Ömer Aydın v. Turkey (34813/02)

The applicant, Ömer Aydın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1940 and lives in Istanbul. His son Fatih Aydın committed suicide while performing his compulsory military service in the navy.

On 26 August 2001 the applicant’s son was seriously injured when he set fire to himself on the deck of a ship, after dowsing himself in fuel. He jumped into the sea and was rescued, then taken to hospital, but died from his injuries a few days later. A criminal investigation was opened automatically. The applicant filed a criminal complaint. In September 2001 the military prosecutor discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the incident had not involved any misconduct or negligence on the part of the armed forces. An administrative commission of inquiry was also set up to investigate the case immediately after the incident. It concluded that no misconduct or negligence could be attributed to military personnel.

The applicant alleged that his son had committed suicide because of ill-treatment by his superior officers and that the military prosecutor’s office had not conducted an effective investigation. He relied, in particular, on Articles 2 (right to life), 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).

According to the applicant, his son had been depressed because of pressure from his superior officers. He had allegedly lost control of himself after being unfairly beaten by a Petty Officer on the day of the incident and had decided to commit suicide. The Court however noted that these allegations were not based on concrete or verifiable facts and had not been conclusively corroborated. The Court noted that in the administrative and criminal investigations statements had been taken from all military personnel who could shed light on the circumstances surrounding the incident and that, following incriminating statements given by the applicant’s son when questioned at the military hospital, the Petty Officers accused by him and others were interviewed. However, none of the statements confirmed the allegations of ill-treatment. Ultimately the evidence before the Court was insufficient for it to establish that there had been ill-treatment.

As regards the death of the applicant’s son, the Court found that there was nothing to indicate that, before joining the armed forces, he had been suffering from any apparent mental problems that could have suggested he was suicidal. He seemed to have begun to show obvious signs of violent behaviour during his military service. After his return from leave in June 2001 he talked about his psychological problems to his superiors, who ordered that he be sent to hospital. In mid-August 2001 he was transferred to the psychiatric unit of a public hospital where he was diagnosed as having an antisocial state of mind and anxiety. That led to his placement in a military hospital, where the psychiatrist observed that his condition did not require any intervention or treatment. A further examination two weeks later was recommended. The Court considered that, whilst the applicant’s son certainly showed signs of malaise on several occasions, his suicide could not have been predicted from his behaviour. In particular, none of the doctors who examined the applicant’s son had noted a serious risk of such an outcome. For the Court, his superiors could not therefore be criticised for failing to order the necessary verification of his mental state and for not having done enough to prevent his suicide. Lastly, the applicant’s son had not requested psychological assistance before his return from leave. In those circumstances, the Court was not convinced that the military authorities should have known that there was a real and immediate risk of suicide. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 2 in respect of Fatih Aydın’s suicide.

As to the investigation carried out by the military authorities, the Court considered that the military administration had, to a certain extent, proved to be ineffectual in the establishment and follow-up of the mental state of the applicant’s son, especially after his conscription into the armed forces, which had played a role in the sequence of events. Whilst there was no reason to call into question the willingness of the investigating authorities to shed light on the circumstances, they had nevertheless failed to establish why the military administration had been so ineffectual. Neither the military prosecutor nor the administrative commission of inquiry had sought to interview the various doctors who had examined the applicant’s son and more particularly the psychiatrist who had met him ten days before his suicide, and the results of the investigations made no mention of any responsibility being engaged in that connection. Moreover, the military prosecutor had not sought to clarify a contradiction in statements about a dispute with Fatih Aydın on the day of the incident. The Court therefore held unanimously that the exact circumstances of the conscript’s death had not been duly assessed and determined and that there had thus been a violation of Article 2 in respect of the procedure. It awarded the applicant EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Court held that it was not necessary to examine the other complaints. (The judgment is available only in French.)

Date	20081125
Article	2, 13
Decision	no viol.