CESUR v. TURKEY
Inadmissible
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić
1. The applicants, Mr Adem Cesur and Ms Nurdan Cesur, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1952 and 1958, respectively, and live in Istanbul. 3. The applicants’ son Cüneyt Cesur worked as a police officer in Akçakale, a district of Şanlıurfa, and was married to Cahide Cesur who was also a police officer, at the material time. 4. On an unknown date Cüneyt Cesur instituted divorce proceedings against Cahide Cesur on the basis of breakdown of their relationship. Cahide Cesur decided to move to another house alone in the same district. 5. On 14 April 2009, at around 7:20 p.m., while Cahide Cesur was moving to another house in the same district, with the help of her father and a number of other people from the same town, Cüneyt Cesur came in. According to the statements of those present in the room who were subsequently questioned as witnesses, Cüneyt Cesur opened fire in the direction of the ceiling, then fired a shot on the back of his wife, before shooting himself on the head. Both Cüneyt Cesur and Cahide Cesur were taken to the hospital. Meanwhile, Ö.E., one of the people who was helping Cahide Cesur in the house, was also injured in the hand by a ricocheting bullet. At around 9:50 p.m. the same day Cüneyt Cesur lost his life at the hospital. 6. On 15 April 2009 at 1.10 a.m. an autopsy was carried out by two forensic doctors under the supervision of the public prosecutor at the hospital. According to the post-mortem report, there was a bullet entry wound at right temporoparietal, measuring 5 x 4 centimeters and an exit wound at left parieto-occipital, measuring 5.5 x 4 centimeters. It was noted in the report that the death had occurred due to the injuries caused by the bullet wound and that the shot had been a contact shot or a near-contact shot (bitişik ya da bitişiğe yakın). 7. On 15 April 2009 Şanlıurfa Security Directorate (Şanlıurfa Emniyet Müdürlüğü Olay Yeri İnceleme ve Kimlik Tespit Şube Müdürlüğü) issued an expert report stating that a fingerprint belonging to Cüneyt Cesur’s left index finger had been found on the gun, next to the safety pin. 8. On 28 April 2009 Diyarbakır Criminal Police Laboratory also issued its expert report. That report indicated that analysis of the samples taken from the deceased’s hands and the hands of Cahide Cesur and two other witnesses, Ö.Y. and Ö.E., using the so-called “atomic absorption spectrometry” technique, had revealed that only the deceased had gunpowder residue (“atış artığı”) on his hands, on the outside of his right hand and inside of his left hand. 9. On 4 June 2009 Diyarbakır Criminal Police Laboratory prepared a second report, indicating that the bullets found at the crime scene had been fired by the gun which belonged to Cüneyt Cesur. 10. On 19 November 2009 Akçakale prosecutor issued a decision of non-prosecution. The prosecutor, having regard to the statements of the witnesses, the crime scene report, the post-mortem reports and the Diyarbakır Criminal Police Laboratory’s reports, held that Cüneyt Cesur had committed suicide by using his own gun. 11. On 31 January 2011 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint with the Akçakale prosecutor, claiming that the death of their son was suspicious and that the investigation which had already been concluded could not be considered to be an effective investigation. The applicants requested that another autopsy be conducted, claiming that the existing autopsy report was not sufficient. According to the applicants, the scars which they had noted on the head of their son at the time of his burial, did not match the findings recorded in the autopsy report. The applicant Adem Cesur, who is a retired police officer, claimed that his son had been shot on the left side of his head. The applicants further alleged that the place where the gun had been found raised suspicions, and complained of the fact that the mobile phones that their son had used were not examined. Lastly, the applicants also alleged that, when they went to Akçakale eleven months after the incident, they had received more information from some of the witnesses, raising even more suspicions on the circumstances of their son’s death 12. On 10 March 2011 the Akçakale prosecutor issued another decision of non-prosecution, on the grounds that the post-mortem report of 15 April 2009, the statements of the witnesses and the other evidence gathered by the investigators did not leave any room for doubt that the applicants’ son had committed suicide. The public prosecutor also stated that a decision not to prosecute had already been taken in relation to the same incident and unless new evidence was discovered it was not possible to initiate a new criminal investigation under Article 172 § 2 of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. The applicants filed an objection against the decision of non-prosecution, claiming that their son might have been shot by somebody else. The Siverek Assize Court examined the merits of both the prosecutor’s decision and the applicants’ objection in its decision of on 25 June 2011 and dismissed the objection. According to the court, the criminal investigation was conducted meticulously and that there was no reason to question any additional witnesses proposed by the applicants.