Yürekli v. Turkey (48913/99)
| Date | 20080717 |
|---|---|
| Article | 2 |
| Decision | violation |
No violation of Article 2 (life)
Violation of Article 2 (investigation)
Yürekli v. Turkey (no. 48913/99)
The applicant, Ferit Yürekli, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Bursa (Turkey).
In March 1977, while he was performing his compulsory military service, the applicant suffered a fall of 13 metres and sustained serious injuries. The exact circumstances of the fall are the subject of disagreement between the applicant, who asserted that he had accidentally fallen while on a work fatigue, and the Turkish Government, who alleged that it had been an attempted suicide. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), among other provisions, the applicant complained that his right to life had not been protected by the military authorities and the investigations conducted after the incident had not been adequate.
The Court considered that it did not have any evidence which might enable it to conclude with certainty that the applicant had been the victim of an accidental fall while on a work fatigue. Similarly, it observed that there was no evidence that the military authorities should reasonably have been expected to foresee and prevent the applicant’s fall. There had therefore been no violation of Article 2 on that account.
The Court noted a number of shortcomings in the criminal investigation of the case. It attached importance in particular to the fact that the applicant had not been interviewed until more than eight months after the events, and only then as the defendant in criminal proceedings brought against him for deliberately making himself unfit for military service. It also noted that there had been no proceedings in which the applicant could have appeared as a victim with a view to establishing who if anyone bore responsibility for his fall. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that the investigation conducted in the case could not be regarded as effective and capable of establishing what had happened and who might be responsible for the injuries. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2. It awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)