CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 novembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }     Communicated on 24 November 2014   SECOND SECTION Application no. 35872/08 Vehbi BAŞBİLEN and Keziban BAŞBİLEN against Turkey lodged on 17 July 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Mr Vehbi Başbilen and Ms Keziban Başbilen, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1953 and 1950 respectively and live in Ankara. They are represented before the Court by Mr S.R. Başbilen, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants are the parents of Mr Hüseyin Başbilen, who was found dead in his car on 5 August 2006. Mr Başbilen was an engineer working at Aselsan, a defence contractor that produces technology for the Turkish Army. According to the scene of incident report, when the police found Mr   Başbilen’s car, it was locked. His left wrist and throat had been cut with a utility knife. His head was under the glove compartment on the passenger’s side and his feet were up on the driver’s seat. A suicide note, typed on a computer, was also found in the car; it stated that he had no problems with his wife, his family or at work, but he wished to put an end to his life as he was in emotional pain. In the note, he also gave details of his bank accounts and explained how he wished that his property be managed following his death. The police took several photos and sent the body for a post mortem examination. In the subsequent investigation, initiated by the Ankara Public Prosecutor’s Office, statements were taken from the applicants and Mr   Başbilen’s wife. While the applicants denied the possibility that their son had committed suicide, his wife stated that Mr Başbilen had been under psychological treatment for depression. She explained that they were seeing a psychiatrist, and that on his last visit to the doctor on 1   August 2006, Mr   Başbilen had mentioned that he intended to commit suicide. According to the autopsy report of 6 August 2006, there was a cut on the throat between the left thyroid cartilage and left ear and a second 8 cm-long deep cut on the left wrist. The report concluded that the fatal cut was the one on the left wrist and that Mr Başbilen had died due to massive blood loss. In the course of the investigation, the public prosecutor further obtained an expert’s opinion, and found it established that the signature on the suicide note belonged to Mr Başbilen. Moreover, a copy of the suicide note was found in Mr Başbilen’s computer at work. Based on the evidence in the case file, the Ankara Public Prosecutor held that Mr Başbilen had committed suicide. Accordingly, on 28   November 2006 he issued a decision of non-prosecution. On 25 December 2006 the applicants filed an objection against the decision of non-prosecution. In their petition to the Assize Court, they maintained that their son had been murdered. In this respect, they argued that Mr Başbilen had been working on important projects at Aselsan and that it was possible that he had been threatened. They requested the domestic authorities to examine the telephone records. They also asked the Assize Court to hear the psychiatrist who, according to the statement of Mr   Başbilen’s wife, had been treating their son for depression. On 12 April 2007 the Sincan Assize Court decided to carry out a more thorough investigation into the incident. It accordingly ordered an expert report from the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institution to clarify, in particular, whether in suicide cases it was possible to have two separate cuts, i.e. one on the throat and another on the wrist, like in the present case. On 28 September 2007 the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institution, by a majority, held that the cut on Mr Başbilen’s throat was superficial and the fatal cut, which had caused massive blood loss, was the one on his wrist. The report concluded by saying that it was possible that both cuts had been inflicted by Mr Başbilen himself. On 13 December 2007 the Sincan Assize Court found it established that the applicants’ son had committed suicide and rejected the applicants’ objection. This decision was served on the applicants on 18 January 2008. Subsequently, in 2011, in the course of the Ergenekon investigation relating to the prosecution of several military officers for attempting to overthrow the government, it was revealed that the suicide of the applicants’ son was suspicious. On the basis of this information, the Ankara Public Prosecutor reopened the investigation and appointed an expert to investigate the case in depth. According to the information in the case file, the investigation is still pending before the domestic authorities without any concrete results. COMPLAINT The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that the domestic authorities did not take reasonable and adequate steps to clarify the circumstances surrounding the death of their son. In particular, they complain about the excessive delay and several shortcomings in the investigation. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the procedural obligation of the right to life (see, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII), was the investigation in the present case, into the death of the applicants’ son, in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?