I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in ELVAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY.


  • Judgment date: 2023-02-07
  • Communication date: 2020-06-03
  • Application number(s): 64937/19
  • Country:   TUR
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 2, 2-1, 13
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)
  • Result: Violation

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.559096
  • Prediction: Violation
  • Consistent


 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The first two applicants’ son and the remaining applicants’ brother, Berkin Elvan, who was fourteen years old at the time, was shot in the head by a tear-gas canister that was fired by a police officer in June 2013 during the Gezi Park events in Istanbul.
He died as a result of his injuries after a coma of almost nine months.
On 15 November 2013, the applicants filed separate complaints before the Istanbul Public Prosecutor against the police officers who had allegedly used disproportionate force, and also against Government officials, namely the Prime Minister, the Minister of Interior, the Istanbul Governor and the Director of the Istanbul Security Department.
In this connection: - On 6 December 2016 criminal proceedings were initiated against the police officer who had fired the gas canister and shot Berkin Elvan.
According to the information in the file, the criminal proceedings are still pending before the Istanbul Assize Court (no.
- In so far as the complaint lodged against the Prime Minister and the Minister of Interior, the Public Prosecutor decided that this part of the complaints should be examined separately under a different file number, as the applicable procedure was different.
The case file does not contain any information about the outcome of this investigation.
- The applicants’ complaint against the Istanbul Governor and the Director of the Istanbul Security Department were twofold.
As to the part concerning the alleged involvement of the two officials in the delay encountered in the course of the criminal proceedings against the accused police officer, on 25 December 2014 the public prosecutor delivered a decision of non-prosecution, holding that the applicants did not have an arguable claim to substantiate their allegation.
On 9 February 2015 the Istanbul Magistrates’ Court dismissed the applicants’ objection.
As to the applicants’ complaint concerning the alleged failure of the high level officials in providing guidelines and training to the police officers when using force to disperse violent demonstrators, on 3 February 2014, pursuant to Law no.
4483, the Ministry of Interior refused to give permission to the public prosecutor to initiate an investigation into these allegations.
On 28 May 2014 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ objection.
- Subsequently, following the applicants’ individual application, on 9 May 2019 the Constitutional Court decided that the right to life of the applicants’ relative’s had not been breached, holding that the applicants had failed to establish a causal link between the death and the Government officials.
This decision was served on the applicants on 31 May 2019.
The applicants complained that the death of Berkin Elvan had been caused by an excessive use of force.
In their view, domestic law and the authorities did not regulate, in a manner that was compatible with the Convention, the use of firearms by State agents and they failed in providing sufficient guidelines and training to avoid any risk to right to life.
Referring to the delay in the criminal proceedings against the accused police officer, the applicants further complained that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into the incident.
The applicants further complained about the suffering that they had to endure as a result of Berkin Elvan’s death, following a coma for 269 days.
In respect of their complaints, they relied on Articles 2, 3, 10, 11 and 13 of the Convention.