CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 décembre 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 } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt }   Communicated on 4 December 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 58984/17 Ahmet OKUMUŞ against Turkey lodged on 21 August 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the disappearance of Murat Okumuş, the applicant’s son, following his abduction by unknown persons on 16   June 2017 and the allegations of a lack of an effective investigation into his disappearance.   In relation to the above, the applicant invokes Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the right to life of the applicant’s son, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case? In particular, was he abducted by agents of the State?   2.     In accordance with the procedural and positive obligations under Article   2 of the Convention, have the authorities carried out an effective investigation and taken the necessary measures available to them to find the applicant’s son in order to safeguard his life (see respectively Salman v.   Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §104, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII, and Osmanoğlu v.   Turkey , no. 48804/99, §§ 71 and 84, 24 January 2008)?   In this connection:   2.1.     Given the urgency of the issue in question, was the investigation instigated promptly? 2.2.     Has the footage recorded by CCTVs and other security cameras along the route of the two cars involved in the incident and GPRS data of one of the cars been secured and analysed? 2.3.     Has it been possible to identify the perpetrators’ images from the footage? If your reply is in the affirmative, has there been any follow up on those leads? 2.4.     Have the owners of the vehicles with the licence plate numbers 48   E   8012 and 35 ZF 286 been identified with a view to examining whether these individuals had played a role in the abduction of the applicant’s son? In particular, have there been any attempts to identify the individual who rented the car with the licence plate number 48 E 8012 during the period of time when the applicant’s son had allegedly been followed? 2.5.     Have the statements of the owners’ of cars with the licence plate numbers 20 AK 171 and 45 UL 744 been cross-checked with supporting evidence or the statements of other individuals? 2.6.     Have all the eye witnesses to the incident been identified and questioned?   3.     Has there been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the disappearance of the applicant’s son? ( Çiçek v. Turkey , no.   25704/94 , §   164, 27 February 2001)   The Government are requested to submit a copy of the investigation file.