CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 novembre 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 2 December 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 11258/24 Çilem DOĞAN against Türkiye lodged on 5 April 2024 communicated on 14 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conviction for killing her husband, who subjected her to physical and psychological violence for a prolonged period, and against whom the applicant had secured restraining orders, some of which she later asked to be lifted. During her criminal trial the applicant pleaded self-defence, submitting that on the night of the event her husband had forced her to go to another city and had threatened to prostitute her, and had dragged her by the hair when she had resisted. She explained that she had picked up her husband’s gun and had fired at him multiple times, in a moment of desperation and out of fear for her life. The applicant also submitted that the police had failed to protect her; they had in fact advised her to return to her husband and had used her as an informant to collect information on his illegal activities. During the course of the criminal proceedings, and in a written response to a question by the trial court in this respect, the relevant police authority disputed the allegation that they had used the applicant as an informant. The trial court rejected the applicant’s plea of self-defence, noting, inter alia , the absence of an imminent threat to her life and the fact that she had suffered no injuries on the night of the incident. The court, however, considered that she had been provoked by her husband, and therefore sentenced her to fifteen years of imprisonment for voluntary manslaughter. The applicant complains under Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention that the authorities failed to effectively protect her from domestic violence; that the chain of events in the broader context of the domestic violence she had suffered at the hands of her husband was insufficiently taken into account when her plea of self-defence was assessed; that her requests for the police officers who asked her to be an informant to be heard as witnesses were refused without any reason being given and that the courts gave insufficient reasons for their decision by not properly assessing the facts within the framework of Article 27   §   2 of the Criminal Code, which provides for criminal liability to be waived in certain cases of excessive self-defence. The applicant furthermore complains under Article 14 of the Convention, in connection with the above provisions and complaints, that she was discriminated against in the treatment of her case on the basis of her gender. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the State’s positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention, did the authorities discharge their obligation to protect the applicant from domestic violence (see, mutatis mutandis , Kurt v.   Austria   [GC], no. 62903/15, §§ 157-160 and §§ 177-189, 15 June 2021 and A.E. v. Bulgaria , no. 53891/20, §§ 84-89, 23 May 2023)?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against her, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention? In particular;   (a)     Was the rejection by the trial court of the applicant’s request to call the police officers as witnesses compatible with Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3   (d) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Murtazaliyeva v.   Russia   [GC], no.   36658/05, §§ 139-168, 18 December 2018)?   (b)     Did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasoning for their decision to convict the applicant for voluntary manslaughter, having regard to the main arguments of the applicant and the specific context of the cycle of domestic violence suffered by the applicant? Was the refusal of those courts to consider the applicant’s self-defence plea under Article 27 § 2 of the Criminal Code manifestly unreasonable for the purposes of Article   6 §   1 (see, generally, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2)   [GC], no.   19867/12, §§ 83-84, 11 July 2017)?   3.     Has the applicant suffered gender-based discrimination contrary to Article   14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention, in respect of the authorities’ acts or omissions she complains of under Articles 3 and 6 (see, among others, A. E. v.   Bulgaria , cited above, §   119 with further references)?