SECOND SECTION

Application no. 25205/11 Kibar YARAN against Turkey lodged on 2 March 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Kibar Yaran, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Van. She is represented before the Court by Mr D. Aslan, a lawyer practising in Van.

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

On 28 June 2009 the applicant ’ s son Erdal Yaran (“E.Y.”) jumped in front of a train that was passing through the garrison where he had been stationed.

He reportedly died of organ failure and severe bleeding resulting from a blow to the head.

On 26 October 2009 the Ankara military public prosecutor referred the case file to the Polatlı public prosecutor for lack of jurisdiction. The relevant parts of his decision read as follows:

“Although the Land Forces Command Legal Department ordered that an investigation should be launched, the file suggests that on 28 June 2009 the deceased killed himself by jumping in front of a train ... no fault or negligence on the part of a military officer was established as a result of the investigation carried out by the military public prosecutor. Given that the deceased committed suicide by jumping in front of the train, an investigation is to be carried out by the Polatlı public prosecutor of the train drivers, the suspects [in the matter] ... ”

The public prosecutor noted that there was nothing suspicious either at the scene or in any of the witness statements, and that the case had been referred to a panel from the Forensic Medicine Institute specialising in transport accidents. The panel had held that the train drivers had not been at fault. The public prosecutor concluded that there was no intent, fault or negligence attributable to anyone other than the deceased himself. On 3 May 2010 he took the decision not to prosecute.

Following an objection by the applicant, on 18 August 2010 the Sincan Second Assize Court upheld the prosecutor ’ s decision not to prosecute. As far as can be seen from the proof of service, the applicant was served with that decision on 19 October 2010.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant submits that her son was recruited after passing the relevant mental health checks, that he fell into depression while performing his military service and that the military authorities did not take any measures to treat him or to prevent his suicide. The applicant further alleges that the military authorities and Turkish State Railways failed to take steps to prevent access to the railway line that passed through the garrison. The applicant points out that there is no wire fencing or any other kind of railway barrier in place. She further complains that the investigation into her son ’ s death was ineffective in that no investigation was conducted into the liability of Turkish State Railways and the military authorities regarding her son ’ s death. She also contends that the train drivers should have driven more slowly through the garrison. The applicant relies on Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention.

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, did the applicant ’ s son have any known psychological condition prior to his death? If yes, what measures had been taken in respect of him?

2. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see, among others, Abdullah Yilmaz v. Turkey , no. 21899/02, § 58, 17 June 2008 ), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, did the judicial authorities carry out a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of any military personnel who may have been responsible for the applicant ’ s son death on account of a failure to take preventive measures concerning his psychological condition and/or to take security measures regarding the railway passing through the garrison? Was the family able to participate effectively in, and to be informed of the progress of, the military prosecutor ’ s investigation?

The Government are invited to submit the investigation files together with the deceased ’ s medical records kept at the recruitment and during his military service, if any.