The right to life requires that the state not arbitrarily take life, take reasonable protective measures against known serious risks, and investigate suspicious deaths effectively. Not every death gives rise to state responsibility; however, the cause of death, what the authorities knew, the possibility of prevention and the nature of the investigation must be clarified. Criminal investigation, administrative action and compensation routes each serve different functions depending on the nature of the event. [1; 2]
This guide is for general information only. In an ongoing danger, the first need is not merely to sue for past harm but to secure protective intervention by the competent authorities.
Which situations does the right to life cover?
Article 17 of the Constitution (Anayasa) and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (AİHS) are the main foundations. The guarantee may cover law enforcement's use of force, deaths in penal institutions, health services under certain conditions, dangerous activities, disaster risks and serious threats from third persons. Even where no death occurs, events that actually endanger life may fall within the scope of review. [1; 2]
The substantive dimension of the right to life concerns the interference itself and the protective measures. The procedural dimension concerns the effective investigation of the event. Even where it cannot be proven that a public official directly caused the death, a procedural violation may exist because of serious deficiencies in the investigation. Conversely, the mere tragic nature of an event does not replace proof of the officials' responsibility.
The duty to protect is not an unlimited guarantee of outcome
The state is not expected to predict human conduct in full or to eliminate every risk. Where the authorities knew or should have known of a real and immediate threat to a specific person's life, reasonable measures available to them must be taken. General security policy and a concrete risk to a specific person are not assessed at the same level. [5, §§ 50–53]
Threat messages, earlier attacks, protection requests, reports and the responses officials gave to them are therefore important. The claim that "the state did not protect" must be built by showing which authority received which information and when, what powers it could have used, and which act it did not perform.
Use of force and lethal intervention
The power of law enforcement to use force is not unlimited discretion. The legitimate aim, the concrete danger, the necessity of the tool used and the planning of the intervention are assessed together. Article 2 of the European Convention applies a strict necessity test to lethal use of force. Invoking a purpose such as preventing escape does not mean that every tool used was legitimate. [2]
The event may not consist solely of the last second's movement. The preparation of the operation, instructions given to officers, the provision of medical assistance, the availability of less dangerous tools and conduct after the intervention are also examined. Where an armed attack or a risk to others' lives is raised as a defense, the connection of that claim to the real data at the scene must be investigated.
Evidence may include camera recordings, radio communications, duty rosters, examinations of weapons and ammunition, the scene sketch, autopsy results and witness statements. A recording should be preserved in its integrity, showing the period before and after the event, rather than only a short extract. The lawful collection of evidence and its preservation by the investigating authority should be requested.
Persons under supervision, health and disaster risks
Protection in penal institutions
A person deprived of liberty is, in many basic respects, under the control of public authorities. Measures taken in the face of a known suicide risk, serious illness, a threat of attack or an urgent need for treatment are examined. Not every adverse outcome is an automatic violation; the person's health condition, applications, expert recommendations and the responses given to them are considered together. Disciplinary sanctions in hunger strikes and protest actions are addressed in the article disciplinary penalties imposed for protest and hunger strikes in prison.
Requests for urgent medical assistance, appropriate transfer or protective measures must be made without delay. For complaints about the enforcement of the sentence and its conditions, the route through the enforcement judgeship (infaz hâkimliği) is important. In events that raise a question of death or of a criminal offense, the prosecutor's investigation is assessed separately. An administrative petition does not replace a criminal investigation. [3; 8]
Medical negligence and hazardous activities
In an allegation of medical error, a criminal investigation is not necessarily the only effective route in every file. In medical negligence without intent, civil or administrative compensation mechanisms may, depending on their conditions, provide the judicial protection that the right to life requires. On the other hand, in graver situations, such as failing to take necessary measures despite a known serious danger, compensation alone may not be sufficient. [5, §§ 55–60]
In disasters, the natural event and the risk-management responsibilities of public officials must be distinguished. The concrete circumstances of building inspection, damage assessment, evacuation, warnings, closure of the dangerous area and rescue operations are examined. Describing an event as a "natural disaster" does not remove all public obligations; however, the administration's fault and the causal link must be established separately.
What does an effective investigation require?
An effective investigation is not merely the assignment of a file number. It requires an independent, adequate and promptly conducted inquiry capable of identifying those responsible. The participation of relatives to the extent needed to protect their legitimate interests, and the necessary public oversight, are also important. This obligation does not guarantee that a particular person will be convicted. [5, §§ 54–60]
In a petition to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, the known part of the event should be stated; matters that are unknown should not be presented as established facts. Preservation of camera recordings, hearing of witnesses, obtaining of duty records, and a request that an autopsy or expert examination answer specific questions may be made. Every evidence request should state which uncertainty about the event it is meant to resolve.
An expert report should not be assessed only through its concluding sentence. The documents reviewed, the method used, conflicting medical findings and alternative causes should be questioned. An objection to a report should go beyond saying "the report is wrong" and show how the incomplete examination could change the result.
Permission procedures concerning public officials
For certain public officials and acts, procedures requiring permission for an investigation may arise. The type of the act and the special law are important. Refusal of investigation permission, failure to proceed with a complaint and decisions of non-prosecution are not the same thing; each cannot be submitted to the same authority within the same period. A special permission procedure cannot justify a situation in which a serious right-to-life claim reaches no effective examination at all. [5]
Where and within what time limits are applications made?
| Need | Main route | Time limit and procedural distinction |
|---|---|---|
| Prevention of an ongoing serious risk | Competent law enforcement, prosecutor's office and the relevant protection authority | Where there is an immediate danger, do not wait for a decision or for a death to occur. |
| Investigation of a suspicious death | Chief Public Prosecutor's Office | Apply without delay so that evidence is not lost. |
| Decision of non-prosecution | Criminal judgeship of peace under Article 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) | The current general time limit is two weeks from notification of the decision. |
| Damage from an administrative act | Application to the administration and full remedy action under Article 13 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK) | Generally, an application to the administration within one year of learning of the act and five years from the act; special and judicial exceptions are examined separately. |
| Constitutional violation | Individual application to the Constitutional Court (AYM) | As a rule, thirty days after the relevant effective remedies have been exhausted. |
Where the application to the administration is rejected or left unanswered, the period for filing an action under Article 13 of the Administrative Procedure Law (İYUK) is calculated separately. Under the general regulation, silence for thirty days is treated as a rejection, and the period for filing an action runs from that point. A special law, the later emergence of the damage, or a change in whether the event is an administrative act rather than an administrative action may alter this. The continuation of a criminal investigation does not by itself suspend the administrative action period. [4]
The Serpil Kerimoğlu decision: both violation and inadmissibility
The Constitutional Court's decision in Serpil Kerimoğlu and others, Application No. 2012/752, September 17, 2013 concerns a death in the collapse of a hotel during the Van earthquake. The Court found a violation of the procedural dimension of the right to life because an effective and deterrent criminal investigation was not carried out. In examining the applications of the spouse and children, the complaints of two siblings were held inadmissible because the application routes had not been exhausted. [5, §§ 61–86 and the operative part]
The practical significance of the decision is that the procedural positions of relatives affected by the same event are separate. It cannot be assumed that one family member's act gives an automatic right of application to all relatives. The decision also shows that a deficiency in the criminal investigation and continuing compensation actions may be assessed separately. A finding of violation does not create an automatic presumption of liability for all disaster damage in the case.
The link between documents, requests and redress
| Alleged deficiency | Important documents | Appropriate request |
|---|---|---|
| Failure to provide protection despite a known threat | Previous complaints, protection decisions, notification and report records | Assessment of the risk and a concrete protective measure |
| Cause of death not investigated | Autopsy, health records, scene and expert reports | Completion of the incomplete examination |
| Investigation left stalled | Dates of procedural steps and unanswered evidence requests | Explanation of the delay and of matters left uninvestigated |
| Material loss | Documents on support relationship, income and expenses | Compensation claim with an established causal link |
An application to the Constitutional Court should not merely state that a death occurred; it should explain which obligation was violated and how. A new investigation, completion of the incomplete inquiry, the finding of violation and compensation claims must be properly connected to one another. A right-to-life application does not give relatives a right to demand that a third person be necessarily punished. [5; 6]
Lawyers may also apply to the Constitutional Court through the UYAP Lawyer Portal. The final decision, the notification or knowledge record, previous applications and representation documents are attached. Saving an application as a draft is not sufficient. If legal aid is requested, documents showing financial status must be submitted; fee and cost matters should be arranged separately from the claim of violation. [6; 7]
After the Constitutional Court, a route to the European Court of Human Rights (AİHM) may be assessed, subject to the admissibility conditions and the exhaustion of domestic remedies. The general time limit for applying is four months from the final domestic judicial decision. Failing to apply to the Constitutional Court in time or in the proper manner may also create an exhaustion problem before the European Court of Human Rights. [2, art. 35]
For decisions at the investigation stage, see also our article on objection to a decision of non-prosecution (KYOK); for the compensation discussion, see the right to an effective remedy.
Why is the nature of the investigation separately important?
Hayri Keser's study of the procedural dimension of the right to life shows that a protective legal order must be supported by an effective investigative structure. In practice, having a file open and the event actually being investigated must be distinguished. Where evidence is available at a known location but no action is taken for a long time, where a matter requiring expertise is not examined, or where relatives' meaningful participation is blocked, this should be explained concretely. The application should show how the delay affected the investigation, rather than merely counting the time that has passed. [9]
How does the examination change by type of event in a right-to-life file?
Where a threat and a risk of violence were reported in advance
The content of a protection request matters as much as its existence, and so does when the public authorities became aware of it. Previous complaints, threat messages, protection decisions, violation reports and police actions should be placed in chronological order. A post-death assessment is conducted on the basis of the information the authorities had before the event. It is accurate neither to assume that every danger was foreseeable from the outcome, nor to treat the fact that a third person carried out the act as removing all state responsibility. [1; 2; 5]
The application should explain which measure should have been taken and why. Instead of saying "the state did not protect", it should show the known danger, the protective means available, the measure not taken and the link to the event. Where a measure was taken, it should be examined whether it remained only on paper and whether reports of violations were evaluated. The applicant should keep apart a demand for a system that guarantees the prevention of all risks and a claim that reasonable measures were not taken against a known serious risk.
In a medical case: the function of criminal and compensation actions
A bad medical outcome is not accepted, by itself, as a rights violation. The course of treatment, the necessity of the intervention, the management of complications and the ability of the judicial route invoked to examine these claims are important. In claims of medical negligence without intent, effective civil or administrative remedies may be decisive. On the other hand, obstruction of access to urgent treatment or serious problems in the functioning of the system may call for a different assessment. For this reason, a single standard procedure that waits only for the prosecutor's decision should not be applied in every health file. [2; 5]
Patient records, the times of the intervention, referral records, tests and expert opinions should be examined together. Where a report does not explain the medical standard or does not address the main objections, the deficiency should be identified through relevant questions. An application to the Constitutional Court should not be reduced to a request for a new medical expert examination; it should explain why judicial review did not show the care that the right to life requires.
Relatives' participation in the investigation and access to the file
Effective investigation requires relatives to participate in the process to the extent needed to protect their legitimate interests. Responses to evidence requests, access to reports and notification of a decision of non-prosecution are assessed within this framework. Not every request from relatives must be granted; however, leaving concrete requests that may help clarify the event unanswered without reason is particularly important. [5; 9]
In files with several relatives, the power of attorney, victim status and earlier applications should be checked person by person. Common interest in the same death does not mean that everyone's procedural steps are automatically completed. The practical importance of the different admissibility outcomes in the Serpil Kerimoğlu decision lies here.
How is the cause of death separated from public responsibility?
In a right-to-life file, determining the medical or physical cause of death is only the first stage of the responsibility review. Even where the cause of death has been established, it must be examined separately whether the event was preventable, what information the authorities acquired and when, and what reasonable measures they could have taken. For example, a risk that became known only after the event and a risk that was clearly reported before the event with no measures taken do not call for the same assessment. The application should set out the information and powers available at the time of the event, rather than general retrospective criticism. [1, 2, 5]
This distinction is also decisive when objecting to expert reports. Where a report explains only the direct cause of death but does not examine the effect of delayed intervention or of missing measures, the unanswered question should be stated clearly. Lack of expertise, a contradiction between two reports in the file and an unexamined record are distinct objections. The applicant does not have to replace the report with his or her own technical opinion; it is enough to show which basic question the examination left unanswered. A request for a new examination should therefore be linked to a specific field of expertise and specific questions.
Independence of the investigation and timely collection of evidence
An effective investigation must be capable of establishing who is responsible for the event. This requirement also covers examining the connection of those conducting the investigation to the event and the degree to which the inquiry was in fact independent. The mere fact that a different institution is involved is not in itself an adequate explanation; what matters is who collected the critical records, how statements were taken and how contradictions were resolved. However, failing to carry out every investigative step the applicant requested is not, on its own, a violation. The contribution that the step not taken would have made to clarifying the event should be explained. [5]
Camera recordings, communication data, scene examinations and initial medical findings in particular can disappear over time. In a petition, saying only that "all evidence should be collected" is not enough; the institution where a recording is likely to be held, the time period and its connection to the event should be specified. If the recording no longer exists, it may be examined when it was requested and why it could not be obtained. Whether a negligence in the early stage of the investigation was later remedied is determined by assessing the process as a whole. A delay cannot be treated as having the same effect in every file; for some evidence, delay produces an irreversible result.
Relatives' participation is not unlimited access
The relatives of the deceased must be able to take part in the process to the extent needed to protect their legitimate interests. This does not require every document to be disclosed unconditionally at every stage. Being kept entirely unaware of the basic course of the inquiry, however, or an information deficit that removes an effective means of objection, is a different matter. The application should state what information was requested, the reason given for refusal and which act the refusal prevented. Not participating at all and having a participation request left without result are not the same situation. [3, 5]
The effect of the Serpil Kerimoğlu decision on preparing an application
The instructive aspect of the Serpil Kerimoğlu decision is that the same death does not produce a single admissibility outcome for all applicants. In the decision, the procedural obligation to investigate was found violated with respect to the spouse and children, while for the other relatives' applications the question of exhaustion of application routes was assessed. Therefore, listing the names of family members together in one petition does not remove the need to explain each person's applications and the complaint they hold. Each applicant's link to the event and position in the ordinary process should be shown separately. [5]
It is also incorrect to draw an automatic conclusion of violation for every earthquake death from this decision. The collapse of a building, a deficiency of inspection, rescue operations or the failure to investigate those responsible may create different legal problems. Without determining which public obligation was violated, describing only the gravity of the disaster is not enough. The urgency of the event, the risk information, the competent authorities and the conduct of the investigation should be linked to documents. Thus the duty to protect in substance and the duty to investigate after death do not become overlapping general claims.
The redress sought must match the deficiency identified
Where a deficiency in the investigation is alleged, re-investigation steps capable of remedying that deficiency gain importance. Where material damage is claimed, the legal basis and proof conditions of each head of loss, such as loss of support or expenses, are assessed. A finding of violation by the Constitutional Court is not a declaration that a particular person is guilty. The outcome of a renewed investigation depends on independent authorities assessing the evidence lawfully. Reducing the claim directly to an expectation of conviction misreads the function of constitutional review. [5, 6]
For further detail, see also our articles on prohibition of torture and ill-treatment and right to liberty and security. For our firm's work in this area, see the page on applications to the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights.
Conclusion
Protecting the right to life requires prevention when a risk emerges and effective investigation and appropriate redress when a death occurs. The strength of an application comes from explaining the public authority's knowledge, the action it could have taken, and the relationship between the omission and the outcome. The procedural positions of the relatives and their parallel time limits in court should be monitored separately.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is every death a violation of the right to life?
No. The state's intervention, its duty to protect or a deficiency in the investigation must be shown through concrete circumstances.
Does the acquittal of the perpetrator show that the investigation was ineffective?
Not by itself. What matters is whether the inquiry was carried out sufficiently and fairly.
Does filing a compensation action replace a criminal investigation?
Not in every case. In events involving intentional acts or serious public negligence in particular, an effective criminal investigation may be required.
Do all relatives benefit from an application filed by one person?
Not automatically. Victim status, representation and the exhaustion of ordinary remedies are examined for each applicant.
Is it mandatory to wait for years while an investigation continues?
Not in every case. Claims of ineffectiveness and excessive delay are assessed together with the applicant's diligence in the process and the remedies available.
Does a Constitutional Court violation decision directly lead to a conviction?
No. A decision may be given on remedying the violation and on the necessary investigative steps; criminal liability is determined by the competent judicial authorities.
Sources and legal bases
1 — Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Anayasa), Arts. 17, 40, 148. Text.
2 — European Convention on Human Rights (AİHS), Arts. 2, 13, 35. Official text.
3 — Law No. 5271 on Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), Arts. 158–173. Text.
4 — Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu), Arts. 7, 12, 13. Text.
5 — Constitutional Court, Serpil Kerimoğlu and others, Application No. 2012/752, September 17, 2013. Decision.
6 — Law No. 6216, Arts. 45–50. Text.
7 — Constitutional Court, Individual Application Guide via the UYAP Lawyer Portal (UYAP Avukat Portal Üzerinden Bireysel Başvuru Kılavuzu). Guide.
8 — Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu). Text.
9 — Hayri Keser, "The Procedural Dimension of the Right to Life in Individual Application Case Law: The Duty of Effective Investigation" (Bireysel Başvuru İçtihatlarında Yaşam Hakkının Usuli Boyutu: Etkili Soruşturma Yükümlülüğü), Akdeniz University Faculty of Law Journal (Akdeniz Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), 12/2, 2022, pp. 411–437. Article.