The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 3 June 2014 as a Committee composed of: Nebojša Vučinić, President, Paul Lemmens, Egidijus Kūris, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 November 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, whose particulars are set out in the appendix, were represented before the Court by Mr Mustafa Göncü, a lawyer practising in Mersin. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows. On 4 June 2004 the body of the applicants’ son and brother, Mr İbrahim Şenlik (hereinafter İ.Ş.), was found in the bottom of a well in a location near the town of Silifke. His head had been severed and has never been found. There were no...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 60139/09 Mehmet Emin ŞENLİK and others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 3 June 2014 as a Committee composed of: Nebojša Vučinić, President, Paul Lemmens, Egidijus Kūris, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 November 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, whose particulars are set out in the appendix, were represented before the Court by Mr Mustafa Göncü, a lawyer practising in Mersin. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows. On 4 June 2004 the body of the applicants’ son and brother, Mr İbrahim Şenlik (hereinafter İ.Ş.), was found in the bottom of a well in a location near the town of Silifke. His head had been severed and has never been found. There were no other injuries on the body. As such, it has not been possible to establish the cause of death. It was thought that the body had been in the well for some months. One of the applicants, Mr Ali Rıza Şenlik, informed the investigating authorities that his brother İ.Ş. had been married but had then eloped with another woman in January 2004. His family were of the opinion that İ.Ş.
2 ŞENLİK AND TOSUN v. TURKEY DECISION had been killed either by the family of his wife, or the family of the woman with whom he had eloped. An investigation was carried out by the local prosecutors during which a number of persons implicated by the applicants were questioned. Prosecutors were involved in all stages of the investigation and supervised the collection of evidence. Telephone records of İ.Ş. were checked with a view to establishing his movements. The woman with whom İ.Ş. had eloped and who had since moved to Germany was found by the authorities and questioned. On 22 May 2009 the Silifke prosecutor decided that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the suspects implicated by the applicants, and closed the investigation. The applicants lodged an objection against the prosecutor’s decision, but it was rejected by the Mersin Assize Court on 22 June 2009. According to section 102 of the Criminal Code in force at the time of the commission of the offence, the investigation into the killing will not become time-barred until 20 years after the killing of the applicant’s relative. COMPLAINTS The applicants relied on Articles 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention, and complained that the national authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the killing of İ.Ş. THE LAW The Court observes that the applicants complained about the investigation conducted by the national authorities into the killing of their relative which they considered flawed. As such, it considers that the complaints should be examined solely from the standpoint of Article 2 of the Convention....