CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 juin 2014

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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. 176 July 2014 Dönmez and Others v. Turkey (dec.) - 20349/08 Decision 17.6.2014 [Section II] Article 2 Positive obligations Article 2-1 Effective investigation Alleged failure to carry out demining operations or to effective investigate death following explosion of antipersonnel device: inadmissible Facts – The applicants’ relative died in 2006 after treading on an anti-personnel mine while on a walk. The gendarmes drew up a report, produced a sketch map of the scene and took photographs. Autopsy and ballistics reports were issued and evidence was taken from witnesses. On completion of the preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor’s office indicated members of a terrorist organisation as the suspects and forwarded the file to the prosecutor’s office at the appropriate court with a view to opening a criminal investigation. The criminal proceedings are still pending before the court in question. Law – Article 2 (a)     Substantive aspect – The anti-personnel mine had been on a passageway used both by villagers and by soldiers going to their barracks. It had not been in a military zone or an area where mines had been laid by the authorities. It would not be reasonable to expect the national authorities to inform villagers of the risk that explosives of unknown origin might be present on this public land. As regards the absence of demining operations, Turkey was a signatory to the Ottawa Treaty. Among the obligations it had assumed on that account was an undertaking to demine all areas where mines were known or suspected to have been laid. Turkey had until 1   March 2014 to comply with the requirements of the Treaty. The site of the explosion was not a military zone where mines had been laid by the authorities. Nor was it an area where the presence of mines might have been suspected, since it was a public pathway; an excessive burden would be placed on the authorities if they had to inspect all roads and/or paths used by soldiers in the region. Accordingly, while the incident in question had been regrettable, it did not engage the State’s responsibility. (b)     Procedural aspect – The authorities –   the gendarmes and subsequently the public prosecutor   – had acted promptly on the very day of the incident. A sketch map of the scene had been produced and a report had been issued to determine the factual circumstances surrounding the incident, bomb fragments had been collected, evidence had been taken from witnesses, an autopsy had been carried out to establish the precise cause of death and ballistics analyses had been performed on the explosive with a view to determining its origin. The authorities had therefore taken all the necessary measures to shed light on the case. Although the investigation had not been pursued beyond the preliminary stage, the authorities had attributed the act to a terrorist organisation, and the public prosecutor’s office had asked for a criminal investigation to be opened in respect of members of the organisation concerned; the proceedings were still pending before the domestic courts. Thus, although the investigation had not resulted in the identification of the killer or killers, it had not been ineffective and the relevant authorities had not failed to take action to establish the circumstances in which the applicants’ relative had been killed. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).   © 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