SECOND SECTION

Application no. 75468/10 Neslihan OLSOY against Turkey lodged on 15 November 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mrs Neslihan Olsoy, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Diyarbakır . She is represented before the Court by Ms R. Bataray Saman, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır .

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

At the time of the events, the applicant ’ s son, who was born in 1976, was serving a prison sentence in the Diyarbakır Prison.

On 23 March 2009 at around 3 p.m., suffering from severe chest pain and shortness of breath, the applicant ’ s son applied to the prison infirmary. The doctor, who was about to leave for the day, hastily examined him. After being prescribed with painkillers and a sleeping pill, the applicant ’ s son was sent back to his ward.

At around 5 p.m., the condition of the applicant ’ s son worsened and he had difficulty in breathing. He told the other inmates in the ward that he had severe pain in his chest. Some of the inmates carried him to the infirmary, but it was closed. Subsequently, the medical officer arrived, and called an ambulance. The applicant ’ s son died on the way to the hospital.

On the same day, an autopsy was conducted at the Diyarbakır State Hospital in the presence of the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor. Since the cause of death could not be determined, samples taken from the body were sent for further forensic examination to the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute.

On an unspecified date, the public prosecutor initiated an ex officio investigation into the death of the applicant ’ s son. He took statements from the director and the doctor of the prison and seven detainees, who had been witnesses to the incident. The director explained that according to the video recordings, the applicant ’ s son had been brought to the infirmary at around 5.15 p.m. and had been transferred to the hospital by an ambulance at 5.45 p.m. He stated that he had no further information. The prison doctor stated that he had examined the applicant ’ s son at 2.30 p.m. earlier that day and had prescribed him painkillers and sleeping pills as he had been complaining about pain in his heart and shoulder. However as he had examined eighty-four prisoners that day, he did not have any further recollection.

The detainees, who were heard by the public prosecutor, indicated that the applicant ’ s son had been suffering from severe chest pains, and although he had applied to the infirmary earlier that day, he had been sent back by the prison doctor. One of the prisoners stated that when the applicant ’ s son had gone to the infirmary at 3 p.m., the prison doctor was about to leave for the day and hastily prescribed him painkillers without giving him a proper medical examination.

On 30 March 2009 the applicant ’ s other son, Mr Orhan Olsoy, filed a complaint with the public prosecutor ’ s office, and requested that an investigation be conducted to establish whether there had been medical negligence in his brother ’ s treatment. He stated that his brother had had no health problems prior to his detention and asked the prosecution authorities to determine whether there had been a delay in calling the ambulance.

On 25 November 2009 the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute issued its report. It held that the toxicology report had been clean and that there had been no signs of trauma. It concluded by stating that the exact cause of death could not be identified.

On 19 February 2010 the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor delivered a decision of non-prosecution, holding that the applicant ’ s son had died of natural causes.

On 14 May 2010 the Siverek Assize Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal. This decision was served on the applicant ’ s lawyer on 15 June 2010.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant alleged, in particular, that the domestic authorities had failed to protect the health and life of her son in prison, contrary to Article 2 of the Convention. She further complained under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention about the ineffectiveness of the investigation conducted by the public prosecutor. In this connection, she maintained that despite her specific allegation, the prosecutor had not investigate whether or not the prison medical service had displayed due diligence. In her view, the investigation had been limited to establishing whether or not her son had died as a result of a use of force.

Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the emotional distress she had endured as a result of the death of her son.

The applicant further invoked Article 14 of the Convention and maintained that she had been subjected to discrimination on account of her Kurdish origin.

Finally, the applicant relied on Article 17 of the Convention and stated that the domestic authorities had abused her rights set forth in the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Did the domestic authorities take all necessary measures to safeguard the right to life of the applicant ’ s son, as required by Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, was he provided with prompt and adequate medical care?

Having regard to the procedural obligation of the right to life (see, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII), was the investigation in the present case initiated by the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor following the death of the applicant ’ s son in breach of Article 2 of the Convention? In this connection, did the investigating authorities conduct an investigation to establish as to whether there had been a malpractice on the part of the prison medical service, as alleged by the applicant?