CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 juin 2013

.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 } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA284A115 { width:11.79pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s15D92DFC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } SECOND SECTION Application no. 61361/11 Ümmügül KURTULUŞ and others against Turkey lodged on 29 August 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicants, whose names and dates of birth are set out in the appendix, are Turkish nationals and live in İzmir. They are represented before the Court by Ms Nezahat Paşa Bayraktar, a lawyer practising in İzmir. 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. On 15 September 2010 the fourth and fifth applicants’ son and the remaining applicants’ brother, Özcan Kurtuluş (Ö.K.), arrived outside his fiancée M.U.’s house in order to speak to her about their break-up. He was under the influence of alcohol and when his attempts to talk to her failed, he cut his wrists with a razor blade. M.U. called the police and complained. The police arrived at the scene and took Ö.K. in custody for having breached the peace and security. Ö.K. was taken directly to the Şirinyer Police Station without any medical treatment for his wrists. He was placed in a cell at the police station. The police officers then proceeded to take the testimony of M.U. at the police station. She informed the police officers that Ö.K.’s psychological state was not good, and warned the police officers that he should not be left alone in the cell because he could hurt himself or even commit suicide. While M.U. was still giving her testimony, Ö.K. was found dead in his cell. He was found hanged from the iron rails of the window of his cell with his belt. A police officer immediately untied him and applied first aid; however, he could not be saved. According to the crime scene investigation report, Ö.K. had wounds to both his wrists. His hands and parts of his clothes were covered with blood. They also observed blood on the floor and on the rails of the window. According to the autopsy report drawn up on 5 October 2010, Ö.K. died from asphyxia due to hanging. 96 mg/dl of ethyl alcohol was found in his blood. The belongings of Ö.K. and the belt he used to hang himself were taken away as evidence by two officers of the Şirinyer Police Station, one of whom was H.K. The remaining evidence found at the crime scene was collected and taken away by officers from Crime Scene Investigation and Identification Unit of the İzmir Police Headquarters. The İzmir prosecutor initiated an investigation into the death of Ö.K. On 17 September 2010 the prosecutor decided to investigate separately the two police officers’ allegedly negligent behaviour. On 3 January 2011, regarding the investigation into the death, the İzmir prosecutor decided not to instigate any criminal proceedings against anyone, on the ground that in the light of the evidence in his possession Ö.K. had committed suicide. The prosecutor noted that another investigation was being carried out into the alleged negligence of the police officers. On 2 February 2011 the applicants’ lawyer lodged an objection against the decision of the İzmir prosecutor not to instigate criminal proceedings. On 21 February 2011 the objection was rejected by the Karşıyaka Assize Court. A criminal case was filed before the İzmir Magistrates’ Court’s Criminal Division against the police officers M.Ö. and H.K. for neglect of duty. However, on 29 March 2011 the Magistrates’ Court decided to acquit both defendants. The decision was appealed against by the applicants and the examination of the appeal is still pending before the Court of Cassation. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that Ö.K. did not receive any medical and psychological help before being taken to the police station, even though his wrists had been cut and were bleeding. The applicants allege that no precautions were taken to protect Ö.K.’s life; instead of being taken to a medical institution, he was taken directly into custody and he died in police control. They also complain that an effective and independent investigation was not carried out into the circumstances of Ö.K.’s death. In this connection the applicants complain that some of the evidence was collected by the officers of the same police station, including the officers who themselves were now under investigation in relation to the death. Furthermore, according to the applicants, no investigation was initiated for all the suspects for neglecting their duties, in particular four of the police officers who took Ö.K. into custody. They maintain that the prosecutor did not secure the crucial evidence such as the CCTV recordings of the police station. Finally, no investigation was carried out for the crime of incitement to commit suicide and that the decision not to prosecute and the decision rejecting their objection were not reasoned adequately. APPENDIX   1.   Ümmügül Kurtuluş born on 17/10/1954 2.   Hanife Duyar born on 13/12/1980 3.   Bülent Kurtuluş born on 01/05/1973 4.   Özlem Büyükdede born on 06/10/1984 5.   Ramadan Kurtuluş born on 01/07/1948 6.   Sibel Yıldız born on 02/01/1976     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?   2.     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?