CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 septembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } Published on 23 September 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 20325/21 Nursena KÜÇÜKÖZYİĞİT against Türkiye lodged on 20 April 2021 communicated on 4 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged abduction and disappearance of the applicant’s father, Mr Hüseyin Galip Küçüközyiğit, on 29 December 2020 in Ankara. Mr Küçüközyiğit was convicted for membership of an armed terrorist organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure” ( Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü/Paralel Devlet Yapılanması , hereinafter referred to as “the FETÖ/PDY”) and sentenced to imprisonment. He was released on 6   May 2019 pending trial and his appeal is still pending before the domestic courts. Relying on Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the lack of an effective investigation into her father’s disappearance. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant 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 applicant’s complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention? 2.     Was the right to life of the applicant’s father, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case (see, for instance, Tanış and   Others v. Turkey , no. 65899/01, §§ 199-205, ECHR 2005-VIII)? In particular, was he abducted, as alleged, by agents of the State on 29   December 2020? 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 applicant’s father 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, §§ 70-84, 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 applicant’s father 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?   3.3.     Furthermore, following the applicant’s submission that an anonymous twitter account had claimed that certain people, who had been allegedly involved in the FETÖ/PDY terrorist organisation, had been abducted and tortured in a place known as the “Farm” in Ankara, what steps have been taken by the prosecution authorities to verify these claims?   4.     Has there been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the disappearance of the applicant’s father ( Çiçek v. Turkey , no.   25704/94, §   164, 27 February 2001)?   The Government are requested to submit a copy of the investigation file and the relevant decisions at domestic level, including the decision of the Constitutional Court on the applicant’s individual application.