CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 27 avril 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   243 27.4.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ATAMAN v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Ataman v. Turkey (application no. 46252/99).   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights as regards the circumstances surrounding Mikail Ataman’s suicide; a violation of Article 2 as regards the lack of an effective investigation; and a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 20,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 7,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     1.     Principal facts   Abuzer Ataman is a 75-year-old Turkish national who lives in Adıyaman (Turkey). His son, Mikail Ataman, a 21-year-old conscript, was found dead on 16 January 1998. According to the official report, he had committed suicide, but the applicant believes that his son was killed.   Mikail Ataman carried out his military service in Kars. In September 1997 his family noticed that he was behaving strangely when he spoke to them by telephone, and grew anxious when they began to have trouble getting hold of him, particularly as they had learned that measures had been taken in respect of him since he was no longer allowed to carry a weapon or to leave the barracks. According to a family friend who visited him in Kars, Mikail Ataman’s psychological condition was alarming and required treatment.   The applicant arranged for his son to come home on annual leave. His family sought to have him treated in Malatya, where he absconded and was arrested by the military police, who found him in a state of delirium. On 4 November 1997 he was given a neuroleptic injection at Malatya Military Hospital. He was admitted to the psychiatric department of Mevki Military Hospital in Ankara, where a doctor reported on 19   November 1997 that he showed symptoms of anxiety and that if they persisted he should be taken to hospital in the province where his unit was based. The certificate contained a note to the effect that “[the patient] should be registered and his unit informed”.   Mikail Ataman appeared to be in better health on his return to the barracks. However, his mental condition worsened again once his commanding officer, Captain U., had returned to the barracks.   On 16 January 1998 at 2 a.m. the applicant was informed that his son had killed himself while on duty in the garage at the barracks.   The military prosecutor immediately went to the scene and various investigative steps were taken. An autopsy revealed that the death had been caused by a bullet fired at the heart from point-blank range with a G3 rifle.   On a complaint by the applicant, the military prosecutor opened a preliminary investigation, in the course of which evidence was taken from members of the army and from relatives of the deceased. On 23 March 1998 the prosecutor decided that it was unnecessary to open a criminal investigation into the applicant’s son’s suicide.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13 November 1998 and declared admissible on 11 September 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), President , John Hedigan (Irish), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Renate Jaeger (German), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), judges , and also Vincent Berger , Jurisconsult .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained under Article 2 about the circumstances in which his son had died while performing his military service and about the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation into the death. He also relied on Articles 8 and 13.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   As regards Mikail Ataman’s death The Court noted that it appeared from the evidence in the case file that Mikail Ataman had committed suicide.   On the night of the incident he had been on duty in the garage at the barracks with two other conscripts, who had been on the other side of the garage and who, immediately after the shot had been fired, had found Mikail Ataman lying on the ground with his G3 rifle resting on his body.     Expert assessments carried out at the scene had confirmed that version of events. Accordingly, the applicant’s allegations that his son had been killed were in fact based on supposition and were not capable of casting doubt on the relevance of the evidence showing that Mikail Ataman’s death had been suicide.   The issue for the Court to determine was whether the authorities had known or should have known that there was a real and immediate risk that Mikail Ataman would kill himself and, if so, whether they had done everything that could reasonably have been expected of them to avert that risk. The Court reiterated in that connection that States had an obligation to take preventive operational measures to protect all individuals whose lives were at risk, so that a State with compulsory military service – which entailed handling weapons – could be expected to display special diligence and to provide treatment appropriate to conditions in the armed forces for soldiers with psychological disorders. In the present case Turkey had not taken the practical measures that could reasonably have been expected of it, namely preventing the applicant’s son from having access to lethal weapons. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 2 on that account.   As regards the investigation into the circumstances of the death The Court noted that although an investigation had been carried out immediately by the authorities, the military prosecutor had not sought to ascertain the reasons for the lack of communication between the psychiatric department of Ankara Military Hospital and the deceased’s superiors. Such inquiries could have been decisive in apportioning responsibility among the various authorities. The relevant findings would have been different according to whether the medical staff had omitted to inform Mikail Ataman’s unit about his psychological problems, or whether his superiors had been negligent in not taking the young conscript’s weapon away from him despite having been informed of his condition.   That being so, the Court concluded that Turkey had failed in its obligation to conduct an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances of the applicant’s son’s death. It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 2 on that account also.   Article 8   Having regard to its findings under Article 2, the Court did not consider it necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 8.   Article 13   As the Court had already found, the criminal investigation had not provided an adequate framework for apportioning responsibility among the medical authorities and the superior officers in passing on or assessing information about Mikail Ataman’s condition – in other words, about the precise circumstances surrounding his death. That being so, it could not be said that an effective criminal investigation had been conducted in accordance with Article   13.   The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of that provision.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.