CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } Communicated on 6 September 2019     SECOND SECTION Application no. 30957/19 Sümeyye YILMAZ and others against Turkey lodged on 12 June 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged abduction and disappearance of the applicants’ relative, Mr Mehmet Yılmaz, on 19 February 2019. Mr   Yılmaz was convicted of being a member of the terrorist organisation known as FETÖ/PDY (“Gülenist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”) and was sentenced to 6 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. He was released on 8   January 2019 pending trial and his appeal is still pending before the domestic courts. Relying on Articles 2, 3, 5 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the lack of an effective investigation into Mr   Yılmaz’s disappearance. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, can the individual application to the Constitutional Court be considered as an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention?   2.     Was the right to life of the applicants’ relative, ensured by Article   2 of the Convention, violated in the present case? In particular, was he abducted as alleged by agents of the State on 19   February   2019?   3.     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 to find the applicants’ relative in order to safeguard his life (see Salman v.   Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII and Osmanoğlu v.   Turkey , no.   48804/99, §§ 77-84, 24 January 2008)?   In this connection,   3.1.     What steps are being taken by the investigating authorities, in particular by the relevant prosecutors, in order to find the applicants’ relative, who was allegedly abducted in Ankara?   3.2.     Have the records of public and private surveillance cameras, which could have captured the incident in the vicinity of the crime scene been collected and analysed? If the answer is in the affirmative, what actions are taken to follow those leads?   4.     Has there been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the disappearance of the applicant’s brother? ( Çiçek v.   Turkey , no.   25704/94 , §164, 27 February 2001).     The Government are requested to submit a copy of the investigation file.