Kaya v Turkey (Application no. 22729/93), decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 1998, is a landmark case on the procedural obligations inherent in the right to life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Facts of the Case

The case arose from the death of Abdülmenaf Kaya in south-east Turkey in March 1993, with two conflicting accounts:

  • The applicant’s version: his brother was deliberately killed by security forces while going to his fields, and a weapon was planted to frame him as a terrorist.
  • The government’s version: the deceased was a terrorist killed during a gun battle, with a weapon found beside his body.

The Domestic Investigation

A field autopsy consisted only of an external examination, noting multiple bullet wounds but not the number of bullets or firing distance. The body was handed to villagers for burial. The prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction, assuming the deceased was a terrorist killed in a clash; no soldiers were questioned and no forensic tests were conducted.

Key Legal Issues and Findings

1. Article 2 — right to life (substantive)

There was an insufficient evidentiary basis to conclude “beyond reasonable doubt” that the security forces had intentionally and unlawfully killed the deceased, particularly as key witnesses did not testify due to fear of reprisals. No substantive violation was found regarding the killing itself.

2. Article 2 — right to life (procedural)

Article 2 requires an effective official investigation where individuals are killed through force by State agents. The investigation here was seriously deficient — a perfunctory autopsy, uncritical acceptance of the military account, no forensic evidence collected, and no alternative explanations considered. The Court found a violation of Article 2.

3. Article 13 — effective remedy

Where relatives have an “arguable claim” that a victim was unlawfully killed by the State, Article 13 requires a thorough investigation capable of identifying and punishing those responsible. Its absence denied the family other remedies, so a violation of Article 13 was found.

4. Article 14 — discrimination

The Court found no evidence for the claim that the killing was part of a discriminatory practice against Kurds; no violation of Article 14.

Just Satisfaction

The Court awarded £10,000 in non-pecuniary damages to the widow and seven children, and £17,000 for legal costs.

Dissenting Opinion

Judge Gölcüklü dissented, arguing the case should have been struck out, challenging the applicant’s standing (he never appeared in person), and disagreeing with the findings under Articles 2 and 13.