CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 avril 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s4070A5A6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF5C1637F { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } SECOND SECTION Application no. 68605/11 Gurbet AYDEMİR against Turkey lodged on 20 September 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Ms Gurbet Aydemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Adana. She is represented before the Court by Ms Sevil Aracı and Mr Tugay Bek, lawyers practising in Adana. The application was brought by the applicant on behalf of her fifteen year-old son, Ramazan Aydemir. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and as they appear from the documents submitted by her, may be summarised as follows. On 17 March 2010 clashes took place between police officers and a number of young people in the town of Seyhan near Adana. During the clashes police officers indiscriminately fired plastic bullets towards the crowds. The applicant’s then thirteen-year-old son Ramazan was on his way to his grandmother’s house when he was hit in the left eye by a plastic bullet fired by a police officer. The same day he was taken to a hospital and underwent eye surgery. As a result of the incident Ramazan permanently lost his eyesight in the left eye. On 22 March 2010 the applicant submitted an official complaint petition to the prosecutor and asked for those responsible for her son’s injury to be prosecuted. On 9 April 2010 the applicant and her son Ramazan were questioned by a number of police officers. Ramazan told the police officers that the plastic bullet had been fired from the direction of armoured police vehicles. As soon as he had been hit he had removed the plastic bullet from his eye. He had then passed out and been taken to the hospital. On 6 January 2011 the Adana prosecutor decided not to prosecute the police officers. The prosecutor noted in his decision that, according to the police officers, no plastic bullets had been used in the incident. It also appears from the decision that the prosecutor had examined the video footage of the incident and had not seen the police officers shooting or the applicant being shot. The object which had hit the applicant’s son in the eye had also got lost after having been taken out by him. Thus, the prosecutor concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal proceedings against the police officers. The applicant lodged an objection against the decision and repeated her allegation that the police officers had fired plastic bullets towards the group of children. She also argued that the decision given by the prosecutor had been in breach of the obligation to protect, inter alia , the physical integrity of her son which was guaranteed by the Convention. The objection was rejected by the Tarsus Assize Court on 21 February 2011 and the Assize Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 21   March 2011. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention that her son’s right to physical integrity was breached and that the judicial authorities did not investigate the incident adequately. She also alleges that the police officers destroyed crucial evidence. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Has the applicant’s son’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?   In particular, was it absolutely necessary for the purposes of Article 2 § 2 to resort to a use of force which threatened the applicant’s son’s life?   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?   2.     Has the applicant’s son been subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant and her son have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   The Government are also requested to confirm whether any attempts have been made by the prosecutor to identify and question any civilian eyewitnesses to the incident and whether the prosecutor questioned the applicant or her son directly?   Finally, the Government are requested to submit to the Court a copy of the investigation file, including the following:   i) on-site reports (olay yeri tutanağı) and any other reports prepared by the police officers in the course and aftermath of the incidents; ii) statements taken from the police officers who took part in the incident; and, iii) video footage of the incident, mentioned in the prosecutor’s decision of 6 January 2011.