CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 décembre 2016

.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 } .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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   Communicated on 6 December 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 63133/15 İrfan UYSAL against Turkey and 4 other applications (see list appended)     The facts and complaints in these applications have been summarised in the Court’s decision, which is available in HUDOC.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Have the right to life of the applicants in applications nos. 63133/15, 4684/16 and 4817/16, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been endangered on account of the fire opened on them allegedly by members of the security forces?   3.     Has the right to life of applicant’s father in application no. 4552/16, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In this connection, was he killed by agents of the State? Also in this connection, what steps were taken by the authorities which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to protect the applicant’s father’s right to life after he was shot and injured (see Osman v. the United Kingdom , 28   October 1998, § 116, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ VIII)?   4.     Has the right to life of applicant’s son in application no.   5332/16, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In this connection, in accordance with the positive obligation under Article   2 of the Convention, have the authorities taken the reasonable measures available to them to find the applicant’s son in order to safeguard his life (see Osmanoğlu v. Turkey , no. 48804/99, §§ 71 and 84, 24 January 2008)?   5.     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), have investigations been opened into the applicants’ above-mentioned complaints by the domestic authorities, as required by Article 2 of the Convention? If so, are those investigations being conducted in compliance with the requirements of an effective investigation, within the meaning of the Court’s case-law under Article 2 of the Convention?   The Government are requested to submit a copy of the investigation files.   6.     Has the applicant in application no. 5332/16 been subjected to ill ‑ treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the national authorities’ alleged failure to take steps to find his son (see İpek v.   Turkey , no. 25760/94, § 183, ECHR 2004 ‑ II (extracts))?   7.     Was the applicant in application no. 5332/16 deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5   §   1 of the Convention? If so: a)   Did the deprivation of liberty fall within any of the paragraphs of this provision? b)   Was the applicant’s deprivation “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?   8.     Has there been a hindrance by the State with the effective exercise of the right of individual application of the applicants on account of the arrest and detention of their representative Mr   Ramazan Demir (see Colibaba v.   Moldova , no.   29089/06, §§   59-69, 23 October 2007)? In this connection, which activities of Mr   Demir were referred to by the prosecutor when that prosecutor accused Mr   Demir of carrying out “activities to weaken our country inside and at the international arena by making allegations of torture and alleging violations of human rights” (see Ramazan Demir’s statement dated 17 March 2016)?       Appendix No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   63133/15 29/12/2015 İrfan UYSAL 20/10/1986 Cizre   Ramazan DEMİR   4552/16 20/01/2016 Adem TUNÇ 19/01/1990 Şırnak   Ramazan DEMİR   4684/16 20/01/2016 Faysal SARIYILDIZ 10/04/1975 Ankara   Ramazan DEMİR   4817/16 21/01/2016 Helin ÖNCÜ 19/02/1995 Mardin   Ramazan DEMİR   5332/16 25/01/2016 Mehmet GEÇİM 05/01/1959 Şırnak   Ramazan DEMİR