Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

ORAN and 3 other applications v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 1905/16;2005/16;2105/16;4159/16 • ECHR ID: 001-170036

Document date: December 6, 2016

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 5

ORAN and 3 other applications v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 1905/16;2005/16;2105/16;4159/16 • ECHR ID: 001-170036

Document date: December 6, 2016

Cited paragraphs only

Communicated on 6 December 2016

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 1905/16 Mehmet ORAN against Turkey and 3 other applications (see list appended)

The facts and complaints in these applications have been summarised in the Court ’ s decision, which is available in HUDOC.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Have the applicants ’ relatives ’ right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present cases?

In this connection, were they killed by agents of the State?

Also in this connection, what steps were taken by the authorities which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to protect the applicants ’ relatives ’ rights after they were shot and injured (see Osman v. the United Kingdom , 28 October 1998, § 116, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ VIII)?

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), have investigations been opened into the deaths of the applicants ’ relatives by the domestic authorities, as required by Article 2 of the Convention? If so, are those investigations being conducted in compliance with the requirements of an effective investigation, within the meaning of the Court ’ s case-law under Article 2 of the Convention?

The Government are requested to submit a copy of the investigation files, including a copy of the documents pertaining to the discovery of the applicants ’ relatives ’ bodies.

3. Has there been a hindrance by the State with the effective exercise of the right of individual application of the two applicants in applications nos. 2105/16 and 4159/16 on account of the arrest and detention of their legal representative Mr Ramazan Demir (see Colibaba v. Moldova , no. 29089/06, §§ 59-69, 23 October 2007)? In this connection, which activities of Mr Demir were referred to by the prosecutor when that prosecutor accused Mr Demir of carrying out “ activities to weaken our country inside and at the international arena by making allegations of torture and alleging violations of human rights” (see Ramazan Demir ’ s statement dated 17 March 2016)?

Appendix

No

Application No

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

1905/16

10/01/2016

Mehmet ORAN

01/01/1964

İstanbul

Yunus MURATAKAN

2005/16

10/01/2016

Ayhan SEVİKTEK

03/03/1986

Diyarbakır

Yunus MURATAKAN

2105/16

08/01/2016

Mehmet İNAN

11/02/1983

Şırnak

Ramazan DEMİR

4159/16

19/01/2016

Abdullah KAPLAN

20/04/1988

Şırnak

Ramazan DEMİR

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 401132 • Paragraphs parsed: 45279850 • Citations processed 3468846