CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 mars 2009

.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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   245 24.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT BEKER v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Beker v. Turkey (application no. 27866/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in that the Turkish Government had failed to account for the death of Mustafa Beker, found shot in the head in his army barracks in 2001.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Mustafa Beker’s mother 16,500   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. His two brothers and sister were each awarded EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. EUR   2,000 was awarded for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in English .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Fadik Beker, Özgür   Beker, Aytekin Beker and Sibel Beker, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1955, 1976, 1979 and 1983, respectively, and live in Ankara. They are the mother, brothers and sister of Mustafa Beker, born in 1977, who, an expert corporal in the Tunceli gendarmerie, was found shot in the head in his army barracks dormitory on 8 March 2001.   The case concerned the applicants’ allegation that, even though the official military investigation concluded that Mustafa had committed suicide, their relative had either been murdered or had died due to negligence.   Found shot in the head by a non-commissioned officer just before 9.30 a.m. on 8 March 2001, Mustafa, still alive, was taken to the infirmary. He subsequently died on his way to hospital.   The autopsy report issued the same day concluded that the cause of death was destruction of the brain following a shot fired at point-blank range, just above the left eyebrow.   An inquiry was immediately launched. The dormitory was inspected and a sketch was drawn. A pistol, found at some distance from the body, was cocked and had fired two shots, apparently having jammed on a third attempt to be fired. It was established that Mustafa had stolen the pistol from an expert sergeant’s locker by smashing its padlock with a stick. Four of Mustafa’s fellow expert sergeants, in the dormitory at the time of the shooting, were questioned; they all stated that they had not seen the shooting. Another expert sergeant, 5   metres away at the time, claimed that he had not actually seen Mustafa shoot himself as, in shock, he had covered his face with his hands.   On 8 November 2002 the military investigation was closed. It was concluded that Mustafa Beker, unhappy because his mother had opposed his marriage to his girlfriend, had shot himself in the right temple, at close range.   Despite the applicants’ and their lawyer’s numerous requests, the military authorities refused to divulge any information or documents about the investigation.   Most recently, in March 2003, the applicants requested the inquiry to be reopened; to date they have not had a reply.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 27 May 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article   2 (right to life), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants alleged that their relative had either been murdered by agents of the Turkish State or had died due to their negligence.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   Mustafa Beker was found dead in his army barracks; all eyewitnesses to the incident were members of the armed forces. The inquiry was conducted by the military authorities and the family were not given permission to participate in the investigation. As such, only the military authorities had the means of establishing the cause of death and, if necessary, identifying and punishing those responsible. The death having occurred in an area under the exclusive control of agents of the State, it was therefore up to the Turkish Government to provide a plausible explanation for the incident.   However, the Court had serious misgivings about the investigation into Mustafa’s death, misgivings for which no credible explanation had been given. Firstly, if Mustafa had indeed killed himself, presumably after the second shot fired, how had it been possible for a third attempt to have been made to fire the pistol? Secondly, how had it been possible for Mustafa, right-handed, to shoot himself in the left side of the head and how had the investigating authorities concluded that Mustafa had shot himself in the right side of the head when the post-mortem report had showed – and the Government had agreed – that he had in fact been shot in the left side of the head. Thirdly, why had neither the pistol nor the locker been examined for fingerprints? Fourthly, the Court found it wholly unconvincing that four trained petty officers, present in the same room where two shots had been fired, had not seen the incident or had covered their faces in shock. Moreover, no attempt had been made by the investigating authorities to press the expert sergeants in order to find out the truth.   The investigation carried out had therefore clearly been inadequate and left so many obvious questions unanswered that the Court was unable to accept the conclusion that Mustafa had committed suicide. Indeed, in view of the apparent carelessness with which the investigation had been conducted, the fact that the conclusion reached defied all logic, the unwillingness to reopen the investigation, and the lack of satisfactory explanations provided by the Government, the applicants could be forgiven for thinking that a more sinister explanation, such as murder, was being covered up.   Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Turkish Government had failed to account for Mustafa Beker’s death and therefore the State had to take responsibility for the incident, in violation of Article 2.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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 Convention, 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.