Communicated on 6 December 2016

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 5237/16 Mehmet Latif KARAMAN against Turkey lodged on 22 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. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Has the applicant ’ s son ’ s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In particular, what steps have been 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 the death of the applicant ’ s son 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 investigation file, including a copy of the documents pertaining to the discovery and identification of the applicant ’ s son ’ s body.

3. Has the applicant ’ s suffering stemming from his inability to retrieve his son ’ s body from the basement for weeks; his and his family ’ s alleged inability to give his son a burial during that period; and finally, the national authorities ’ alleged indifference to his and his family ’ s calls for help to retrieve the body of his son for many weeks, been in breach of his rights under Articles 3, 8 and 9 of the Convention?

4. Having regard to the applicant ’ s allegation that the Government have failed to comply with the interim measure indicated on 22 January 2016, has there been any hindrance by the State in the present case with the effective exercise of the applicant ’ s right of individual application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 128, ECHR 2005 ‑ I) ? In response to this question the Government are requested to submit a detailed timeline of the steps taken by their authorities in order to protect the applicant ’ s son ’ s life and physical integrity, as required by the interim measure indicated by the Court on 22 January 2016.

5. Has there been a hindrance by the State with the effective exercise of the applicant ’ s right of individual application on account of the arrest and detention of his 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)?