investigation (see Özalp and Others v. Turkey, no. 32457/96, §§ 42-47, 8 April 2004; and İkincisoy v. Turkey, no. 26144/95, §§ 76-78, 27 July 2004)?
The Government are requested to submit a copy of all documents concerning the criminal investigation carried out against all persons involved in the incident.
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
27913/21
Zil v. Türkiye
18/05/2021
Ekrem ZİL
1967
Istanbul
Turkish
Fırat DURAK
2.
28114/21
Zil v. Türkiye
18/05/2021
Gizem ZİL
1992
Istanbul
Turkish
Fırat DURAK
3.
28116/21
Sertel v. Türkiye
18/05/2021
Şebnem SERTEL
1970
Istanbul
Turkish
Fırat DURAK
4.
28122/21
Zil v. Türkiye
18/05/2021
Görkem Ertan ZİL
2005
İstanbul
Turkish
Fırat DURAK