Information Note on the Court’s case-law 202

December 2016

Yavuzel and Others v. Turkey (dec.) - 5317/16, 5628/16 and 39419/16

Decision 6.12.2016 [Section II]

Article 2

Positive obligations

Article 2-1

Effective investigation

Alleged refusal of security forces to allow evacuation of wounded before shelling basement in which they had sought refuge: communicated

Since August 2015 a number of curfews have been impo sed in certain towns and cities in south-east Turkey by local governors with the stated aim of clearing the trenches dug up and the explosives planted by members of a number of outlawed organisations, and to protect civilians from violence.*

In December 20 15 a curfew was imposed in the town of Cizre, prohibiting people from leaving their homes at any time of the day. The 24-hour curfew continued until March 2016, when it was modified.

In the instant case, the relatives pursuing the applications on behalf of the fourteen deceased applicants allege that the applicants were among some 170 people to have been killed by the security forces in February 2016 in the basements of three buildings in Cizre where they had taken refuge after being shot and injured. Altho ugh a number of calls had been made to the emergency services for ambulances to be dispatched, they say that none were sent and the security forces refused to allow anyone to go to help the injured but had instead shelled the building with heavy weapons. A n application lodged by the applicant’s representative with the Constitutional Court for interim measures allowing the applicants to be evacuated to hospital had been rejected in a decision of 29 January 2016 owing to uncertainty as to whether the applican ts were in fact injured (and, if so, to what extent), whether they were armed and where they were located.

In their application to the European Court, the applicants’ relatives complain under Article 2 of the Convention that the applicants were shot and in jured by members of the security forces and that the national authorities, instead of providing them with medical assistance, killed them intentionally.  Under the same provision they argue that no steps were taken by the prosecutors to investigate the dea ths of their relatives. They also complain of violations of Articles 3, 5, 9 and 34 of the Convention. The complaint under Article 5 and a complaint under Article 34 in application no. 5628/16 were declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.

Communicated under Articles 2, 3, 9 and 34.

* For information on other cases concerning the curfews in south-east Turkey, see press release ECHR 420 (2016) published by the Court on 15 December 2016.

© 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