KAYA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

 
 
 
Communicated on 9 April 2019
 
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 14443/19
Aycan KAYA and Others
against Turkey
lodged on 25 March 2019
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The application concerns the disappearance of Ozgur Kaya, the applicants’ relative, following his alleged abduction by unknown persons on 13 February 2019 and the allegations of a lack of an effective investigation into his disappearance.
The applicants (see appended table) rely on Articles 2, 3, 5 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1.  Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, is the individual application to the Constitutional Court an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention?
 
2.  Was the right to life of the applicants’ relative, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case? In particular, was he abducted by agents of the State?
 
3.  In accordance with the procedural and positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention, have the authorities carried out an effective investigation and taken the necessary measures available to them to find the applicants’ relative in order to safeguard his life (see respectively Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §104, ECHR 2000‑VII, and Osmanoğlu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, §§ 71 and 84, 24 January 2008)?
 
In this connection:
 
3.1.  What steps are being taken by the investigating authorities, in particular by the relevant prosecutors, in order to find the applicants’ relative who, according to the applicants, was abducted in Altındağ district of Ankara?
 
3.2.  Has an on-site visit to the alleged crime scene in Altındağ district of Ankara been organised with a view to collect evidence? If your answer is in the affirmative, what actions are taken to follow those leads?
 
3.3.  Have the authorities collected statements of individuals who, as alleged by the applicants, may have information about the incident? For example shop keepers in the vicinity and the landlords of the applicants’ relative? Have the authorities identified other witnesses to the incident and collected their statements? If your answer is in the affirmative, what actions are taken to follow those leads?
 
3.4.  Have the records of public and private surveillance cameras which could have captured the incident in the vicinity of the crime scene been collected and analysed? If your answer is in the affirmative, what actions are taken to follow those leads?
 
3.5.  Have the authorities identified the owner of the car plate numbers indicated in the applicants’ submissions of 15 February 2019 to the Ankara Prosecutor’s Office on duty? If your answer is in the affirmative, what actions are taken to follow those leads?
 
3.6.  Have the authorities identified the car plate number of the white Volkswagen van which, as alleged by the applicants, had been involved in the incident? If your answer is in the affirmative, what actions are taken to follow those leads?
 
3.7.  Have the records of surveillance cameras on route to the alleged place of the incident been secured and analysed with a view to establish the location of the applicant?
 
3.8.  Has the Security Directorate provided information as per the initial letter, dated 27 February 2019, of the Prosecutor’s Office?
 
4.  Has there been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the disappearance of the applicants’ relative? (Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, §164, 27 February 2001).
 
 
The Government are requested to submit a copy of the investigation file.


APPENDIX
 
No.
First name Last name
Birth year
Nationality
Place of residence
Representative
1
Aycan KAYA
1980
Turkish
Ankara
S. Yıldırım
2
Ahmet Münir KAYA
2009
Turkish
Ankara
S. Yıldırım
3
Aydın Mahir KAYA
2009
Turkish
Ankara
S. Yıldırım
4
Betül Pınar KAYA
2005
Turkish
Ankara
S. Yıldırım
 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy