SECOND SECTION

Application no. 3621/07 Ãœmran DURMAZ against Turkey lodged on 11 January 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Ãœmran Durmaz , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Ä°zmir .

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and as they appear from the documents submitted by her, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant ’ s daughter Gülperi Ovalıoğlu was married to Mr O.O. The couple had frequent rows and O.O. used violence against Gülperi on a number of occasions.

At 5.50 p.m. on 18 July 2005 O.O. brought Gülperi to the accident and emergency department of a hospital in İzmir and told the hospital authorities that Gülperi had taken an overdose of two medicines called “ Prent ” and “ Muscoril ”. He was also reported as having stated that he and Gülperi had had a row earlier in the day and that they had hit each other. He had then left home and some time after his return at 3.00 p.m. Gülperi had felt unwell.

Gülperi , who had been conscious but drowsy on her arrival at the hospital, died the same evening at 10.10 p.m. A doctor and a prosecutor who subsequently examined her body were unable to establish the cause of death and they decided that a post-mortem examination was necessary. The post-mortem examination was carried out the following day and samples taken from Gülperi ’ s body were sent for forensic analysis.

On 22 July 2005 the applicant ’ s husband Mr Elaattin Kanter filed an official complaint with the İzmir prosecutor against O.O., and alleged that O.O. had been responsible for the death of his daughter. Mr Kanter stated in his complaint petition that O.O. had beaten up Gülperi on a number of occasions. He alleged that O.O. had forced Gülperi to take medicines and subsequently dumped her body at the hospital. The family had heard nothing from O.O. since that date.

On 25 July 2005 the Ä°zmir prosecutor questioned the applicant and her husband. The applicant told the prosecutor that O.O. had beaten up her daughter before and that she had had to be hospitalised as a result. Mr Kanter told the prosecutor that his daughter had never been suicidal and that in his opinion O.O. had been responsible for her death.

On 29 July 2005 police officers visited the flat where Gülperi and her husband O.O. used to live, and took photographs.

Also on 29 July 2005 the İzmir prosecutor questioned the hospital personnel who had been on duty on the day in question and who had tried to resuscitate Gülperi . A doctor who tried to resuscitate Gülperi told the prosecutor that O.O. had told him that Gülperi had taken “ Muscoril ” and “ Prent ”.

On 19 December 2005 the İzmir prosecutor informed the Registry office for births, marriages and deaths, that Gülperi Ovalıoğlu had taken an overdose on 18 July 2005 and killed herself. Her death could be entered in the records.

On 30 January 2006 the Forensic Medicine Institute published its report pertaining to the post-mortem examination and other forensic examinations carried out on the samples taken from Gülperi ’ s body. According to the report, there was advan ce oedema in her lungs and there were no drugs or other foreign substances in her body. Cause of death was established as “acute alveolar swelling and intra-alveolar bleeding” in the lungs.

In their response to an apparent request from the İzmir prosecutor the Forensic Medicine Institute confirmed on 24 February 2006 that there had been no foreign substances or medicines in Gülperi ’ s body. The Institute stated in this letter that, should the judicial authorities conclude that Gülperi had committed suicide by taking an overdose, then those judicial authorities should also conclude that the medicines she used were of a type which could not be detected in forensic examinations of samples taken from internal organs.

On 28 February 2006 the İzmir prosecutor decided to close the investigation. In the decision the prosecutor stated that, according to the post-mortem report of 30 January 2006 (see above), Gülperi had died “as a result of lung complications caused by medicinal intoxication”.

On 4 April 2006 the applicant filed an objection with the Karşıyaka Assize Court against the prosecutor ’ s decision. The applicant drew the Assize Court ’ s attention to the prosecutor ’ s failure to question O.O., despite the fact that by his own admission O.O. had beaten Gülperi up on the day of her death. She also argued that the prosecutor ’ s conclusion that her daughter had committed suicide by taking an overdose sat ill with the conclusions set out in the two reports issued by the Forensic Medicine Institute. She added that the prosecutor had not visited the flat where Gülperi used to live with O.O.

The objection was rejected by the Karşıyaka Assize Court on 11 July 2006.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 2, 6 and 13 of the Convention that her daughter ’ s right to life was not protected because of the national authorities ’ failure to carry out an effective investigation into their complaints.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

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 all necessary and logical steps been taken by the national authorities to establish the cause of Gülperi Ovalıoğlu ’ s death and to investigate the applicant ’ s allegations against Mr. O.O.? In particular, did the following have any bearing on the effectiveness of the investigation?

i ) the apparent failure of the prosecutor to question O.O.;

ii) the apparent failure of the prosecutor to visit, in a timely manner, the flat where the applicant ’ s daughter lived with O.O.;

iii) the readiness of the prosecutor to refer to Gülperi Ovalıoğlu ’ s death as suicide in his letter of 19 December 2005 addressed to the registry office for births, marriages and deaths ( Nüfus Müdürlüğü ), when, according to the file, there were no documents in his possession to support the suicide theory; and,

iv) the apparently erroneous and misleading references in the prosecutor ’ s decision of 28 February 2006 to the two medical reports issued by the Forensic Medicine Institute, both of which categorically state that there were no medicines in Gülperi Ovalıoğlu ’ s body, and neither of which link the lung problems to intoxication.

The Government are requested, pursuant to Article 38 of the Convention, as well as Rule 44A of the Rules of Court, to request the Forensic Medicine Institute to prepare a report, based on the existing medical reports and the prosecutor ’ s decision of 28 February 2006, and render an expert opinion as to whether there exist medicines which cannot be detected in forensic examinations on samples taken from internal organs (see Forensic Medicine Institute ’ s report of 24 February 2006) and which can nevertheless cause the fatal lung problems (see the İzmir prosecutor ’ s conclusion in his above-mentioned decision). If their answer is in the negative, the Institute should also be requested to elaborate, on the basis of the documents in the investigation file, on the cause of the lung problems which, according to the report of 30 January 2006, caused the death.