Turkish government submits defence on Kaymaz case
Turkish government submits defence on Kaymaz case
12-year-old Uður Kaymaz and his father Ahmet Kaymaz were shot dead by policemen in front or their home in Kýzýltepe (Mardin) on 21 November 2004.
A case on the murder is pending at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The Turkish government, in its defence, claims that "The policemen had no other option because their own lives were in danger".
Uður Kaymaz was hit by 13 bullets and his father by eight bullets. As reported by the Radikal daily, the killing of both father and son was evaluated in the defence as the "use of proportional force".
A trial was launched against four police officers who were all acquitted since the court deemed the shooting as "legitimate defence of the policemen".
The appeal against the decision was handled by the Court of Appeals 1st Criminal Chamber that unanimously upheld the verdict.
It was at this point that the Kaymaz family, seeking justice, applied to the ECHR. The ECHR 2nd Chamber accepted the application and requested a defence from the Turkish government questioning "whether the killing of Uður and his father was the last resort and whether proportional force had been used".
In their defence theTurkish government say that the shooting was started by Ahmet Kaymaz and his son.
The joint attorneys of the Kaymaz family revealed contradictions between the evidence put forward in the defence and the results of the report issued by the Forensic Medicine Institute. Below the questions the report rises as listed by bianet
* Due to the autopsy of 12-year-old Uður Kaymaz it was determined that he was killed as the result of 13 shots shot form a short distance.
* The defence claimed that Uður Kaymaz was older than 12 years of age because of his moustache and underarm hair. This claim was disproved by the forensic medicine report.
* The Forensic Medicine Institute stated in their report that the body height of Uður Kaymaz who followed his father outside in his slippers was too short to carry a Kalashnikov.
* The report of the Forensic Medicine Institute emphasized that even if an armed conflict had occurred, a person hit into his back by nine consecutively shot bullets would not be able to carry on.
* The Forensic Medicine report furthermore underlined that the gunsmoke stains on their hands could not be taken as a definite proof that they used weapons.
A case on the murder is pending at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The Turkish government, in its defence, claims that "The policemen had no other option because their own lives were in danger".
Uður Kaymaz was hit by 13 bullets and his father by eight bullets. As reported by the Radikal daily, the killing of both father and son was evaluated in the defence as the "use of proportional force".
A trial was launched against four police officers who were all acquitted since the court deemed the shooting as "legitimate defence of the policemen".
The appeal against the decision was handled by the Court of Appeals 1st Criminal Chamber that unanimously upheld the verdict.
It was at this point that the Kaymaz family, seeking justice, applied to the ECHR. The ECHR 2nd Chamber accepted the application and requested a defence from the Turkish government questioning "whether the killing of Uður and his father was the last resort and whether proportional force had been used".
In their defence theTurkish government say that the shooting was started by Ahmet Kaymaz and his son.
The joint attorneys of the Kaymaz family revealed contradictions between the evidence put forward in the defence and the results of the report issued by the Forensic Medicine Institute. Below the questions the report rises as listed by bianet
* Due to the autopsy of 12-year-old Uður Kaymaz it was determined that he was killed as the result of 13 shots shot form a short distance.
* The defence claimed that Uður Kaymaz was older than 12 years of age because of his moustache and underarm hair. This claim was disproved by the forensic medicine report.
* The Forensic Medicine Institute stated in their report that the body height of Uður Kaymaz who followed his father outside in his slippers was too short to carry a Kalashnikov.
* The report of the Forensic Medicine Institute emphasized that even if an armed conflict had occurred, a person hit into his back by nine consecutively shot bullets would not be able to carry on.
* The Forensic Medicine report furthermore underlined that the gunsmoke stains on their hands could not be taken as a definite proof that they used weapons.
