CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 juillet 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .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     533   18.7.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF EKİNCİ v. TURKEY   In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 18 July 2000 in the case of Ekinci v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been no violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   1.   Principal facts   The applicant, Seho Ekinci, a Turkish national, was born in 1962 and lives at Martigny (Switzerland).   The applicant’s brother, Nuri Ekinci, a branch committee member of a pro-Kurdish political party, the HEP (Party of the Work of the People), was killed in Sason town-centre on 16   February 1994.   Immediately after the shooting, the police searched the area and prepared a sketch map showing both the position of the body in relation to the surrounding objects and the direction of foot prints. A preliminary investigation into the murder began that day. An autopsy was performed in the public prosecutor’s presence by two general practitioners. The deceased’s wife and uncle were interviewed by the Sason Public Prosecutor. They lodged a complaint against a person or persons unknown, but explained in their statements that they had not been present when the killing took place and had no reason to suspect anyone in particular.   On 26 February 1998 the Sason Public Prosecutor received a letter purporting to reveal, among other things, that Nuri Ekinci had been killed by three members of a clan who worked as village guards. After receiving the letter, the Sason Public Prosecutor made inquiries with a view to identifying the alleged killers, questioned witnesses and ordered a ballistic examination of the firearms of the three guards concerned. The latter made statements before the public prosecutor in which they said that they were on a mission in the mountains on the day of the killing. They protested their innocence and gave the names of seven village guards as witnesses. The public prosecutor took statements from those village guards and a further statement from the deceased’s uncle, S.E. The village guards said that they had been in the mountains on the day Mr Ekinci was killed and S.E. repeated that he did not know who the killers were and that he had never heard of the alleged killers before.   On 17 June 1998 the Sason Public Prosecutor informed the Batman Public Prosecutor’s Office that the investigation into Nuri Ekinci’s murder was still under way.   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 3 October 1994 and declared admissible on 27 October 1997. It was referred to the Court on 1 November 1999.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), judges , Feyyaz Gölcüklü (Turkish), ad hoc Judge ,   and also Sally Dolle , Section Registrar .   3.   Summary of the judgment [1]   Complaint   The applicant alleged that his brother, Nuri Ekinci, had been killed by the security forces or with their connivance because of his pro-Kurdish activities. He also complained of the lack of an adequate and effective investigation into the murder. He relied on Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Decision of the Court   Government’s preliminary objections   The Court held that the applicant was not required to have had recourse to the civil and administrative remedies proposed by the Government and that that preliminary objection was unfounded.   As regards criminal remedies, the Court noted that a criminal investigation into the death of the applicant’s brother was still underway and considered that that preliminary objection should be dealt with when examining the nature of the investigations that were carried out.   Article 2   The Court considered that the evidence before it did not support the conclusion that Nuri Ekinci had been killed by the security forces or with their complicity.   The Court further considered that in the circumstances of the case, the authorities responsible for the investigation had duly noted that security forces, in the shape of village guards, may have been implicated in the murder, and had followed up all the clues that might lead them to the killers. Thus, the material in the investigation file and the concrete information supplied by the Government showed that although the investigation had not resulted in the identification of the murderers, it had nonetheless been effective and the relevant authorities could not be said to have remained passive.   Having regard to the foregoing findings and having examined the various measures that were taken in the case before it, the Court concluded that the investigations into the circumstances of the death of the applicant’s brother could be considered to have been effective.   The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 2.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.