EVCIL – Turkey  (N° 46260/99)

Decision 6.4.2004  [Section IV]

The applicant’s husband was wounded by the explosion of an unidentified object which he picked up in a pasture when taking his animals out to graze. An eyewitness informed the security forces who were stationed 500 metres away from the scene. Some time later the applicant arrived in a minibus and took her husband to a health clinic for initial treatment. He died during his transfer to a State hospital. A preliminary investigation was opened by the public prosecutor the same day. An autopsy was carried out and statements were taken from eyewitnesses. One of the witnesses stated that the security forces had told him that one of their “special teams” would arrive shortly. Another declared that the incident had taken place at around 11.00 a.m.  The applicant subsequently gave a statement in which she maintained that the incident had occurred around 9.30 a.m. She thus held the security forces responsible for his death for not having provided him with help speedily, as well as for allegedly leaving  the explosive device which had killed her husband. A ballistic examination of the shrapnel collected at the scene found that the shrapnel bore resemblance to tracer bullets used for military purposes. The prosecutor enquired with the Gendarmerie and Brigade on the possible use of such bullets by the security forces in the area. Their response was that tracer bullets stolen from the army were also used by the PKK,.  The prosecutor issued a decision of non-prosecution. A year later the investigation was reinitiated and the security forces were required to continue the investigation into the identification of those responsible for the incident.

Inadmissible under Article 2: On the basis of the evidence submitted by the parties it was not possible to conclude that the security forces were responsible for the abandoned tracer bullet that caused the death of the applicant’s husband. As regards the alleged negligent behaviour of the security forces for not having promptly taken the victim to a hospital, there was nothing in the case file which showed exactly when the security forces had called for help, and the exact time of the incident was disputed. Given the road conditions in the area, it was not unreasonable to believe that a minibus would have taken one hour to arrive at the scene. Thus, the State’s responsibility for the death of the applicant’s husband could not be engaged. Although the investigation had not resulted in the identification of the person(s) responsible for leaving the tracer bullet behind, it had not been devoid of effect, and could be regarded as having satisfied the requirements of Article 2:  manifestly ill founded.