CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;FRA;FRE — 20 juin 2017

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 20 June 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 42329/11 Bişar AYHAN against Turkey lodged on 23 May 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the shooting of the applicant by infantry soldiers close to the Iranian border of Turkey, while he and a group of people from his village were smuggling fuel from Iran on horseback, and the allegation of a lack of an effective investigation into his shooting. It also concerns the alleged failure to provide the applicant in a timely manner with medical care for his injuries. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant’s right to life, guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In particular, was it absolutely necessary and proportionate, for the purposes of Article 2 § 2, to resort to the use of force which resulted in the applicant’s injury?   In this connection, were all necessary steps taken by the military forces when organising the operation with a view to minimising to the greatest extent possible any risk to the right to life (see Makaratzis v.   Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 60, ECHR 2004 ‑ XI)?   Also in this connection, what are the applicable domestic rules and regulations on the use of potentially lethal force by the security forces in similar illegal border crossing incidents? Are they compatible with the “absolutely necessary” requirement of Article 2 § 2 of the Convention?   2.     Has an effective investigation been carried out at the national level to verify whether the use of force by the soldiers had been absolutely necessary and proportional to achieving one of the aims set out in paragraph   2 of Article 2 of the Convention (see Gülbahar Özer and Others v.   Turkey , no.   44125/06, §49-76, 2 July 2013)? In this connection:   (a)   Despite the restrictions placed on the investigation file by a decision of the military court, was the applicant able to participate in the criminal investigation in an effective manner ( Anık and Others v. Turkey , no.   63758/00, § 73, 5 June 2007)?   (b)   Was an official record of the events prepared by the soldiers in the immediate aftermath of the fire opened by those soldiers?   (c)   What investigative steps were taken to establish the veracity of the allegations of the soldiers, who claim that they fired warning shots first?   3.     Has the applicant been subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention on account of the fact that despite his critical injuries he was not immediately taken to hospital after the shooting by the security forces?   The Government are requested to submit documentary evidence in support of their answers to the questions above.