CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 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 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s4070A5A6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .sCDABDDB1 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } SECOND SECTION Application no. 48292/11 Ömer YAMAN and Seniha YAMAN against Turkey lodged on 30 June 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Mr Ömer Yaman and Mrs Seniha Yaman, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1957 and 1964 respectively and live in Batman. They are represented before the Court by Mr Hüseyin Akçara, a lawyer practising in Batman. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows. In the evening of 12 March 2006 the applicant’s twelve-year-old son Ferhat Yaman was walking in Batman with a number of his relatives when he suddenly fell to the ground. When his relatives tried to lift him up they realised that his face was bleeding and then noticed a bullet entry hole next to his right eyebrow. They put him in a vehicle and took him to a hospital immediately. He was declared dead on his arrival at the hospital. The same evening an autopsy was carried out on the body of Ferhat and the bullet lodged inside his head was taken out. The cause of death was established as destruction of the brain. According to a report drawn up by two police officers there was no evidence at the place where Ferhat was shot. The relatives who had been walking with Ferhat at the time, a nearby shop owner and a resident living nearby were questioned by police officers. They said that they had heard machine gun fire, but had not seen the person or the persons firing. It appears from a letter sent from a police chief to the Batman prosecutor on 16 March 2006 that twenty-two spent bullet cases fired from a Kalashnikov rifle had been found in an area of Batman on 14 March 2006. On 22 May 2007 the Batman prosecutor issued a continuous search order and asked the Batman police headquarters to keep looking for the perpetrators of the shooting until expiry of the statute of limitations on 12   March 2021. On various subsequent dates police officers sent the Batman prosecutor reports, stating that their searches had been futile. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that the agents of the respondent State failed to take steps to prevent the killing of their son. Relying on Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention the applicants also complain that no effective investigation was being carried out into the killing. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 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?   In this connection: 1.     What steps were taken by the relevant authorities in the immediate aftermath of the incident to secure any evidence at the site of the incident?   2.     What steps were taken to find any eyewitnesses to the incident?   3.     When was the on-site report ( Olay Yeri Görgü Tespit Tutanağı ) prepared by police officers Vedat Yıldırım and Yusuf Özoğul?   4.     When did the relevant prosecutor visit the place of the incident?   5.     What action has been taken in relation to the twenty-two spent bullet cases found on 14 March 2006?