CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 décembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 6 December 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 9414/16 Mazlum DOLAN against Turkey and 4 other applications The facts and complaints in these applications have been summarised in the Court’s decision, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Have the applicants’ right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been endangered on account of the alleged bombing by members of the security forces of the buildings in which they claim to have been trapped?   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), have investigations been opened into the circumstances of the alleged bombings of the applicants’ buildings, as required by Article 2 of the Convention? If so, are those investigations being conducted in compliance with the requirements of an effective investigation, within the meaning of the Court’s case-law under Article 2 of the Convention?   The Government are requested to submit a copy of the investigation files.   2.     Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5   §   1 of the Convention? If so: a)   Did the deprivation of liberty fall within any of the paragraphs of this provision? b)   Was the applicants’ deprivation “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?   3.     Has there been a hindrance by the State with the effective exercise of the right of individual application of the applicant in application no.   9414/16 on account of the arrest and detention of his representative Mr   Ramazan Demir (see Colibaba v.   Moldova , no.   29089/06, §§   59-69, 23   October 2007)? In this connection, which activities of Mr   Demir were referred to by the prosecutor when that prosecutor accused Mr   Demir of carrying out “activities to weaken our country inside and at the international arena by making allegations of torture and alleging violations of human rights” (see Ramazan Demir’s statement dated 17 March 2016)?