Violation Of The Procedural Aspect Of The Right To Life Due To Failure To Conduct An Effective Investigation Into A Fatal Traffic Accident
Events
The applicant’s wife B.K. died as a result of a traffic accident. After the incident, traffic teams issued an accident report and the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office initiated an investigation ex officio and immediately. According to the death examination, the cause of death of B.K. was assessed to be head trauma due to the accident and severe blood loss as a result of the injury to the right leg.
In the suspicious statement of M.E.N., the driver of the first vehicle that hit the deceased, taken before the police, he stated that he braked and manoeuvred in order not to hit the pedestrian who suddenly ran from the middle median of the road in front of the petrol station and hit him with the left mirror part of the vehicle. Afterwards, he stated that when he parked his vehicle and went to where the pedestrian was, a white coloured 34 plate X brand vehicle passed over the pedestrian lying on the ground.
In the Investigation Report prepared by the Provincial Gendarmerie Command officers, it was determined that 3 white X brand vehicles with 34 licence plates passed by the scene between 21.44 and 22.37 on the day of the incident, but since the persons resided in other provinces and could not be reached, their statements could not be taken as suspects.
The applicant, whose statement was taken as a complainant before the police, complained about the drivers of the first vehicle that hit his wife and the drivers of the second vehicle that ran over her and then fled. The applicant sent the CD containing the footage of the incident to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office as an annex to his petition and requested that the driver of the 34-plate white X-brand vehicle, which fled after hitting his wife, be identified and an investigation be opened against him.
Upon the request of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, the report prepared by the Forensic Medicine Group Presidency stated that the deceased was at primary fault and the driver of the first vehicle, M.E.N., was at fault. Thereupon, the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office decided not to prosecute M.E.N., the driver of the first vehicle, for the offence of causing death by negligence. The applicant’s objection to this decision was rejected by the Criminal Court of Peace.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his right to life was violated due to the lack of an effective investigation into the fatal traffic accident.
Assessment of the Court
In the concrete application, the applicant did not claim that the death occurred as a result of an intentional act and complained only about the ineffectiveness of the investigation carried out into the death which occurred as a result of a negligent act.
As a result of the examination of the investigation subject to the concrete application in terms of whether all the evidence that could shed light on the death incident and ensure the identification of those responsible was determined by the competent authorities, it was understood that a necropsy was carried out within the scope of the investigation, the statement of M.E.N., one of the suspects, and the statements of the complainant and witnesses were taken, and a crime scene investigation was carried out.
On the other hand, as confirmed by the relatives of the deceased who witnessed the incident and the wife of the suspect M.E.N., the driver of the first car that hit the deceased, who was in the car, it is fixed that a second vehicle passed over the deceased who fell on the road after being hit by the first vehicle. The applicant requested more than once from the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office that the driver of this vehicle be identified and investigated.
Despite the applicant’s requests, the fact that he personally obtained the footage of the incident and sent it to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the fact that three licence plates matching the characteristics of the second vehicle that hit the deceased were identified by monitoring the video footage of the incident, it has been observed that the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office only conducted an investigation against the driver of the first vehicle that hit the deceased on the grounds that “the deceased was primarily at fault in the traffic accident that occurred, and that trying to identify the driver of the other vehicle that ran over the leg of the deceased who fell to the ground with the effect of the first impact … would not lead to any results”, and did not conduct an investigation to identify the driver of the second vehicle.
However, in the face of the determination that one of the causes of death as a result of the necropsy was serious blood loss due to the injury to the right leg, the fact that B.K. fell on the road as a result of the first vehicle hitting the deceased with its side mirror as stated in the Crime Scene Observation and Identification Report, and the fact that the second vehicle ran over the deceased despite the crowd gathered around B.K., as the applicant claimed that it was seen in the footage, the failure to identify the driver of the second vehicle was found to be a deficiency in the investigation that would damage the effectiveness of the compensation case.
Since the identity of the second driver was not determined in the criminal investigation, it was assessed that the applicant could not be expected to file an individual application after exhausting the compensation remedy, since the effectiveness of the compensation remedy, which enables the determination of the responsibilities in the incident and the provision of appropriate compensation for the damage, was damaged due to the failure to clarify the responsible parties to whom the hostility in the compensation case would be directed.
The Constitutional Court decided that the procedural aspect of the right to life was violated for the reasons explained.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.