SECOND SECTION

Application no. 56907/11 Süleyman ÖZKILINÇ against Turkey lodged on 29 August 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Süleyman Özkılınç , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1952 and lives in İzmir . He is represented before the Court by Mrs I.G. Kireçkaya , a lawyer practising in İzmir .

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant ’ s son, S .S. Ö ., was a police officer working in the İzmir Police Department ’ s Motorcycle Police Team. On 5 October 2010 he was found dead in the sports hall of the Directorate, shot in the head by a firearm. According to the report issued on the same day by the public prosecutor and the police, S .S. Ö . had shot himself with his own pistol. A crime scene investigation was carried out and the body was taken to the morgue at the Forensics Institute.

The police officers from the applicant ’ s police team made statements during the investigation carried out by the İzmir Public Prosecutor ’ s Office. They stated that they had seen S.S.Ö. on the day of the incident but had not witnessed the incident; another witness had found the body. They added that S.S.Ö. had looked pale and was lying down in the sports hall when one of the witnesses asked him what he was doing, to which he replied that “he felt sick”.

It was also established that on the day of the incident S.S.Ö. ’ s commanding officer had not assigned S .S. Ö . to any active duty but had earmarked him for the reserve force.

The autopsy that was carried out by the Forensic Medicine Institute concluded that the death had occurred as a result of a gunshot at point-blank range.

On 6 January 2011 the İzmir Public Prosecutor ’ s Office decided not to instigate any criminal proceedings, on the ground that the incident was a suicide, caused by a point-blank gunshot to the head.

The applicant objected to the decision of the prosecution office not to instigate criminal proceedings, claiming that the evidence in the case file suggested that the incident was not a suicide. The applicant argued in particular that the fingerprints of the deceased had not been found on the gun during the ballistics examination, and the prosecutor ’ s office had not investigated the reason why there were no fingerprints. The applicant added that S .S. Ö . was left- handed, therefore if he had shot himself, his right hand fingerprints should have b een found on the upper part of the stock, as his right hand must have cocked the pistol. The applicant maintained, inter alia , that there was no gun powder residue on S.S.Ö. ’ s hands or on the right side of his face. The applicant moreover complained that a number of persons who could be important witnesses had not been questioned during the investigation. Also any possible negligence on the part of the police department had not been investigated; for example, S .S. Ö . ’ s commander who had assigned him to the reserve force on the day of the incident had not been questioned as to why he had made such a decision.

On 3 March 2011 the Kar ş ıyaka Assize Court rejected applicant ’ s objection and, without elaborating in detail, decided that the decision not to instigate any criminal proceedings was in accordance with the law.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article s 2 and 6 of the Convention that S .S. Ö . ’ s right to life was violated and an effective investigation was not carried out into his death.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant ’ s son ’ s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?

In particular , does the conclusion reached by the prosecutor constitute a “plausible explanation” for his death within the meaning of the Court ’ s case-law (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V ; Beker v. Turkey , no. 27866/03, § 43 , 24 March 2009 )? I n this connection, did the prosecutor and the A ssize C ourt adequately deal with the allegations concerning the securing of the evidence, lack of fingerprints on the weapon, and lack of gunpowder residue on the hands of the deceased ?

2. 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), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention? In this connection have the objections of the applicant regarding the decision not to instigate criminal proceedings been sufficiently addressed?