CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 janvier 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 82 January 2006 Bayrak and Others v. Turkey - 42771/98 Judgment 12.1.2006 [Section III] Article 2 Positive obligations Effectiveness of the investigation into murders involving a criminal organisation: no violation   Facts : The applicants are close relatives of two persons who died in September 1993 following an attack in the street by two masked killers, for which no one claimed responsibility. The police conducted an investigation at the scene on the day of the attack and heard evidence from witnesses. The public prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation of its own motion, which included a ballistics report and an examination of the bodies. A new preliminary investigation was begun. In 1995, following a wide‑ranging police operation against Hizbullah – an organisation accused of perpetrating several attacks in south-east Turkey, including in the town where the murders had been committed – fresh intelligence was obtained. One of the suspects questioned named the possible killers and disclosed information which led to the presumed murder weapon being found in June 1995. The preliminary investigation continued. In November 2000 a further arrest yielded new information as to the identity of those involved in the killings. In October 2002 criminal proceedings were brought against the suspected perpetrators. The national security court held an initial hearing in November 2002. The criminal proceedings against the suspected perpetrators were still pending when the judgment was adopted. Law : Article 2 – The applicants complained that their relatives had been victims of an extrajudicial execution. However, it had not been established beyond any reasonable doubt that the murder of the applicants’ relatives had engaged the responsibility of the respondent State. No violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention had been established. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). As to the investigation conducted at national level, the authorities could not be criticised for any lack of diligence. The judicial measures taken to investigate the attacks perpetrated by Hizbullah had required far‑reaching efforts. As a result of those efforts, the authorities had been able to bring to justice those suspected of the killings, albeit some years after the events. The investigation, although still in progress, had not been lacking in effectiveness and the Turkish authorities had not remained passive with regard to the circumstances in which the applicants’ relatives had been killed. No violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 had been established. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). The Court also held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 13.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes