CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2A7D9A9F { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFE576862 { width:72pt; display:inline-block } .s57946AA6 { width:25.28pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } Published on 21 October 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 27913/21 Ekrem ZİL against Türkiye and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 30 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the death of the applicants’ relative, Erdem Zil, during a police operation in Istanbul. The applicants are the mother, father and two siblings of the deceased. The applicants allege that the substantive and procedural limbs of the right to life of their relative have been violated as the domestic authorities failed to protect the life of their relative and to carry out an effective investigation into his death. In particular, they argue that: -   their relative was shot and died because of a police officer’s use of him as a human shield, and -   in the decision of non-prosecution issued following the investigation against the police officers, the testimonies of eyewitnesses were disregarded and the public prosecutor relied solely on the statements of the police officers. In this connection, they allege a violation of both the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 2 of the Convention. They complain about the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation also under Article 6 of the Convention.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicants’ relative’s right to life, ensured by Article   2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In particular, were all necessary steps taken by the domestic authorities in organising and regulating the operation with a view to minimising to the greatest extent possible any risk to the right to life (see McCann and Others v.   the United Kingdom , 27 September 1995, §§ 194, Series A no.   324; Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 60, ECHR 2004-XI; Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus , 9 October 1997, § 181, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI; and Elvan v. Türkiye , no.   64937/19, §§   93-94, 7   February 2023)?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see   Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII; Avşar v.   Turkey , no. 25657/94, §§ 393-395, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts); and Tkhelidze v. Georgia , no. 33056/17, §§ 58-59, 8 July 2021), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention? In particular: -   Did the domestic judicial authorities carry out an effective investigation to establish whether the police officers who conducted the police operation in question had had a responsibility in the incident? -   Did the public prosecutor from the office for investigating offences allegedly committed by civil servants (Memur Suçları Soruşturma Bürosu) , attached to the Istanbul public prosecutor’s office, duly collect and assess all the relevant evidence, including the testimonies of eyewitnesses, within the scope of the criminal investigation (see Özalp and Others v.   Turkey , no.   32457/96, §§ 42-47, 8 April 2004; and İkincisoy v. Turkey , no.   26144/95, §§   76-78, 27 July 2004)?   The Government are requested to submit a copy of all documents concerning the criminal investigation carried out against all persons involved in the incident.     APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 27913/21 Zil v.   Türkiye 18/05/2021 Ekrem ZİL 1967 Istanbul Turkish Fırat DURAK 2. 28114/21 Zil v.   Türkiye 18/05/2021 Gizem ZİL 1992 Istanbul Turkish Fırat DURAK 3. 28116/21 Sertel v.   Türkiye 18/05/2021 Şebnem SERTEL 1970 Istanbul Turkish Fırat DURAK 4. 28122/21 Zil v.   Türkiye 18/05/2021 Görkem Ertan ZİL 2005 İstanbul Turkish Fırat DURAK