Communicated on 28 August 2019

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 26429/19 Mikail UGAN against Turkey lodged on 6 May 2019

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged abduction and disappearance of the applicant ’ s brother, Mr Yasin Ugan , on 13 February 2019. The applicant ’ s brother was being searched by the police as a suspect in an investigation carried out by the Ankara Public Prosecutor ’ s office for his alleged involvement with the terrorist organisation known as FETÖ/PDY (“ Gülenist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”). Relying on Articles 2, 3, 5 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the lack of an effective investigation into Mr Ugan ’ s disappearance.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted all domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, can the individual application to the Constitutional Court be considered as an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicant ’ s complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention?

2. Was the right to life of the applicant ’ s brother, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case? In particular, was he abducted as alleged by agents of the State on 13 February 2019?

3. In accordance with the procedural and positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention, have the authorities carried out an effective investigation and taken the necessary measures to find the applicant ’ s brother in order to safeguard his life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII and OsmanoÄŸlu v. Turkey , no. 48804/99, §§ 77-84, 24 January 2008)?

In this connection,

3.1. What steps are being taken by the investigating authorities, in particular by the relevant prosecutors, in order to find the applicant ’ s brother who, was allegedly arrested in the Altındağ district of Ankara by police officers in connection with an ongoing investigation dealt by the Ankara Public Prosecutor ’ s office?

3.2. Has an on-site visit to the alleged crime scene in the Altındağ district of Ankara been organised with a view to collect evidence? If the answer is in the affirmative, what actions are taken to follow those leads?

3.3. Have the authorities collected statements of individuals who, as alleged by the applicant, may have information about the incident? Have statements been taken from the shop keepers in the vicinity of the incident and the landlord of the applicant ’ s brother? Have the authorities identified other witnesses to the incident and collected their statements? If the answer is in the affirmative, what actions are taken to follow those leads?

3.4. Have the records of public and private surveillance cameras which could have captured the incident in the vicinity of the crime scene been collected and analysed? If the answer is in the affirmative, what actions are taken to follow those leads?

3.5. Have the authorities identified the owner of the car with plate numbers that were indicated in the applicant ’ s submissions to the Ankara Prosecutor ’ s Office? If the answer is in the affirmative, what actions are taken to follow those leads?

3.6. Have the records of surveillance cameras on route to the alleged place of the incident been secured and analysed with a view to establish the location of the applicant?

3.7. Has the Security Directorate provided information to the letter of the Ankara Prosecutor ’ s Office dated 22 February 2019?

4. Has there been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the disappearance of the applicant ’ s brother? ( Çiçek v. Turkey , no. 25704/94 , §164, 27 February 2001).

The Government are requested to submit a copy of the investigation file.