Communicated on 18 May 2020 Published on 8 June 2020

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 34103/12 Hadice ATASEVER and Sadiye ATASEVER against Turkey lodged on 18 April 2012

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the death of the applicants ’ relative (first applicant ’ s daughter and second applicant ’ s sister), Emine Yüksekba ğ , who committed suicide as a result of the domestic violence that she had been subjected to by her husband. The applicants alleged, in particular, that the authorities had failed to carry out an investigation to clarify the real circumstances surrounding the suicide by remaining passive in the face of concrete domestic violence indications. In their view, by failing to consider that domestic violence had been a contributing factor in the victim ’ s death, and delivering a non-prosecution decision against the victim ’ s husband, who had himself confessed that he had been beating his wife, the authorities had failed to in their commitment to provide sufficient protection to women who suffered from domestic violence, by causing impunity to the aggressor. The applicants relied on Articles 2, 3, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Halime Kılıç v. Turkey , no. 63034/11, § 92, 28 June 2016), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention? In this connection, have all necessary steps been taken by the domestic authorities to establish the circumstances surrounding the death of Emine Yüksekba ğ ?

2. Based on the following items cited below, which were included in the investigation file, could the authorities be considered to have kept an open mind as to whether domestic violence had been a contributing factor in the victim ’ s death (see Durmaz v. Turkey , no. 3621/07, 13 November 2014)?

– the statements of the victim ’ s husband, who stated that he had beaten his wife in the past and that just before she had committed suicide, he had beaten her again;

– the statement of the victim ’ s daughter, who stated that her father had been beating her mother;

– several signs on the body examination report, which revealed injuries on the victim ’ s body that could be considered as signs of domestic violence;

– the failure of the prosecution authorities to provide any reasoning in reply to the applicants ’ allegations that Emine Yüksekba ğ had been a victim of domestic violence.

3. In the circumstances of the present case, having in particular regard to the fact that the investigative authorities appear to have failed to keep an open mind to consider that domestic violence could have been a contributing factor in the death of Emine Yüksekba ğ , and the fact that the authorities appear to have stayed passive in the face of domestic violence allegations, has there been a breach of Article 14 of the Convention in the present case (see Opuz v. Turkey , no. 33401/02, § 198 ECHR 2009)?