CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 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. 53933/11 Cengiz KÜRKUT against Turkey lodged on 4 July 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the shooting of the applicant, allegedly by a police officer, during the large-scale clashes that took place between civilians and police officers in Diyarbakır (for description of those events, see Ataykaya v. Turkey , no. 50275/08, § 6, 22 July 2014) and the allegation of a lack of an effective investigation thereof. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the right to life of the applicant, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?   In particular, did the applicant’s injury result from use of force by the police officers? If so, was that use of force absolutely necessary and proportionate for the purposes of paragraph 2 of this Article (see Güleç v.   Turkey , 27 July 1998, §§ 69-73, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ IV)?   2.     Were all necessary steps taken by the police officers when organising and regulating 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)?   3.     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), did the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities meet the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention? To that end, have effective investigations been carried out by the national authorities in order to establish the circumstances of the shooting? In this connection:   (a)     What investigative steps were taken by the prosecutors after the introduction of the formal complaint by the applicant?   (b)     What investigative steps have been taken since the prosecutor issued the standing order on 17 March 2008 to the police to search for the perpetrator?   (c)     What attempts have been made to identify the weapon from which the rubber bullet, extracted from the applicant’s body, had been fired?   (d)     What attempts have been made to verify whether there existed a video footage of the incidents, and to identify and question any witnesses to the incidents?   (e)     What attempts have been made to find the clothes worn by the applicant at the time of his shooting?   The Government are requested to submit documentary evidence in support of their answers to the questions above.