Events
Located in the province of Istanbul, a building with explosives (fireworks, torch) that is used for the production and trafficking as a result of an explosion on the third floor, the applicants and their relatives has caused massive property damage and 115 people were injured, including 21 people were killed. It was understood that the building permit (license) of the building where the explosion occurred was issued by the Mayor’s Office, the building’s building use permit (residence) and the fire department approval certificate were not found. The Prosecutor General’s Office initiated an investigation into the incident and sent the indictment it had prepared to the High Criminal Court (Court).
The court decided to acquit three defendants, to sentence 5 years and 6 months in prison separately for two defendants who own buildings, and to convict five defendants of the murder of municipal employees by taxi. Upon appeal of the decision, the Court of Cassation upheld the decision in terms of the acquittal provisions and the conviction provisions issued against the two defendants, the municipal employee decided to drop the case against the defendant due to the statute of limitations, and also overturned the decision made about other officials who were municipal employees on the grounds that there was an error in the qualification of a crime.
The court found two public officials guilty of negligence or delay in performing the requirements of their duties and the other two public officials guilty of acting contrary to the requirements of their duties and sentenced them to imprisonment. The court has decided that the disclosure of the provision should be left undone for all four defendants by the municipal officer because their conditions have been established.
Count
The applicants, and unauthorized occupancy permits for commercial purposes without Explosives is used in the building, which is produced as a result of an explosion killed 21 people, many people in the injury, because in the event of a public servant about the criminal investigation initiated in the fall than the timeout, some other public officials argued that the right to life had been violated because of the decision of hagb about.
Evaluation of the Court
1. From the Point of View of the Alleged Violation of the Material Dimension of the Right to Life
In our national legislation, it is observed that special attention is paid to the places of work where the production of explosives is carried out. The stages of establishment and activities of these workplaces, which pose a serious danger to the environment and therefore require special security measures, have been linked to strict conditions with detailed regulations. The explosion in the building and performs the operations inspection before sealing the lives of the fact that the explosion occurred shortly before the incident, where to get a license warns the workplace, both in terms of the aforementioned business and operations as necessary check and zoning municipal officials who are charged with the making process, the detailed regulatory provisions organized, linked to strict conditions, the risk is high, however, that in the present case of a real and immediate risk as a fugitive made aware of the existence of explosives manufacturing activity, in other words, it is clear beyond doubt that this event, which will have serious consequences from a vital point of view, is predictable.
Even as the abode can not be used in the building for 16 years iskans quite risky production activities of unlicensed/unauthorized although it is understood that failure to take any action due to the cessation of production activities on behalf of the administration has not taken reasonable steps to preserve the life of the obligation in the context, it was observed that did not take any precaution to prevent the realization of the danger. As a result, in the hands of public authorities legal/institutional infrastructure, supported by Public Power, which started in an efficient manner in accordance with the obligation to preserve life, unspeakable and dangerous/illegal manufacturing activity in terms of risk of introduction and made fruitful the result is inefficient in the implementation of measures for the protection of life are treated in violation of the obligation of the obvious.
Although the public authorities are aware of the possible consequences, there is a process in which they have not taken the necessary and adequate measures to eliminate the risks arising within the scope of the powers granted to them in order to require a criminal investigation in the context of the guarantees of the right to life in the concrete application.
A dangerous life on the integrity of the persons within the scope of activity of the body with responsibility to take the necessary measures to minimize the risks that arise on the face of the state in Persons with judicial responsibilities to detect and show the detected response is significant since it prevent similar incidents.
In this context, when considering the trial process, it was understood that the Court clarified the circumstances surrounding the incident, identified the public officials responsible for the incident, determined the crime, defect of the public officials it identified in connection with the explosion result, sentenced them to prison sentences, but decided to release the disclosure of the verdict. In other words, in the event that resulted in death, it was determined that the public authorities caused the victimization of people by not fulfilling the requirements of their duties, and thus the violation was revealed in essence in the context of the main dimension of the right to life. However, although the degree to which the right to life has been violated has been accepted by the courts, adequate and appropriate redress has not been provided for the violation due to the decision of the HAGB.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the material dimension of the right to life has been violated on the grounds described.
2. From the Point of View of the Alleged Violation of the Procedural Dimension of the Right to Life
The state’s positive obligations under the procedural aspect of the right to life, to reveal all aspects of the deaths that occurred, which allows the determination of responsibility and commensurate with penalties for those responsible to be identified to conduct an effective investigation requires that the given verbs.
In a concrete case, if the defendants do not commit a crime during the trial period as a result of the Court’s decision to reverse the disclosure of the Verdict, this punishment will not be reflected in the judicial record, considering that it has never been given. This decision has a stronger effect than the postponement of the execution of the sentence and results in the defendant’s exemption from punishment. Considering the process as a whole in the light of these findings, the Court gave the impression that it preferred to use its decision to withdraw the disclosure of the Provision to mitigate or eliminate the consequences of an act that caused severe victimization, rather than using its authority to show that these actions would not be tolerated in any way.
Accordingly, it was understood that the condition for the responsible persons to receive punishment commensurate with their actions, which is one of the conditions for ensuring the effectiveness of the investigation, was not fulfilled and the result of impunity arose. This clearly contradicts the state’s obligations to conduct a criminal investigation that can ensure that those responsible are punished with appropriate and adequate penalties in order to provide deterrence in order to prevent similar violations. It is clear that this result creates the impression that such situations are treated with tolerance and may also damage the confidence of individuals in the state and the mechanisms of justice in this context.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the procedural dimension of the right to life has been violated on the grounds described.
You can reach our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.
