## Facts

- Mehmet Kaya complained to the European human rights system on his own behalf and on behalf of his deceased brother’s widow and children.
- The applicant’s brother, Abdülmenaf Kaya, was killed on 25 March 1993 near Dolunay village in south-east Turkey during security operations in a conflict-affected area.
- The applicant alleged the deceased was an unarmed civilian deliberately shot by security forces and relied in part on statements attributed to a purported eyewitness.
- The Government asserted the deceased was a PKK militant killed in an armed clash with security forces.
- The evidentiary record contained sharply conflicting accounts of the killing’s circumstances, and fact-finding was hampered because the applicant, the alleged eyewitness, and other villagers did not give oral evidence due to asserted safety concerns.
- Domestic authorities treated the death as the outcome of a terrorist clash and undertook limited investigative steps, including an on-site inspection and a basic forensic examination.
- The investigation did not meaningfully test the competing account of unlawful state force and had serious shortcomings in forensic examination, autopsy, witness-taking, and follow-up inquiries.
- The Government raised a late objection that the applicant lacked standing and that the application was invalid.

## Issues

1. Whether the Government could contest the applicant’s standing and the application’s validity at the merits stage after not raising the objection earlier.
2. Whether it was proven to the requisite standard that state agents unlawfully and intentionally killed the applicant’s brother, contrary to Article 2.
3. Whether the authorities fulfilled Article 2’s procedural obligation to conduct an effective official investigation into a death occurring in circumstances potentially engaging state responsibility.

## Decision

- The Government’s standing/validity objection was dismissed (8–1) because it was not raised at the admissibility stage and could not be introduced later.
- No substantive violation of Article 2 was found because the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that security forces intentionally killed the deceased as alleged.
- A procedural violation of Article 2 was found because the investigation was seriously deficient and incapable of clarifying the circumstances of death or identifying and punishing those responsible.

## Legal Principles

- In assessing evidence, the tribunal applies a “beyond reasonable doubt” standard, which may be satisfied by strong, clear, concordant inferences or unrebutted presumptions.
- Article 2 includes an implied procedural duty to conduct an effective official investigation when a person is killed by force used by, or potentially attributable to, state agents.
- An Article 2 investigation must be capable of determining whether force was justified and of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible.
- Treating a disputed killing as a “clear-cut” lawful incident and limiting the inquiry to minimum formalities fails Article 2’s investigative requirements.
- Predetermining the victim’s status (e.g., assuming the deceased was a terrorist) undermines an impartial inquiry and can itself indicate investigative ineffectiveness.
- Inadequate forensic work, failure to secure witness evidence, and insufficient on-scene and follow-up inquiries can support a finding of procedural breach even absent proof of a substantive unlawful killing.

## Conclusion

The tribunal rejected a late standing objection, found insufficient proof that state forces unlawfully killed the applicant’s brother, but held that Article 2 was violated because the authorities failed to conduct an effective, genuinely probing investigation into a disputed death during security operations.


Kaya v. Turkey, App. No. 22729/93, 1998 ECHR 10 (Feb. 19, 1998)