CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 septembre 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA56BACAB { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s13783063 { width:6.24pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal }   Communicated on 12 September 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 38059/12 Ayşegül TUTAKBALA and others against Turkey lodged on 17 April 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the death of the applicants’ close relative in a police compound in İzmir where he worked as a police officer and the effectiveness of the judicial proceedings concerning the death. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicants’ son and brother Mehmet Tutakbala’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), were the investigation and the trial in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention? To that end, were those proceedings capable of establishing the true facts surrounding the death of Mehmet Tutakbala (see Beker v. Turkey , no. 27866/03, §§   42-53, 24   March 2009)? In this connection: (a)     Was the crime scene investigated immediately by independent experts with a view to finding the bullet which killed Mehmet Tutakbala? (b)     Were there any CCTV cameras in the compound at the time of the events? If so, were they examined by the investigating authorities? The Government are requested to submit to the Court a copy of any video footage showing the incident. (c)     Were the police officers’ hands and pistols examined with a view to ascertaining whether they had opened fire? Your Government are requested to submit documentary evidence in support of their replies to the questions above and submit a copy of the investigation file including, in particular, the following: 1)     Report pertaining to the examination of the scene ( Olay Yeri Tutanağı ); 2)     The report ( expertiz raporu ) mentioned in the İzmir Prosecutor’s decision of 14 December 2010 not to prosecute, which apparently show that Mehmet Tutakbala was shot by a bullet fired from his own pistol; 3)     Correspondence between the investigating authorities and the hospital where Mehmet Tutakbala was treated; and 4)     The post-mortem examination report.             Ayşegül TUTAKBALA is a Turkish national who was born in 1956, lives in Mardin and is represented by E. Yücel;     Selahattin TUTAKBALA is a Turkish national who was born in 1951, lives in Mardin and is represented by E. Yücel;     Murat TUTAKBALA is a Turkish national who was born in 1984, lives in Mardin and is represented by E. Yücel.