CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 juillet 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 77 July-August 2005 Şimşek and Others v. Turkey - 35072/97 Judgment 26.7.2005 [Section II] Article 2 Article 2-1 Life Unlawful killing of seventeen persons by security forces when dispersing demonstrations, and effectiveness of the investigations: violation   Facts : The applicants are the relatives of seventeen persons who were killed during demonstrations in Instanbul in 1995, in a neighbourhood where the majority of the residents belong to the Alevi sect. Following the shooting on several cafes by unidentified persons, residents of the neighbourhood gathered on the street to protest against the indifference displayed by the police officers after the shooting. The police set up barricades in the area and at one point began firing at the demonstrators. Two persons were killed after the police began firing from behind the barricades, which raised the tension and the advancement of the demonstrators towards the police barricades. During the subsequent events, fifteen other persons were killed. The events sparked widespread outrage throughout the country, and in other demonstrations which took place thereafter, more people were killed. The Government contested the version of events given by the applicants. They claimed that the crowd had attacked the police vehicles and that the security forces had verbally warned people to stop and tried to disperse them with pressurised water and batons. They also maintained that the domestic authorities had properly conducted their investigations into the events in dispute, and that the relatives of the deceased persons had been paid compensation pursuant to domestic law. The Public Prosecutor commenced an investigation in 1995 and filed an indictment against twenty police officers who had been on duty during the demonstrations. The Assize Court delivered its judgment in 2000, finding that two of the police officers were guilty for having shot and killed several persons. The Court of Cassation quashed the convictions. In a subsequent judgment, the Court of Assize maintained the sentence against one of the police officers with some rectifications and suspended that of the other. Law : Article 2 – Failure to protect the right to life : The accounts of the events being disputed between the parties, the Court examined the issues at stake in the light of the documentary evidence adduced in the present case. Under this article, the use of lethal force by police officers may be justified in certain circumstances, but it does not grant a carte blanche. Whilst the demonstrations had not been peaceful and the police was confronted with resistance and acts of violence, the officers had shot directly at the demonstrators without first having recourse to less life-threatening methods, such as tear gas, water cannons or rubber bullets. The principle enshrined in Turkish law that police officers can use firearms only in limited circumstances was not applied during the incidents. The police officers involved enjoyed a great autonomy of action and lacked a clear and centralised command. In such circumstances, the use of force to disperse the demonstrators, which caused the death of seventeen persons, was more than absolutely necessary within the meaning of this article. Adequacy of the investigation : Three separate investigations concerning the incidents were initiated by the authorities, but there were striking omissions in the conduct of these inquiries. In connection with the investigation by the Assize Court which led to the conviction of two officers, one with a suspended sentence, the steps taken had been dilatory and half-hearted. The case was initiated in 1995, but transferred between domestic courts due to security reasons and jurisdictional problems. Furthermore, at no stage did the courts examine the overall responsibility of the authorities for the deficiencies in the conduct of the operation and for their inability to ensure a proportionate use of force to disperse the demonstrators. Another of the investigations was still pending. In sum, the authorities had not conducted prompt and adequate investigations into the killing of the applicants' relatives. The manner in which the criminal justice system operated in response to the tragic events failed to secure full accountability of State officials or their authorities. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The court awarded 30,000 euros to the relatives of Dilek Şimşek, jointly, and 30,000 euros to each of the other applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes