The murder of a Kurdish man and his son Uğur Kaymaz, who fell victim to 13 bullets from a police gun on Nov. 21, 2004, has not still been revealed.
While The 12-year-old teenager and his father Ahmet Kaymaz were slaughtered as their death bodies were found in front of their home along with a gun in Mardin’s Kızıltepe district, the killers could not be unraveled. At that time, the father and son were wanted to be reflected in public as ‘terrorist in preparation for action.’
According to a report published by pro-Kurdish Mezopotamya news agency, the burden on the shoulders of family members did not weight off. Makbule Kaymaz, the mother of Uğur who worked as a cleaning worker for 12 years in Education Support House in Kızıltepe Municipality, was dismissed from her job last year with the Decree Law (KHK) on the death anniversary of her son and her husband.
A sculpture of two children with pigeons at the town center was also removed on June 11, 2017 after district governor Ahmet Odabaşı was appointed as trustee as to the municipality of the district. The clock tower was put at the place where statue was removed.
The murder trial of Uğur Kaymaz and his father charging with four police officers in the Mardin High Criminal Court was taken to the province of Eskişehir on the account of “security concerns.” The Eskişehir Assize Court decided on the acquittal of all police officers as they had ‘legitimate defense’ on duty. The decision of the 1st Criminal Office of the Supreme Court of Appeals is due to the vote.
Following the exhaustion of domestic remedies, lawyers carried the case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The ECtHR asked Turkey to defend the case. Having decided in February 2014, the ECtHR ruled that Uğur Kaymaz and his father were “violated” in life, and convicted Turkey to pay 70,000 euros in material and 70,000 euros in non-pecuniary compensation.
After the decision, the lawyers of the Mardin Branch of the Human Rights Association (İHD) filed an appeal to the Eskişehir 1st High Criminal Court with the request of the re-trial. The Court rejected the application without any justification. Later on, the Supreme Court (AYM) moved to a decision that no further development has occurred.
