PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court e) Standing of Next of Kin The Court stated in İlhan v. Turkey that “complaints must be brought by or on behalf of persons who claim to be victims of a violation of one or more of the provisions of the Convention. Such persons must be able to show that they were “directly affected” by the measure complained of.” 340 It follows, therefore, that an application can be introduced, for example, by a close relative of the deceased or a close relative of the disappeared. The applicant in such a case will have the requisite standing to bring complaints concerning the events which led to, or which are related to, the disappearance or the death of his or her relative. Indeed, if this were not the case, the protection provided in Article 2 of the Convention would be ineffective because, for obvious reasons, persons who are deceased or disappeared are themselves not capable of bringing complaints to the attention of the Court. Close relatives of deceased persons whom the Court held to have the requisite standing in Article 2 cases have included a wife,341 a father,342 a brother,343 a son,344 a daughter,345 and a nephew.346 In ill-treatment cases, a close relative of the victim may have the requisite standing if the victim is in a particularly vulnerable position347 due to his or her status, for instance as a detainee or conscript, or as a result of the ill-treatment. In the case of İlhan v. Turkey, the brother of the applicant had suffered brain damage and a long-term impairment of function as a result of being severely beaten by Turkish law enforcement officers. The applicant made it clear that he was complaining on behalf of his brother who, considering his state of health, was not in a position to pursue the application himself. The Court held that “it would generally be appropriate for an application to name the injured person as the applicant and for a letter of authority to be provided allowing another member of the family to act on his or her behalf. This would ensure that the application was brought with the consent of the victim of the alleged breach and would avoid actio popularis applications”.348 However, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, i.e. the mental impairment of the applicant’s brother, the Court concluded that the applicant could İlhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, 27 June 2000, § 52. See Süheyla Aydın v. Turkey, no. 25660/94, 24 May 2005. İpek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, 17 February 2004. Koku v. Turkey, no. 27305/95, 31 May 2005. Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, 24 March 2005. Austrian Constitutional Court, judgment of 6 March 2001, B 159/00, VfSlg 16.109, excerpts in: Markus Vasek, “Family Members of a Deceased Asylum Seeker May Legitimately File a Complaint to Assert the Right to Life”, in Vienna Journal on International Constitutional Law, vol. 16, 2011, pp. 77–81. 346 Yaşa v. Turkey, no. 22495/93, 2 September 1998. 347 See Alexander H. E. Morawa, “‘Vulnerability’ as a Concept in International Human Rights Law”, in Journal of International Relations and Development, vol. 10, 2003, pp. 139–55. 348 İlhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, 27 June 2000, § 53. 340 341 342 343 344 345 109