The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found Turkey guilty of violating the right to life (Article 2) in the case of Kaymaz where Uğur Kaymaz (13) and Ahmet Kaymaz were killed by a police raid in Mardin 2004.
Following the incident, the mainstream media initially covered the incident as “two terrorists were killed” according to a first statement by the Mardin Governor’s Office.
ECHR ordered Turkey to pay for damages to the following applicants: Makbule Kaymaz (65,000 euros as pecuniary damages and 50,000 as non-pecuniary damages), Emine Kaymaz (5,000 euros as pecuniary damages and 15,000 as non-pecuniary damages) and Reşat Kaymaz (5,000 euros as pecuniary damages and 15,000 as non-pecuniary damages).
“No need for lethal intervention”
The court ruled that the raid operation has not been held in a fashion where casualties could be minimized and it didn’t require any lethal intervention.
The court also cited the police logs which said that there were no activities in the past 24 hours of incident and the police log didn’t mention of any details of the raid which occurred between 4pm and 4:30 pm.
It was also noted that police didn’t find any findings neither about hiding terrorists or plans for a terrorist plot.
“In the light of all the information, the court has not been convinced that the law enforcement took the necessary precautions to minimize the casualties.”
“Contradicting statements”
ECHR also ruled that the local court in Turkey constructed the incident plot only through the statements of suspect policemen. “The suspect statement were taken with a 10 day delay. This alone proves how authorities did not take precautions on the issue,” the verdict said.
It also stated that suspects changed their statements and told two different stories which contradict each other, especially on the location of bullets.
“The authorities must have considered the different aspects before taking contradicting suspect police statement for granted,” the verdict said.
Advocate underlined several contradictions
When Kaymaz family lawyers applied to the ECHR, they underlined the following issues:
* According to the case file and suspect statements, the apartment of Ahmet Kaymaz and Uğur Kaymaz was under police surveillance for the past 24 hours. They were checking the entries and the surveillance continued until the raid. Therefore, it is not realist to say that suspect policemen met the deceased all of a sudden.
* Even though the hearings were held in the assumption that there was an armed clash, the positions of deceased and the way they were dressed (they were wearing home slippers) fundamentally challenge this claim.
* The incident took place in a 6 meter square room. No bullets were found in the truck. The location of bullets hint that no clash actually took place:
* Suspect M.K. stated that he fired 7 bullets. However, only 2 bullets have been found from the scene.
* Suspect S.A.T. stated that he fired several times during the clash, but no bullets have been collected.
* Another unidentified police suspect stated that he fired 6 times, no bullets have been collected. When compared with expert reports, it is obvious that suspects have obscured evidence.
* Suspect Y.A. stated that he clashed with two people. He also said that he ducked during the clash and then hid under the truck during the clashes. But one of the bullets fired from Y.A.’s gun was found in front of Kaymaz family apartment. This alone proves that suspect didn’t tell the truth. (ÇT/BM)
.jpg)
