Communicated on 6 December 2016

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 3758/16 Zehide PAKSOY and others against Turkey lodged on 16 January 2016

The facts and complaints in this application 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. Has the applicants ’ son and brother Hüseyin Paksoy ’ s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In particular, what steps were taken by the authorities which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to protect his life after he was 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), has an investigation been opened into Hüseyin Paksoy ’ s death by the domestic authorities, as required by Article 2 of the Convention? If so, is that investigation 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 file pertaining to the investigation, including a copy of the Cizre prosecutor ’ s decision of 18 January 2016 (reference no. 2016) authorising the search at No. 39 Karataş Sok ., Varol Caddesi , Nur Mahallesi , Cizre (for the Government ’ s reference; the prosecutor ’ s above-mention decision was referred to in the search report prepared by four police officers on 18 January 2016 at 2.20 p.m. and submitted to the Court by the Government on 25 January 2016).

3. Having regard to the circumstances surrounding his death, including, in particular, the alleged failure to provide him medical assistance and the alleged prevention of other persons from offering him any assistance, was the applicants ’ son and brother Hüseyin Paksoy subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

4. Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of their confinement to their house during the period between the imposition of the 24-hour curfew in their home town of Cizre on 14 December 2015 and their departure from Cizre on 13 January 2016? If so:

a) Did the deprivation of liberty fall within paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) of this provision?

b) Was the applicants ’ deprivation “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?