Judgement in the Case of Ekinci v. Turkey In a judgment transfered at Strasbourg on 18 July 2000 in the case of Ekinci v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been no violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 1. Principal facts The applicant, Seho Ekinci, a Turkish national, was born in 1962 and lives at Martigny (Switzerland). The applicant's brother, Nuri Ekinci, a branch committee member of a pro-Kurdish political party, the HEP (Party of the Work of the People), was killed in Sason on 16 February 1994. After the shooting, the police came to the area and investigation had started. An autopsy was performed in the public prosecutor's presence by two general practitioners. The deceased's wife and uncle were questioned by the Sason Public Prosecutor. They explained the event, and told that they had not been there, therefore they could not tell any suspect or suspects. On 26 February 1998 the Sason Public Prosecutor received a letter purporting to reveal, among other things, that three members of a clan who worked as village guards had killed Nuri Ekinci. After receiving the letter, the Sason Public Prosecutor ordered the ballistic report questioned witnesses. The latter made statements before the public prosecutor in which they said that they were on a mission in the mountains on the day of the killing, but they gave the names of seven village guards as witnesses. The public prosecutor took statements from those village guards and a further statement from the deceased's uncle, Seho Ekinci. The village guards said that they had been in the mountains on the day Mr Ekinci was killed and Seho Ekinci repeated that he did not know who the killers were and that he had never heard of the claimed killers before. 2. Procedure and composition of the Court The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 3 October 1994 and declared admissible on 27 October 1997. It was referred to the Court on 1 November 1999. 3. Summary of the judgment Complaint The applicant claimed that his brother, Nuri Ekinci, had been killed by the security forces or with their conspire because of his pro-Kurdish activities. Decision of the Court The Court held that the applicant was not required to have had recourse to the civil and administrative remedies proposed by the Government and that that preliminary objection was unfounded. Article 2 The Court considered that there is no proof that Nuri Ekinci killed by the security forces or any other suspects.
Finally, the respondent submitted that without any contradiction from the appellant that any breach of duty of care could not be sustained and any issue of liability unlike in Jones v Dunkel would have no basis.
On the evening of Ms. Heggar¡¦s death she was alone in her house. Eddie Ray Branch, her grandson, testified that he visited his grandmother on the day that she was killed. He was there till at least 6:30 p.m. Lester Busby, her grandnephew, and David Hicks arrived while her grandson was still there and they saw him leave. They then went in to visit with Ms. Heggar. While they were there, Lester repaid Ms. Heggar 80 dollars, which he owed her. They left around 7:15 p.m. and went next door to a neighboring friend¡¦s house. David Hick¡¦s went home alone from there to get something but returned within ten minutes of leaving. Because he was only gone for 5-10 minutes, prosecution theorized TWO attacks on Ms. Heggar because he could not have killed his grandmother during this 5-10 minute period alone. At 7:30 p.m., 15 minutes after the two had left, an insurance salesman called to see Ms. Heggar. He knocked for about 2 or 3 minutes and got no reply. Her door was open but the screen door was closed. Her TV was on. He claimed to have left after about 5 minutes and then he returned the next morning. The circumstances were exactly the same. With concern, he went to the neighbor¡¦s house and called the police. His reasoning for being there was because the grandmother¡¦s family had taken out burial insurance three days before she had died.
One anthropologist stated that the evidence supported the theory that the skeletal remains belonged to potential victim #1. Therefore, the prosecution argued that the skeletal remains were that of Robert Rutherford, who went missing four years ago. It is known that the victim and the defendant had some misunderstandings about the hunting area and fought to hunt certain places in the area. On the other hand, another anthropologist stated the opposite and the defense argued that the skeletal remains did not belong to Robert Rutherford, but instead were that of Stephen Morton, who hunted in the area and went missing two years prior to Robert Rutherford. Stephen Morton had no known connections to the defendant, therefore concluding him innocent in the defense’s mind. There are some various similarities found in the case that could point in either the defense or prosecution, therefore the case needs to be revaluated for a third opinion.
The case begins with a report of a house fire in a Virginia suburb. When firefighters arrived and extinguished the flames, they made a horrible discovery. All four members of the house were dead. 41-year-old Blaine Hodges, 37-year old Teresa Hodges his wife, and their two young daughters, 11-year-old Winter and Anah who was just 3 years old. Investigators arrived and interpreted the burn pattern. They also discovered the presence of an accelerant. They determined that the cause of the family’s death was not an accidental house fire. This immediately shifted the focus from an accident to something more sinister.
(Hess, Orthmann, & Cho, 2017). The prosecution attempted to show that the circumstances surrounding Laci’s death and the disposal of her body could be linked to only her husband (Montaldo, 2017).
MICHAELSEN, C., THE RENAISSANCE OF NON-REFOULEMENT? THE OTHMAN (ABU QATADA) DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. .
...2009): 8-9. United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review. Web. 8 Apr. 2014. .
On Thanksgiving evening, November 27, 1992, Sergeant Kenneth Mathison and his wife Yvonne drive their 1988 tan Ford van along Route 131 in Hilo, Hawaii. The rain is pouring down and before he knows it, Kenneth Mathison is awaiting police assistance as he cradles his wife’s dead body in the back of their van. Mathison, a sergeant of 25 years with the Hilo Police Department was allegedly informing his wife, a maternity nursing professional at the Hilo Medical Center, that he was being investigated in his second paternity suit. According to Mathison, when Yvonne heard the news, she jumped from the passenger side of the van. While he was looking for her in the blinding rain, Mathison purportedly ran over his wife. He then carried the body into the van and secured it with yellow rope in the back before attempting to find help. Will the forensic evidence support Mathison’s account of that fateful evening?
Simmonds C., ‘Paramountcy and the ECHR: a conflict resolved? [2012] Cambridge Law Journal Vol. 71 Issue 3, 498-201
Prof. Jeffrey A. Brauch, The Margin of Appreciation and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Threat to the rule of law, Vol.11, Columbia Journal of European Law (2004-2005)
Stuart. Death of a Criminal. 20 April 1999. Justice For All. 19 April 2001. www.prodeathpenalty.com.
brother, did the actually killing, but his mother in father aided in the coverup of the crime.
When the first responder got to the scene he adimatately meet the 911 caller, who lead him to a car in an apartment parking lot. The car doors were closed and all of the windows were fogged. The police officer used his flashlight to see inside of the car before opening the door. He found a young African American woman who had been shot several times. The officers quickly called for backup, investigators and medical personnel. While awaiting for their arrival he secured the crime scene with caution tape, creating an initial perimeter setup as discussed in lecture two. Once everyone arrived he left it to them to search the car while he talked to the 911 caller, witnesses and others who had information on who had been present in the car. The investigators were able to collect physical evidence of bullets and cartage casings that were found outside the vehicle and inside the vehicle on the floorboard of the driver’s side. The team determined the bullets came from a 40 caliber. Other types of physical evidence that were found on the scene were the bloody clothing on the victim, the victim’s cell phone and fibers in the car from the driver’s side. personnel at the scene crime took several photographs, powered test for finger prints and did a blood spatter analysis. Stewart’s autopsy revealed that she had been shot at close range in the left hand once and in the
However, in the real world the process is not as seamless and rapid one would observe on television. There are normally two trial for homicide cases, one for conviction and the second for sentencing. In this paper this author will explain the trial process for homicide investigation and the main stages of the trial . Moreover, the uniqueness of homicide investigations in relation to other crime that goes to jury trial will be examined. Lastly, an explanation to why all capital murder cases go to trial will be discussed.
...lice or lawyers used their integrity. The police skirted around the law and use evidence that the witnesses said was not correct. They had a description of the suspect that did not match Bloodsworth but, they went after him as well. They also used eyewitness testimony that could have been contaminated.