Communicated on 27 April 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 76035/11 Günay AKÇAYÖZ and others against Turkey lodged on 2 November 2011

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the security operation conducted on 19 December 2000 in the Ãœmraniye Prison where the first three applicants ’ relative Alp Ata Akçayöz and the remaining three applicants were being detained at the time of the events. During the operation eight persons were killed and a large number of others were injured. The first three applicants ’ relative Alp Ata Akçayöz was among those who were killed and the remaining three applicants survived the operation. The first three applicants complain that their relative was killed in breach of Article 2 of the Convention. The remaining three applicants complain that their lives were endangered and that they were subjected to ill ‑ treatment during the operation in breach of their rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. All applicants complain that no effective investigation was conducted into their complaints, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Has the right to life of the first three applicants ’ relative Alp Ata Akçayöz and of the remaining three applicants, namely Özgür Sağlam , Cengiz Karakaş and Vedat Çelik , ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case in the course of the security operation conducted in their prison?

In particular, did the death of the first three applicants ’ relative Alp Ata Akçayöz result from a use of force which was absolutely necessary and strictly proportionate to the achievement of the aims set out in the subparagraphs of Article 2 § 2 of the Convention?

Furthermore, was it absolutely necessary to resort to the use of force which, in the opinion of the three surviving applicants Özgür Sağlam , Cengiz Karakaş and Vedat Çelik , endangered their lives?

2. Have the applicants Özgür Sağlam , Cengiz Karakaş and Vedat Çelik been subjected to ill-treatment in the course of the security operation, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In this connection, were these three applicants examined by doctors in the aftermath of the operation?

3. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph 104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII) and the procedural protection from ill-treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), were the investigation and the trial in the present case conducted by the domestic authorities into the complaints made by the three surviving applicants, whose names are referred to as complainants/victims ( müşteki / mağdurlar ) in the indictment filed against members of the security forces and in the ensuing criminal proceedings (in case no. 2004/175 E.), and into the death of the first three applicants ’ relative Alp Ata Akçayöz for which a number of soldiers were put on trial, in breach of Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention?