CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 janvier 2003

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 49 January 2003 İhsan Bilgin v. Turkey (dec.) - 40073/98 Decision 28.1.2003 [Section II] Article 2 Article 2-1 Life Death of applicant’s father in shooting incident involving village guards: admissible The application concerns the circumstances in which the applicant’s father died in August 1994.   In response to the criminal complaint brought by the applicant’s brother in 1994, the gendarmerie and later the public prosecutor examined three village guards - a suspect and two witnesses - whose evidence allowed them to establish the events leading up to the death of the applicant’s father, who was shot while approaching the village at night with a stick in his hand.   Several other guards appeared before the public prosecutor in 1995.   In January 1996, the public prosecutor brought charges of intentional homicide against ten guards in the Assize Court, while admitting that the person mainly responsible for the death could not be identified.   One of the accused, F.Y., stated that Inspector H.E., who arrived on the scene after the shooting, had advised that only one of them should be blamed for the crime.   For that purpose, he allegedly cast lots between the three guards who had been standing closest to the victim.   This allegedly led to F.Y.’s being designated as the one who had fired the fatal shot, and false statements were signed to that effect.   The two other guards involved confirmed this version of the facts.   In March 1997, the applicant entered the proceedings as an “intervening party”, while reserving his civil law entitlement to compensation for his father’s death.   In June 1997, Inspector H.E. and six subordinates were charged with preparing a false report, concealing evidence, abusing their office - in short, obstructing investigation of the crime.   They were acquitted for lack of evidence in October 1998.   In September 1997, the Assize Court found that the guards involved, having acted while on duty, should be judged under the law on prosecution of public officials.   It accordingly suspended judgment, since the prosecution could not be taken further without the Administrative Council’s prior approval.   The applicant contested this decision unsuccessfully.   On the strength of an inspector’s report on the administrative investigation, the Administrative Council decided that the guards should not be prosecuted.   This decision was upheld by the Regional Administrative Court in September 1998, on the ground that the allegations of voluntary homicide were unsupported, and that there was not enough evidence to justify prosecution.   Admissible under Articles 2 and 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