5.  The applicants were born in 1953 and 1950 respectively and live in Ankara. They are the parents of Mr Hüseyin Başbilen, who was an engineer working for Aselsan, a defence contractor that produces technology for the Turkish Armed Forces.
6.  On 4 August 2006, at around noon, Mr Hüseyin Başbilen’s wife informed the police that her husband had been missing since the morning of the same day.
7.  On 5 August 2006, at around 9 p.m., the mayor of Aydıncık village, in the district of Altındağ, in Ankara, informed the gendarmerie that there was a car in the vicinity of the cemetery of the village. When the gendarmerie arrived at the scene at 9.30 p.m., they found Hüseyin Başbilen’s dead body in his car.
8.  A crime scene report was drafted and signed by two crime scene gendarmerie officers on 6 August 2006. The report stated that a public prosecutor together with a doctor and the crime scene officers had arrived on the scene at 9.30 p.m. on 5 August 2006 and had conducted an on-site inspection of the area. According to the report, Mr Hüseyin Başbilen’s car was locked when the officers found it. His head was under the glove compartment on the passenger side and his feet were on the driver’s seat. A doctor examined the deceased’s body and observed that there was a cut of 15-20 cm on the left side of his throat and another cut of 10 cm on his left wrist. A number of personal objects, a briefcase and a box cutter covered with traces of blood were found in the car. The deceased’s personal objects and the briefcase were given to officers from the Altındağ gendarmerie command. The crime scene officers noted bloodstains on various parts of the interior of the car.
9.  A suicide note entitled “FAREWELL”, typed on a computer and signed, was also found in the car. The note stated that the applicant had no problems with his wife, his family or at work, but he wished to put an end to his life as he was in emotional pain. In the note, details of Mr Hüseyin Başbilen’s bank accounts and an explanation as to how he wished his property to be managed following his death were included.
10.  The crime scene officers took fingerprints of the deceased and collected fingerprints both from the interior and the exterior of the car. The officers also obtained blood and hair samples from the car, prepared two sketch maps of the scene of crime and took approximately one hundred photos. Mr Hüseyin Başbilen’s body was then sent to the Forensic Medicine Institute for autopsy. The fingerprints collected at the crime scene and the suicide note were sent to the Gendarmerie General Command for examination by experts. The deceased’s clothes as well as hair and blood samples were sent to the police crime laboratory.
11.  Meanwhile, on 6 August 2006 a gendarmerie officer, Ş.K., from the Altındağ gendarmerie command, went to Mr Hüseyin Başbilen’s workplace in order to verify whether the suicide note found at the scene of the crime had been written using his office computer. According to a confiscation report drafted at 1.40 p.m. on that day and signed by Ş.K. and two employees of Aselsan, a document entitled “For those who love me” was found in the “Documents” file on the deceased’s computer. This document had the same content as the suicide note found in the car. The copy of the suicide note submitted to the Court also contains a brief note on the back of it which states that a document entitled “For those who love me” was in a USB flash drive in one of the drawers of Mr Hüseyin Başbilen’s desk at work.
12.  On the same day an autopsy was carried out on the deceased’s body. The doctors noted that the body was in an advanced state of decomposition and that there were two cuts on it: one cut of 8 cm on the left wrist; another one between the left thyroid cartilage and the left ear. The doctors concluded that the cut on the deceased’s left wrist was the fatal wound and that the cause of death was excessive bleeding. They also noted that the cut on Mr Hüseyin Başbilen’s throat was superficial.
13.  On the same day the applicants, Mr Hüseyin Başbilen’s sister and his wife made statements to the gendarmerie. While the applicants and Mr Hüseyin Başbilen’s sister denied the possibility that he had committed suicide, his wife stated that he had been suffering from depression and had been undergoing psychiatric treatment. She believed that her husband had committed suicide.
14.  On 22 August 2006 a report was drawn up by experts from the Gendarmerie General Command stating that the signature at the bottom of the suicide note was considered to belong to the deceased. The experts compared the signature on the suicide note with two documents taken from Aselsan. On the same day a further fingerprint analysis report was also issued. According to this report, most of the fingerprints collected from the crime scene were not suitable for analysis. The experts noted that only four fingerprints could be analysed and that two of them belonged to Mr Hüseyin Başbilen. The remaining two fingerprints did not belong to the deceased and did not match any of those in the fingerprint database.
15.  On 29 August 2006, following examination of the hair and blood samples collected at the crime scene, the Ankara police crime laboratory issued a report. According to the report, the blood and hair found in the car belonged to the deceased.
16.  On 7 September 2006 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Ankara public prosecutor’s office, asking for the scope of the investigation to be expanded. They requested, in particular, that the transcripts of the deceased’s telephone conversations, his emails, messages and all information on his computers be examined; that the date of creation of the file containing the suicide note be determined and that an examination of the deceased’s computer be carried out by experts. The lawyer also stated that the psychiatrist who had been treating Mr Hüseyin Başbilen had told Mrs Başbilen that her son had not had suicidal tendencies.
17.  On 12 October 2006, upon a request by the public prosecutor, Turkcell, a mobile network operator, submitted a list of communications made from the deceased’s mobile phone between 10 July and 5 August 2006 to the Ankara public prosecutor’s office.
18.  On 28 November 2006 the Ankara public prosecutor decided to close the investigation into Mr Hüseyin Başbilen’s death. In his decision, the public prosecutor noted that the signature on the suicide note belonged to the deceased and that the letter had been found on his work computer. He further noted that the fingerprints and the blood and hair samples collected at the crime scene belonged to Mr Hüseyin Başbilen and that according to the autopsy report the fatal wound on his body had been the cut on his left wrist, which had caused bleeding. The public prosecutor considered that Mr Hüseyin Başbilen had committed suicide using a sharp object and thus decided to close the investigation.
19.  On 25 December 2006 the applicants lodged an objection with the Sincan Assize Court against the decision of 28 November 2006. They referred to a number of shortcomings in the investigation conducted by the Ankara public prosecutor. They complained, in particular, about the failure of the public prosecutor to take statements from their son’s wife, the psychiatrist who had been treating Mr Hüseyin Başbilen, and other possible witnesses, to have the deceased’s computer, his emails and the transcripts of his telephone conversations examined and to determine the date the suicide note file had been created on his computer. They also noted that the briefcase found in the deceased’s car had not been subject to an examination and was not listed in the crime scene inventory. The applicants considered that their son had been murdered as he had been working on important projects for Aselsan.
20.  On 12 April 2007 the Sincan Assize Court asked the Forensic Medicine Institute to clarify whether in suicide cases it was possible to have two separate cuts, that is to say one on the throat and another on the wrist, like in the present case.
21.  On 28 September 2007 the first section of expertise of the Forensic Medicine Institute held, by a majority, that the cut on Mr Hüseyin Başbilen’s throat was superficial and that the fatal cut, which had caused extensive bleeding, was the one on his wrist. The report concluded by saying that it was possible that both cuts had been inflicted by Mr Başbilen himself. A minority expressed a dissenting opinion. Taking into account the circumstances of the case, in particular the fact that the deceased had not been in a suicidal state of mind, the position of the deceased’s body in the car and the nature of his injuries, they considered that Mr Hüseyin Başbilen had not committed suicide.
22.  On 13 December 2007 the Sincan Assize Court dismissed an objection lodged by the applicants and upheld the public prosecutor’s decision. The court based its decision on the conclusions of the Forensic Medicine Institute’s report, according to which it was possible that the deceased himself had inflicted the two cuts on his body. This decision was served on the applicants on 18 January 2008.
II.  Investigation no. 2010/142387
23.  On 8 November 2010 Mr Hasan Başbilen, Mr Hüseyin Başbilen’s twin brother, lodged a complaint with the Ankara public prosecutor’s office. In his complaint, Hasan Başbilen noted that according to a number of news articles published, an investigation had been initiated against a number of officials attached to the Naval Forces suspected of forming a criminal organisation and espionage. According to the transcripts of telephone conversations between the suspected members of the organisation, they had stolen important weapons technology from Aselsan and similar establishments, sold it abroad, killed those who had not wished to collaborate with them and made those murders look like suicides. Hasan Başbilen asked the public prosecutor’s office to re-open the investigation and to remedy the previous investigation’s shortcomings.
24.  Upon the receipt of Hasan Başbilen’s complaint, the Ankara public prosecutor initiated a new investigation into the death of Hüseyin Başbilen.
25.  On 29 December 2010 the public prosecutor took a statement from the first applicant, who contended that he believed that his son had been murdered. The first applicant stated that he had received phone calls after his son’s death during which he had been informed that his son had been killed by foreign intelligence services who had stolen a project his son was working on. He further stated that he did not believe that the suicide note found in his son’s car had been drafted by him given that he had not gone to his workplace on the day of his death. The first applicant also contended that his son’s briefcase found in his car was missing. He asked the public prosecutor to take statements from the deceased’s colleagues and wife and to extend the scope of the investigation.
26.  On 31 December 2010 the Ankara Magistrates’ Court authorised the Ankara public prosecutor to conduct a search of Hüseyin Başbilen’s computer in Aselsan, to obtain copies of the computer files thereon, to have those files converted to text formats and to seize any evidence that could help the investigation.
27.  On 4 January 2011 the Ankara public prosecutor, three police technical specialists and a computer engineer went to Aselsan’s office. According to the search report, the engineer who acted as an expert stated that he was unable to copy the files on the computer on the spot and that therefore the computer case and the hard disk should be confiscated for further examination in a laboratory. The company officials also handed over a number of documents to the public prosecutor. These documents had been in the briefcase found in the deceased’s car and had been given to his wife, who had in turn given them to Aselsan.
28.   On 5 January 2011 the Ankara public prosecutor asked the Altındağ gendarmerie command to submit the USB flash drive found in the deceased’s workplace and confiscated on 6 August 2006, and the report concerning the date of creation of the suicide note document found on the deceased’s computer on the same date, if such a report had been drawn up. The public prosecutor asked the gendarmerie command to explain the reasons for not determining the date the letter was written on, if such an investigative step had not been carried out. He lastly asked that Ş.K., the gendarmerie officer who had conducted the examination of the deceased’s computer, be referred to the public prosecutor’s office to make a statement.
29.  On 16 March 2011 the Altındağ gendarmerie commander sent a letter to the Ankara public prosecutor in which he stated that the gendarmerie forces did not have any information as to the whereabouts of the USB flash drive and that it had not been possible to ascertain whether an examination of the suicide note document to ascertain its date of creation had been carried out. He further stated that the USB flash drive had not been found on the gendarmerie command premises and that he had no information as to whether such an object had been found at the scene of the crime or whether the public prosecutor had an order for its confiscation. He noted that when Ş.K. had been asked to give information regarding the public prosecutor’s inquiry, he had contended that he had not confiscated such an object. The gendarmerie commander lastly stated that Ş.K. had retired.
30.  Meanwhile, on 12 January 2011 fingerprints collected from various parts of Mr Hüseyin Başbilen’s car were once again subjected to an analysis by experts from the Ankara police headquarters, who noted that ten of the fingerprints taken were not suitable for an analysis. They further noted that one fingerprint belonged to the deceased and that three fingerprints which were suitable for an analysis did not belong to Mr Hüseyin Başbilen.
31.  On 27 January 2011 S.A., a relative of the deceased who had gone to the crime scene together with the deceased’s father, made a statement to the Ankara public prosecutor. He noted a number of peculiarities that he had observed there, such as the fact that there had been little blood in the car, and that the driver seat had been pushed back even though the deceased had been a short man. He also noted that there had been three plain clothed men at the crime scene whose access to the crime scene had been prevented by the gendarmerie officers.
32.  On 31 January 2011 Hasan Başbilen made a statement to the Ankara public prosecutor, in which he reiterated his suspicions regarding his brother’s death.
33.  In February and March 2011, upon the Ankara public prosecutor’s instructions, the computer files were examined by police officers attached to the technical bureau at the anti-terror department of the Ankara police headquarters, who prepared two reports.
34.  On 14 February 2011 Ş.K. made a statement to the Ankara public prosecutor. He submitted that when he had gone to the premises of Aselsan on 6 August 2006, he had examined the deceased’s computer together with an Aselsan manager. They could not find the suicide note on the computer but found it on the USB flash drive. He printed the letter out using a printer there and sent it to the crime laboratory. He also maintained that he had confiscated the USB flash drive and given it to E.Ş., the then Altındağ gendarmerie commander. He had then assumed that the USB flash drive would be sent to the public prosecutor’s office to be included in the investigation file. Ş.K. stated that he had not looked into when the suicide note document had been created as he had limited knowledge of information technology and as he had not received an order to carry out such an analysis. He considered that fingerprinting the suicide note would be sufficient for a comparison between the copies of the letter found at the deceased’s workplace and in his car. Ş.K. lastly noted that he did not have any knowledge as to the briefcase and the documents therein found in Mr Hüseyin Başbilen’s car.
35.  On 21 February 2011 an expert from the Ankara police crime laboratory examined the photographs of the crime scene and the other evidence in order to determine whether Mr Hüseyin Başbilen’s death had been homicide or suicide. The expert opined that the cuts had been inflicted when the deceased had been in the driver’s seat; that he had touched the left door handle at least once; that later on he had crawled to reach the door on the passenger side for an unknown reason; that he had lost consciousness and his head had fallen under the glove department on the passenger side; and that he had then died. The expert also noted a number of dubious issues. In particular, having regard to the position of the briefcase and the absence of blood on it, he considered that the briefcase had been put in the place where it had been found after the death had occurred and the blood clots had dried. The expert lastly noted that the source of the bloodstains observed in front of the left rear seat could not be determined.
36.  On 22 February 2011 H.A., the psychiatrist who had been treating Mr Hüseyin Başbilen for depression, made a statement to the Ankara public prosecutor. He contended that he had diagnosed the deceased with serious depression and had prescribed medication for his health issues. The psychiatrist considered that the deceased had not had suicidal tendencies. He noted that had he considered Hüseyin Başbilen at risk of killing himself, he would have informed his family members and confined him to a hospital for psychiatric treatment. However, he considered it possible that an event might have triggered his suicide given that he had suffered from depression.
37.  On various dates between February and April 2011 the Ankara public prosecutor obtained witness statements from six persons who had been Hüseyin Başbilen’s friends or colleagues. They all maintained that he had been an intelligent and hardworking engineer who had had good social relations and that they had not been aware that he had had health issues. His colleagues also noted that the project on which he had been working had not been a critically important project and that his death had not had an impact on its running.
38.  Following an instruction received from the Ankara public prosecutor, the anti-terror branch of the Ankara police headquarters sent a list of names and email addresses found on Hüseyin Başbilen’s computer to the Istanbul police headquarters. They asked the latter to carry out an examination of the files of the military espionage and Ergenekon[1] investigations with a view to determining whether those names and the deceased’s name appeared therein. On 14 April 2011 the deputy director of the Istanbul police headquarters sent a report prepared by three police officers according to which some of those names, including Hüseyin Başbilen, had been found in some of the documents seized from two suspects in the military espionage and Ergenekon investigations.
39.  On 20 June 2011 E.Ş. made a statement to the Ankara public prosecutor. He submitted that a team from the gendarmerie command had gone to Aselsan and found the suicide note on a USB flash drive which they had confiscated. E.Ş. stated that he had not been given the USB flash drive, which should have been sent to the gendarmerie crime laboratory. He also did not have any knowledge of the whereabouts of the documents in the briefcase found at the crime scene. He had seen the briefcase when the deceased’s car had been brought to the gendarmerie command. The crime scene gendarmerie officers had showed the documents to Aselsan officials and had asked whether they were important and should be returned to Aselsan. The officials had not considered the documents important. He however did not know to whom those documents had been handed over.
40.  On 19 August 2011 the Ankara public prosecutor sent a letter to the Air Force Command requesting information as to whether the Air Force had asked Aselsan to develop software for Turkish military aeroplanes.
41.  On 21 September 2011 the deputy legal advisor at the Air Force Command informed the Ankara public prosecutor that the Air Force had not asked Aselsan to develop software. He sent to a list of military projects in which Aselsan had been involved to the public prosecutor’s office in support of his reply.
42.  On 3 November 2011 the box cutter found at the crime scene was analysed at the Ankara criminal police laboratory. The experts did not note any fingerprints on it.
43.  On 12 December 2011 the Ankara public prosecutor asked the Forensic Medicine Institute to prepare a new report regarding Hüseyin Başbilen’s death. On 4 January 2012 the first section of expertise of the Forensic Medicine Institute issued a report in which it concluded, by a majority, that the injuries found on the deceased’s body had been self‑inflicted.
44.  On various dates in 2011 the Ankara public prosecutor collected information on Mr Hüseyin Başbilen’s financial status. In particular, he requested and received documents concerning his bank accounts from several banks. Similarly, in 2011 the public prosecutor collected medical records of Mr Başbilen as well as two other engineers who had worked for Aselsan and who had passed away.
45.  On 6 April 2012 the Ankara public prosecutor asked Aselsan to provide a list of persons who had had access to Hüseyin Başbilen’s office and computer and a list of persons who had worked for Aselsan in 2006 as well as their mobile phone numbers.
46.  On 8 June 2012 the legal director and the legal expert of Aselsan informed the Ankara public prosecutor that all staff members at Aselsan had had access to Hüseyin Başbilen’s office. They further noted that Hüseyin Başbilen had had two computers and that other employees could use Hüseyin Başbilen’s computers if they logged onto the system with their usernames and passwords. In such a case, if Hüseyin Başbilen had not limited access to the hard disk of his computers as an administrator, other users could have accessed the hard disk. Lastly, Aselsan sent a list of persons who had shared Hüseyin Başbilen’s office and another list containing the names of those who had worked for Aselsan in 2006 with their mobile phone numbers.
47.  Meanwhile, on 21 May 2012 the first applicant made a further statement to the Ankara public prosecutor reiterating that his son’s death raised suspicions and asking the public prosecutor to continue to investigate.
48.  On 5 July 2012 S.D. and M.K., the residents of Aydıncık village who had found the deceased’s car, were interviewed by the public prosecutor. S.D. stated that he had heard from somebody that three cars had arrived in the village a day before Hüseyin Başbilen’s car had been found and that the deceased’s car had been one of them. He had learned that the persons in the cars had got out in the village’s main square and that there had been a quarrel. They had then left the village and driven towards the cemetery. S.D. contended that he did not recall who had talked to him about this incident.
49.  On 5 Mart 2013 a graphology expert conducted an examination of the signature found on the suicide note and prepared a report. According to the report, the expert compared the signature on the suicide note with the deceased’s signature found on four documents, namely a document taken from Aselsan, two documents taken from the deceased’s bank and a document taken from another company. The report concluded that the signature belonged to the deceased.
50.  On 26 October 2013 the Ankara public prosecutor once again asked the Forensic Medicine Institute to prepare a report regarding Hüseyin Başbilen’s death.
51.  On 13 February 2014, the plenary assembly of the Forensic Medicine Institute concluded, by a majority (seventeen votes), that it was possible that the injuries on Hüseyin Başbilen’s body had been inflicted by himself; however, seven members considered that Mr Hüseyin Başbilen had not committed suicide and fourteen members opined that it could not be determined whether the deceased had been killed or had committed suicide.
52.  On 16 July 2014 a public prosecutor from the office for investigating offences allegedly committed by civil servants (Memur Suçları Soruşturma Bürosu), attached to the Ankara public prosecutor’s office, asked the Ankara provincial gendarmerie command to form a task force and to reinvestigate the deaths of Hüseyin Başbilen and four other engineers who had also worked for Aselsan. The public prosecutor’s office also requested that a number of steps be taken in the investigations into these deaths. As to the investigation into Hüseyin Başbilen’s death, the public prosecutor noted four issues and ordered further enquiries regarding these points. The prosecutor, firstly, ordered a further report on the dubious issues noted in the report dated 21 February 2011 (see paragraph 35 above). Secondly, he considered suspicious the fact that the deceased’s briefcase had not been forensically examined but had been given to his wife, and requested that the officer who had given the order to deliver the briefcase to his wife be identified. Noting that the USB flash drive found in Hüseyin Başbilen’s office had disappeared and criminal proceedings had been brought against Ş.K. and E.Ş., the public prosecutor asked for information as to whether disciplinary proceedings had been brought against the relevant officers. Lastly, the public prosecutor noted that on the basis of Hüseyin Başbilen’s credit card statements it had been found out that he had bought petrol in a filling station at 6.56 a.m. on 4 August 2006. He ordered that enquiries be carried out into whether the video surveillance recordings had been requested from the filling station and that, if so, that they be sent to the public prosecutor’s office. He also ordered the gendarmerie to find out whether the recordings were extant if they had not already been secured.
53.  On 7 August 2014 the deputy commander of the Ankara gendarmerie command sent a list of gendarmerie officers to be included in the task force, and a table containing the instructions given by the Ankara public prosecutor, to the Ankara public prosecutor’s office.
54.  On 29 September 2014 the Ankara public prosecutor asked the gendarmerie command to instruct the officers in the task force to conduct a thorough investigation, to be in constant contact with the public prosecutor’s office and to provide information on the outcome, especially in view of the public interest in the investigation.
55.  According to the information in the case file, the investigation is ongoing.