Events
H.H.K., a relative of the applicants who works as a security guard at a site, stated in a phone call with the person on duty at the 155 Police Emergency line between 1:58 a.m. and 1:57:47 a.m. on the day of the incident that he was threatened with death. During this conversation, sounds of a scuffle could be heard from H.H.K.’s location. In addition, Ö.K., a courier delivering food to the site where the incident took place, called the 155 Police Emergency line a few minutes before the assault and stated that İ.H.B. was threatening H.H.K. with a knife. H.H.K. was stabbed in the leg by İ.H.B. at 02:09. Police officers arrived at the scene at 02:25, and paramedics arrived at 02:30. H.H.K. died two days after the incident as a result of bleeding caused by a large artery cut due to a stab wound. Following this incident, the applicants filed a full trial lawsuit against the Ministry of Interior before the administrative court. At the end of the trial, the administrative court rejected the applicants’ claim for compensation on the grounds that the administration was not at fault in the death of the applicant’s relative and could not be held responsible for the incident under the principle of strict liability or social risk. The applicants appealed against this decision, but the court of appeal definitively rejected their appeal on the grounds that the administrative court’s decision was in accordance with the law and that there were no legal grounds for overturning it.
Allegations
The applicants claimed that their right to life had been violated because a thorough investigation had not been conducted in the full trial lawsuit filed seeking compensation for the damages arising from the injury incident that resulted in death, due to the failure to respond to the emergency call to the police within a reasonable time.
The Court’s Assessment
Since the applicants essentially complained during the proceedings that the police arrived at the scene too late, the application addressed whether the administrative court and the court of appeal had conducted an investigation with the diligence required by the right to life.
During the proceedings, the police officers assigned to the two teams dispatched in response to H.H.K.’s call for help stated in their statements given as part of a disciplinary investigation that the team responsible for the relevant neighborhood was not on duty on the day of the incident and that they were not familiar with the streets of that neighborhood. The district police headquarters was then asked about the reason for this situation; the district police headquarters informed the administrative court that the police team in question was not off duty on the day of the incident and that one of the teams affiliated with the security branch directorate was on duty in an area covering the neighborhood where the incident took place on the day of the incident. On the other hand, according to Ö.A., who was the investigator in the disciplinary investigation, the fact that the main team responsible for the neighborhood was not on duty on the day of the incident was one of the reasons for the late arrival at the scene. Nevertheless, without making a clear assessment of Ö.A.’s findings, the administrative court rejected the case on the grounds that there was no gross negligence in the incident, considering that the address information enabling the police teams to intervene effectively in the incident was only obtained at 02:02, that the 155 Police Emergency operator reported the address information to the teams on duty at the same minute, and that H.H.K. was stabbed at 02:09 , the court dismissed the case on the grounds that there was no gross negligence in the incident.
On the other hand, another report in the case file states that although both teams assigned to the case learned that it was a knife fight -instead of rushing to the scene- they set out to search for the suspect, and that the relevant law enforcement officers even checked several people on the way. Finally, when they reached the address, they saw the person lying on the ground and the courier standing over him. The courier Ö.K., who was interviewed as a witness, stated that after reporting the incident, he waited for about ten minutes but when he saw that the police had not arrived, he went to the security guard, saw that the suspect was trying to wrap the security guard’s leg, and called an ambulance. He stated that the ambulance arrived after the police arrived at the scene and reported it by radio. It was considered negligent that both teams set out to search for the suspect even though H.H.K. was threatened with a knife and was injured at the scene. The applicants also claimed in their appeal petitions that the distance between the teams’ headquarters and the scene of the incident was only 558 meters. This claim must also be evaluated, particularly in terms of determining whether it was possible to reach the scene before the attack in order to prevent it.
According to the findings, H.H.K. died two days after the incident as a result of bleeding caused by a major artery laceration due to a cut or puncture wound. It is undoubtedly crucial for the protection of the right to life that law enforcement officers arrive at the scene promptly, both to prevent the attack and to take measures after the attack.
However, the administrative court and the court of appeal did not examine whether the absence of the main team responsible for the relevant neighborhood on the day of the incident caused the police to arrive late at the scene, whether the situation was reported to the police team or station that could reach the scene in the shortest time after learning of the death threat, and whether the teams that responded to the announcement exercised the utmost care and diligence to reach the scene as quickly as possible. In this context, the courts of first instance failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasoning regarding the extremely important allegations as to whether the police arrived at the scene promptly to prevent the knife attack and to ensure that the necessary measures were taken to protect the right to life afterwards, and did not sufficiently clarify the incident in this regard.
Considering the above findings regarding the procedural aspect of the right to life, it is not possible at this stage to examine the claim that the substantive aspect of the right to life has been violated.
The Constitutional Court has ruled that the procedural aspect of the right to life has been violated based on the reasons explained.