Communicated on 9 April 2019

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 18036/19 Nilüfer IRMAK and Others against Turkey lodged on 2 April 2019

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The application concerns the disappearance of Erkan Irmak, the applicants ’ relative, following his alleged abd uction by unknown persons on 16 February 2019 and the allegations of a lack of an effective investigation into his disappearance.

The applicants (see appended table) rely on Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE P A RTIES

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

2. Was the right to life of the applicants ’ relative, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case? In particular, was he abducted by agents of the State?

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 available to them to find the applicants ’ relative 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, §§ 71 and 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 applicants ’ relative who, according to the applicants, was abducted in Ümraniye , Istanbul?

3.2. Has the footage of the surveillance cameras in the surrounding area of the crime scene been secured and analysed?

3.3. What action has been taken by Ümraniye District Security Directorate concerning the applicants ’ request, dated 1 March 2019, for the securing of the data of certain surveillance cameras? Were their recordings secured and analysed? If your reply is in the affirmative, has there been any follow-up on those leads?

3.4. Has it been possible to identify the perpetrators ’ images from the footage? If your reply is in the affirmative, has there been any follow-up on those leads?

3.5. Have the authorities examined the crime scene, identified witnesses to the incident and collected their statements? If your reply is in the affirmative, has there been any follow-up on those leads?

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

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

APPENDIX

No.

First name

Last name

Birth year

Nationality

Place of residence

Representative

1Nil ü fer Irmak

1975Turkish

Istanbul

S. Yıldırım

2Beyhan Irmak

1950Turkish

Istanbul

S. Yıldırım

3Emine Irmak

1954Turkish

Istanbul

S. Yıldırım

4Neslihan Özer

1980Turkish

Istanbul

S. Yıldırım