ZEYBEK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

Comunicat la 30 aprilie 2019 SEGUNDA SECȚIUNE Cerere nr. 21330/19 Fatma Betül ZEYBEK și alții împotriva Turciei depusă la 19 aprilie 2019 DECLARAREA FACTELOR Cererea se referă la dispariția Salim Zeybek, rudă a reclamanților, în urma presupusei răpiri de persoane necunoscute la 21 februarie 2019 și la acuzațiile de lipsa unei anchete eficace asupra dispariției sale. Reclamanții (a se vedea tabelul adăugat) se bazează pe articolele 2, 3, 5 din Convenție. Reclamanții au epuizat toate căile de recurs interne eficace, în conformitate cu art. 35 § 1 din Convenție? În special, cererea individuală la Curtea Constituțională este un remediu eficace în sensul articolului 35 § 1 din Convenție în ceea ce privește plângerile reclamanților în temeiul articolelor 2, 3 și 5 din Convenție?

Dreptul la viață al rudei reclamanților, asigurat de art. 2 din Convenție, a fost încălcat în acest caz? În special, a fost răpit de către agenți ai statului? În conformitate cu obligațiile procedurale și pozitive în temeiul articolului 2 din Convenție, autoritățile au efectuat o investigație eficientă și au luat măsurile necesare pentru a găsi relația reclamanților (a se vedea respectiv Salman v. Turcia [GC], nr. 2886/93, §104, CEDH 2000 VII și Osmanoğlu v. Turcia , nr. 48804/99, §§§ 71 și 84, 24 ianuarie 2008)? În acest sens, 3.

Communicated on 30 April 2019

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 21330/19 Fatma Betül ZEYBEK and Others against Turkey lodged on 19 April 2019

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The application concerns the disappearance of Salim Zeybek, the applicants’ relative, following his alleged abduction by unknown persons on 21 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 national authorities, in particular by the relevant prosecutors, in order to investigate the circumstances of the alleged abduction of the applicants? In particular, has the Ankara public prosecutor questioned the first, second and third applicants who were in the car when their relative had allegedly been kidnapped with a view to elucidating the details of the alleged incident? 3.2. Have the authorities identified the owner of the cars which have the plate numbers indicated in the applicants’ submissions of 25 February 2019 to the Ankara prosecutor’s office? If so, what actions have been taken to follow those leads? 3.3. Have the investigating authorities opened necessary enquiries into whether any incident on the Istanbul-Edirne highway on 21 February 2019 between 18.00 and 21.00 hours was reported, in particular a car chase or a car entering the opposite lane?

3.4. Have the records of surveillance cameras on the route from the location of the incident to where the first, second and third applicants were dropped off, including gas stations where the kidnappers allegedly stopped, been secured and analysed with a view to identify the person(s) involved in the alleged kidnapping of the applicants’ relative? 3.5. Have the investigating authorities taken necessary steps to identify the persons who allegedly kidnapped the applicants’ relative from the drawings made by the first applicant? Have they prepared facial sketches of those individuals and carried out a search in the relevant databases? 4. Has there been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the disappearance of the applicants’ relative?

(see Çiçek v. Turkey , no. 25704/94 , §164, 27 February 2001). The Government are requested to submit a copy of the investigation file. APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Birth date Nationality Place of residence 1 Fatma Betül ZEYBEK 24/03/1984 Turkish Ankara 2 Azime AYDIN 01/06/1967 Turkish Ankara 3 Mustafa AYDIN 10/02/1958 Turkish Ankara 4 Abdullah ZEYBEK 19/12/1955 Turkish Ankara 5 Cafer Sedat ZEYBEK 07/06/2011 Turkish Ankara 6 Esra ZEYBEK 13/03/1994 Turkish Ankara 7 Hatice ZEYBEK 01/03/1959 Turkish Ankara 8 Selma ZEYBEK 22/11/2013 Turkish Ankara