quill.gif (3183 bytes)

Timurtas v. Turkey (23531/94) [2000] ECHR 221 (13 June 2000)

Facts: The applicant was the father of a victim who was taken into custody by security forces and had since disappeared. He filed a complaint with the Turkish authorities but a decision not to instigate a prosecution was ordered on the ground that the applicant's allegations were vague.

Complaint: The applicant claimed that the failure by the authorities to provide a plausible explanation as to his son's disappearance violated his right to life guaranteed by article 2 his right to liberty and security guaranteed by Article 5 of the Convention. He also complained about a violation of article 3 and 13 of the Convention

Holding: the ECHR found a violation of article 2, 3, 5 and 13

Reasoning: The ECHR dismissed the need for direct evidence previously held necessary in Kurt v. Turkey , and instead permitted the use of circumstantial evidence to establish a violation of the right to life. In the absence of a body, an issue arose under Article 2 depending on all the circumstances of the case. The Court concluded that the investigation was inadequate and therefore in breach of the State's procedural obligations to protect the right to life.



Human and Constitutional Rights Resource Page

Comparative Bills of Rights || Life