Turkey’s conviction for an ineffective investigation regarding the death of persons by soldiers
JUDGMENT
Güler and Tekdal v. Turkey 10/10/2017 (no. 65815/10)
SUMMARY
Unspecified conditions of death. Ineffective research. Violation of the right to life.
PROVISION
Article 2
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicants, Fatma Güler and Emin Tekdal, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1981 and 1966 respectively and live in Ecemiş village, in the province of Diyarbakır (Turkey). The case concerned the killing of their 30-year-old brother and nephew, respectively, Murat Tekdal, by the military.
On 12 September 2008 Murat Tekdal left his home to walk to a nearby village. His body was found the next day by soldiers near to a brook not far from his village. According to a report drawn up the next day by the soldiers, Murat had been killed in an armed clash with a group of five members of the PKK, an illegal organisation. His body had been found during the search conducted by the soldiers the following morning, lying next to a loaded hunting rifle with two unexploded cartridges. The soldiers concluded that Murat had been one of the terrorists. Apart from this report, other steps taken included an inspection of the crime scene and an autopsy – both concluded that the cause of death had been from gunfire. The prosecuting authorities launched an investigation into the applicants’ relative for membership of the PKK, but they decided just over a month later not to bring criminal proceedings against him because he was dead. The applicants lodged an objection with the courts against this decision, urging an order to be issued for the authorities to carry out an investigation into their relative’s death. In April 2010 the courts found that the applicants had no standing to bring such an objection as there was no investigation into the killing of their relative, only an investigation to prosecute him for membership of the PKK.
Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants alleged that their relative had been killed unlawfully by the military and that no investigation at all had been conducted into his killing. They submitted that no armed clash had taken place at all, as evidenced by the fact that their relative’s hunting rifle had still been fully loaded. Indeed, they alleged that everything in the incident had indicated that their relative had been an innocent civilian, and not the member of an outlawed organisation that he had been portrayed to be by the security forces in order to avoid prosecution.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 2 (right to life)
Violation of Article 2 (investigation)
Just satisfaction: The applicants did not make a claim in respect of pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage. The Court awarded them EUR 4,000 jointly in respect of costs and expenses. (echrcaselaw.com editing)
