THE FACTS

 [9-30] The applicants’ brother lost his life as a result of inrush (sudden eruption of gas and coal) and methane gas poisoning that occurred in a mine operated by a hard coal company affiliated to the Turkish Hard Coal Institution (TTK).

 The incumbent chief public prosecutor’s office launched an investigation into the incident. The applicants filed a criminal complaint against those alleged to be responsible.

 Within the scope of the investigation, a permission for investigation was requested from the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (“the Ministry”) against the Chairman and five members of the Executive Board of the TTK who were holding office at the material time. The Ministry refused to grant permission. The objection filed before the Regional Administrative Court against the refusal was also dismissed.

 Thereupon, the chief public prosecutor’s office issued a decision of non-prosecution regarding the Chairman and five members of the Executive Board. The objection filed against this decision was dismissed by the competent court.

 Having being notified of dismissal decision, the applicants then lodged an individual application with the Court on 30 March 2015.

 V. EXAMINATION AND GROUNDS

31. The Constitutional Court, at its session of 9 May 2018, examined the application and decided as follows:

A. The Applicants’ Allegations and the Ministry’s Observations

32. The applicants alleged that the procedural aspect of the right to life, the rights to a fair trial as well as to an effective remedy had been violated on the grounds that no permission had been granted for launching an investigation against the Chairman and members of the Executive Board of the TTK despite the expert reports of 30 April and 5 December 2013, which was obtained by the Zonguldak Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office and where these persons were clearly found to be at fault; and that their challenge against the decision granting no permission had been rejected without any justification.

33. The applicants also maintained that the suspects in respect of whom the Zonguldak Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office issued a decision of non-prosecution had been also responsible for the incident; but no action had been brought against them. They accordingly alleged that there had been violations of the procedural aspect of the right to life, the right to a fair trial and the right to an effective remedy.

34. In its observations, the Ministry made a reference to the various judgments rendered by the Constitutional Court and stated that in the present case, an investigation had been immediately conducted into the incident and the available evidence had been collected; and that despite the allegation that the decision dismissing the challenge to the decision granting no permission for investigation was unreasoned, it may be deemed sufficient for the decisions rendered by the appeal authority to simply make a reference to the challenged decision if the appeal authority was of the same opinion with the deciding body.

35. In their counter-statements against the Ministry’s observations, the applicants maintained that the Ministry reached a conclusion that an inadmissibility decision must be rendered in their case by making deficient and erroneous references to the Court’s judgments; that although it was deemed sufficient for the appeal authority to simply make a reference to the challenged decision if upholding the original decision, the impugned decision should have been reasoned as the Regional Administrative Court had acted in its capacity as a first instance court.

B. The Court’s Assessment

36. Article 17 § 1 of the Constitution titled “Personal inviolability, corporeal and spiritual existence of the individual” reads as follows:

 “Everyone has the right to life and the right to protect and improve his/her corporeal and spiritual existence.”

37. Relevant part of Article 5 of the Constitution titled “Fundamental aims and duties of the State” reads as follows:

 “The fundamental aims and duties of the State are to safeguard … the Republic and democracy, to ensure the welfare, peace, and happiness of the individual and society; to strive for the removal of political, economic, and social obstacles which restrict the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual in a manner incompatible with the principles of justice and of the social state governed by rule of law; and to provide the conditions required for the development of the individual’s material and spiritual existence.”

 38. The Constitutional Court is not bound by the legal qualification of the facts by the applicant and it makes such assessment itself (see Tahir Canan, no. 2012/969, 18 September 2013, § 16). It has been considered that the applicants’ allegations concern the failure of the relevant authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the death of their next-of-kin. Therefore, these allegations were, as a whole, examined under the State’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation inherent in the right to life which is safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution.

 1. Admissibility

 a. As regards the Decision of Non-Prosecution

 39. As required by the subsidiary nature of the individual application mechanism, for an individual application to be lodged with the Constitutional Court, the ordinary legal remedies must be primarily exhausted. The applicant is to raise, primarily and in due course of time, his complaints –subject matter of the individual application– before the competent administrative and judicial authorities, to submit the relevant information and evidence to these authorities, as well as to pay due regard to pursue his case and application during this process (see İsmail Buğra İşlek, no. 2013/1177, 26 March 2013, § 17).

 40. Regard being had to the fact that in cases where a criminal investigation or a set of proceedings involves stages concluded at different times through decisions of non-prosecution, acquittal, conviction or suspension of pronouncement of the verdict, these stages are concerning the responsibility of different individuals in a given case. Therefore, the investigation processes may need to be considered as a whole (see Süleyman Deveci, no. 2013/3017, 16 December 2015, § 69).

 41. Article 17 of the Constitution where the right to life is enshrined and Article 5 thereof where the State’s fundamental purposes and duties are laid down entail, when taken together, the obligation to conduct an effective investigation capable of ensuring identification, and if necessary, punishment, of those who are responsible for each incident of unnatural death. However, such an investigation must not be limited merely to establishing whether a certain person is responsible for the incident but must be of the scope and nature that would clarify the circumstances of the incident in all aspects. As a matter of fact, the assessment as to the effectiveness of the investigation may be duly made by not being limited to a decision issued in respect of a certain person, but dealing with the investigation process as a whole, in consideration of the particular circumstances of a given case (see Gülcan Keleş and Others, no. 2014/797, 22 March 2017, § 30).

 42. Regard being had to the present case from this standpoint, it has been observed that although the applicants lodged individual applications due to the decision of non-prosecution issued in respect of certain persons in the course of the investigation conducted by the chief public prosecutor’s office into the incident, a bill of indictment was indeed issued in respect of the certain suspects; the proceedings having initiated upon the acceptance of the indictment by the incumbent court are still pending; and therefore, it is still possible -as a result of an inquiry to be made during these proceedings- to identify, and file a criminal case against, those who have responsibility in the incident. Accordingly, it appears that if any responsibility is found also on the part of the persons in respect of whom the decision of non-prosecution was rendered, there is no obstacle to filing a criminal case against them.

 43. Therefore, in the present case, it has been concluded that the judicial remedies prescribed in the law were not exhausted before the lodging of this individual application with the Court.

 44. For these reasons, this part of the application must be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of available legal remedies without any further examination as to the other admissibility criteria.

 b. As regards the Decision Granting no Permission for Investigation

 45. By the very nature of the right to life, an application concerning this right with respect to the person who has lost his life can be filed only by his relatives who have suffered losses due to his death (see Serpil Kerimoğlu and Others, no. 2012/752, 17 September 2013, § 41).The applicants are the deceased’s siblings. Therefore, there is no deficiency in terms of eligibility for filing a case.

 46. The file contains no information or document to the effect that the decision granting no permission for investigation, which was issued by the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources on 25 February 2014, was served on the applicants. Nor did the Ministry provide any information or document indicating that the decision had been served on them. In this case, it must be acknowledged that the applicants became aware of this decision on 22 October 2014 when they were served with the decision of no further examination, which was issued on 19 September 2014 by the Zonguldak Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office. The applicants lodged an individual application within 30 days following 22 October 2014 when they became aware of the decision. In this sense, there is no expiry of time-limit prescribed for lodging an individual application in the present case.

 47. Besides, the applicants did not maintain that there was a deliberate breach of the right to life. Nor was there any element which would cause the applicants to get the impression that the death of their next-of-kin had been intentionally caused.

 48. As explained below under the heading of the general principles, in every case involving death or injury that has resulted from unintentional acts, it is not necessarily required to conduct an effective criminal proceedings with a view to fulfilling the obligation to set up an effective judicial system. However, in cases where -even if the act is not intentional- the death has resulted from the public authorities’ erroneous judgment or fault which is beyond mere negligence -in other words from the public authorities’ failure to take necessary and sufficient measures, within the scope of the powers conferred upon them, so as to eliminate the risks emanating from a dangerous activity despite being aware of the possible outcomes-, an effective criminal investigation would be necessarily carried out.

 49. In this sense, another issue to be addressed in terms of the admissibility of the present application is whether the positive obligation to “set up an effective judicial system”, which is incumbent on the State under the right to life, necessarily requires conduction of an effective investigation.

 50. The obligation to conduct an investigation into the deaths resulting from unintentional acts does not necessarily entail criminal proceedings in every case. In such cases, it may be sufficient to provide civil, administrative and even disciplinary remedies to the victims (see Serpil Kerimoğlu and Others, § 59). However, in cases where the death results from unintentional acts but there is an erroneous judgment or fault, which is beyond mere negligence, on the part of the public authorities, in other words they have failed to take necessary and sufficient measures, within the scope of the powers conferred upon them, to eliminate the risks emanating from a dangerous activity despite being aware of the possible outcomes, a criminal investigation is to be conducted against those who have responsibility in the incident -even if those concerned have resorted to other civil remedies.

 51. At this point, it should be primarily noted that operating a coal mine is a dangerous activity as involving certain risks to the lives and physical integrity of individuals, notably those of the workers of the mine. Therefore, the State is liable, by virtue of its obligation to protect individuals’ lives, to take necessary measures so as to protect lives and physical integrity of individuals as well as to prevent deaths and injuries during the performance of this service.

 52. In consideration of the case-file as a whole, it has been observed that the risk of inrush was known at the scene of accident where many people lost their lives due to the similar incidents taking place in previous years; and that according to the expert reports, it was possible to take measures against this existing risk.

 53. In the present case which involves a predictable risk which could be eliminated by the taking of certain measures, it has been concluded that it was certainly necessary to conduct an effective criminal investigation, as a requirement of the obligation to set up an effective judicial system.

 54. Accordingly, the alleged violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life must be declared admissible for not being manifestly ill-founded and there being no other grounds for its inadmissibility.

 2. Merits

 a. General Principles

 55. The procedural aspect of the positive obligations incumbent on the State within the meaning of the right to life requires the authorities to carry out an effective investigation capable of ensuring identification, and if necessary, punishment, of those who are responsible for each incident of unnatural death. The main aim of this type of investigation is to guarantee the effective implementation of the law that protects the right to life and, in the incidents in which public officials or institutions are involved, to ensure that those responsible are accountable against the deaths which occur due to their intervention or under their responsibility or due to the actions of other individuals (see Serpil Kerimoğlu and Others, § 54).

 56. This procedural obligation inherent in the right to life may be fulfilled by conducting criminal, civil or administrative investigations depending on the very nature of each incident. In cases pertaining to incidents of death caused intentionally or due to ill-treatment, the State has an obligation, under Article 17 of the Constitution, to conduct criminal investigations that are capable of ensuring the identification and punishment of those responsible. In such incidents, merely imposing an administrative sanction or awarding compensation as a result of an administrative investigation and action for compensation is not sufficient to eliminate the violation and thus to remove the victim status (see Serpil Kerimoğlu and Others, no. 2012/752, 17 September 2013, § 55).

 57. A different approach may be adopted in terms of the obligation to conduct an investigation into deaths caused by unintentional acts. In this context, this positive obligation does not necessarily entail criminal proceedings in all cases where the right to life has not been violated or the physical integrity has not been damaged intentionally. It may be sufficient to provide civil, administrative and even disciplinary remedies to the victims (see Serpil Kerimoğlu and Others, § 59).

 58. However, in cases where the death has resulted from unintentional acts, if the public authorities have failed to take necessary measures within the powers conferred upon them to eliminate the risks resulting from a dangerous activity despite being aware of its probable outcomes or if they act based on erroneous judgment or fault going beyond mere negligence, a criminal investigation must be initiated against those putting the individuals’ lives at risk even if the victims have resorted to other legal remedies (see Serpil Kerimoğlu and Others, § 60).

 59. On the other hand, the aim of the criminal investigation is to ensure the effective implementation of the statutory provisions protecting the right to life and to hold those responsible accountable. This is not an obligation of result but of appropriate means. In addition, Article 17 of the Constitution does not grant the applicants the right to have third parties prosecuted or sentenced for a criminal offence; nor does it place an obligation on the State to conclude all proceedings by a verdict of conviction (see Serpil Kerimoğlu and Others, § 56).

 60. In a state governed by rule of law, it may be deemed reasonable to make the launch of a judicial investigation against public officers subjected to the permission of a certain authority as they perform their duties on behalf of the State and they frequently face the risks of being complained and investigated due to certain factors associated with the performance of their public duties (see Hidayet Enmek and Eyüpsabri Tinaş, no. 2013/7907, 21 April 2016, § 106).

 61. As a matter of fact, it is laid down in Article 129 § 6 of the Constitution that prosecution of public servants and other public officials for alleged offences shall be subject, except in cases prescribed by law, to the permission of the administrative authority designated by law (see Hidayet Enmek and Eyüpsabri Tinaş, § 107).

 62. As within the framework of the principle of constitutional holism, it is compulsory to implement the constitutional provisions in a collective way and in the light of the general principles of law, the obligation to conduct an effective investigation, and the provisions whereby the prosecution of public officials shall be subject to permission are to be interpreted in harmony with one another (see Hidayet Enmek and Eyüpsabri Tinaş, § 108).

 b. Application of Principles to the Present Case

 63. In the present case, the applicants’ brother M.Y. died as a result of the inrush and coal gas poisoning taking place in a mine operating under the Kozlu Hard Coal Authority, affiliated to the TTK which is a public economic enterprise under the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources.

 64. The procedural aspect of the State’s positive obligations under the right to life entails the conduction of an effective investigation which is capable of ensuring clarification of the incident of death in all aspects and identification of those who are responsible.

 65. In the present case, an investigation was conducted into the impugned incident by the Zonguldak Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office. Within the scope of the investigation, two expert reports were obtained. In these reports, the reasons why the accident took place and those who could be responsible for the accident were addressed. There is certain information that the Chairman and members of the TTK’s Executive Board had liability in the incident on the grounds that the work was assigned to a sub-contractor with no expertise or experience in the field, by the institution which itself had the necessary expertise for the work, and that an improper system which made the inspection difficult and increased the risk was operated.

 66. Accordingly, the Zonguldak Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office sought permission for launching an investigation against those individuals.

 67. As a result of the preliminary examination conducted thereafter, it was found appropriate to grant no permission for investigation as there was no direct causal link between the fault attributed to the persons in respect whom the permission was sought and the impugned incident.

 68. The Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources accordingly refused to grant permission for an investigation. Therefore, this has led to the discontinuation of the judicial process conducted in respect of these persons.

 69. It is therefore necessary to assess the impacts of the procedure whereby the permission for investigation is sought under Law no. 4483 on the effectiveness of the investigation.

 70. This procedure is designed to make a preliminary examination prior to the initiation of a criminal investigation into the offences allegedly committed by public officers in relation to their office and to make a preliminary assessment as to whether there was a ground to necessitate a criminal investigation, with a view to preventing public officers from facing with unnecessary charges due to claims and complaints raised on account of the alleged offences as well as to avoiding any delay in the performance of their public offices. In this sense, the procedure designed to get permission for investigation must not be applied in a way which would, by going beyond the said aim, cause delay in criminal proceedings and hinder an effective investigation or cause the impression that the public officers are exempted from criminal investigation.

 71. As regards a dangerous activity, the ability to identify those who should have minimised the possible risks against the lives and physical integrity of individuals and taken necessary measures, as well as the judicial reaction to be taken by the State against the persons in this respect, are of importance also for the prevention of similar incidents.

 72. In the present case, the decision granting no permission for investigation is apparently based on the determination as to the “lack of an exact causal link between the fault and the inrush/eruption” which is included in the expert report.

 73. In reply to the question put by the Zonguldak Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office to determine whether the faults attributed to the relevant Ministries, the TTK’s Board members and the other institutions had a direct impact on the inrush/eruption taking place in the present case, it is noted in the expert report that the members of the Executive Board, having undersigned the contract, were found to be at fault; however, there was no exact causal link between this fault and the inrush/eruption. It has been observed that both the question put by the chief public prosecutor’s office and the determination included in the expert report concerned a technical issue as to the existence of a direct causal link between the fault and the accident. Within the meaning of criminal law, it is only for the judicial authorities to ascertain whether there is a causal link between a given action and a consequence.

 74. The obligation to conduct an effective investigation, which is incumbent on the State within the scope of the right to life, requires the relevant authorities to conduct a criminal investigation that is capable of ensuring identification and, if necessary, punishment of those who are responsible. In the present case where the public authorities were found to be at fault through the expert reports, it fell foul of the principles of an effective investigation to decide, on the basis of the rules of the relevant administration, whether there was a causal link, within the scope of the criminal law, between the fault determined and the consequence in question and to accordingly order discontinuation of the judicial process.

 75. Besides, the examinations and assessments to be made by administrative courts dealing with the challenges against the decisions granting no permission for investigation must be carried out with due diligence in order not to prolong the criminal proceedings and hinder effective conduction of an investigation, or not to give the impression that the public officers are exempted from a criminal investigation.

 76. In the present case, the challenge against the procedure whereby the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources refused to grant permission for investigation was rejected by the Regional Administrative Court “as the preliminary examination report and the attached documents were not of the nature and capacity to require an investigation”. It appears that the examination made by the Ankara Regional Administrative Court did not include any assessment as regards the requirement that the procedure whereby permission for investigation is sought must not be operated in a way that would cause delay in criminal proceedings and hinder an effective investigation or give the impression that the public officers are exempted from criminal investigation.

 77. Given the scope of the case-file as a whole, it has been observed that although the public officers -in respect of whom permission for investigation had been sought- were found to be at fault, the permission was not granted due to the lack of a causal link between the fault and the accident, which should have been indeed determined through an examination by judicial authorities; and that thereby, the judicial process was discontinued. It has been accordingly concluded that these two facts posed an obstacle to the conduct of an effective investigation into the death of the applicants’ next-of-kin.

 78. The conclusion that an effective criminal investigation is to be conducted into the incident does not mean that the judicial process to be conducted against those who are responsible necessarily entails filing of a case or conclusion of the proceedings by a certain verdict; but points to the necessity of the effective application of appropriate means which would lead to identification of those who are responsible and ensure their accountability.

 79. For these reasons, the Court found a violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life which is safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution.

 3. Application of Article 50 of Code no. 6216

 80. Article 50 §§ 1 and 2 of the Code no. 6216 on Establishment and Rules of Procedures of the Constitutional Court, dated 30 March 2011, reads as follows:

 “(1) At the end of the examination of the merits it is decided either the right of the applicant has been violated or not. In cases where a decision of violation has been made what is required for the resolution of the violation and the consequences thereof shall be ruled...

 (2) If the determined violation arises out of a court decision, the file shall be sent to the relevant court for holding the retrial in order for the violation and the consequences thereof to be removed. In cases where there is no legal interest in holding the retrial, the compensation may be adjudged in favour of the applicant or the remedy of filing a case before the general courts may be shown. The court which is responsible for holding the retrial shall deliver a decision over the file, if possible, in a way that will remove the violation and the consequences thereof that the Constitutional Court has explained in its decision of violation.”

 81. The applicants requested the Court to find a violation and to award 30,000 Turkish liras (“TRY”) to each of them in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 82. In the present case, it has been concluded that the procedural aspect of the right to life was violated.

 83. As there is a legal interest in conducting a retrial in order to redress the consequences of the violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life, a copy of the judgment must be sent to the Ankara Regional Administrative Court for a retrial.

 84. As sending a copy of the judgment to the relevant court for a retrial offers a sufficient redress for the violation found, the applicants’ claims in respect of non-pecuniary compensation must be rejected.

 85. The total court expense of TRY 2,186.10 including the court fee of TRY 206.10 and the counsel fee of TRY 1,980, which is calculated over the documents in the case file, must be reimbursed jointly to the applicants.

 VI. JUDGMENT

 For these reasons, the Constitutional Court UNANIMOUSLY held on 9 May 2018 that

 A. 1. The application insofar as it concerns the decision of non-prosecution be DECLARED INADMISSIBLE for non-exhaustion of available legal remedies;

 2. The alleged violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life due to the refusal to grant permission for investigation be DECLARED ADMISSIBLE;

 B. The procedural aspect of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution was VIOLATED;

 C. A copy of the judgment be SENT to the Ankara Regional Administrative Court (E.2014/331, K.2014/346) for a retrial in order to redress the consequences of the violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life;

 D. The applicants’ claims for compensation be DISMISSED;

 E. The total expense of TRY 2.186.10 including the court fee of TRY 206.10 and the counsel fee of TRY 1,980 be REIMBURSED JOINTLY TO THE APPLICANTS;

 F. The payments be made within four months as from the date when the applicants apply to the Ministry of Finance following the notification of the judgment. In case of any default in payment, legal INTEREST ACCRUE for the period elapsing from the expiry of four-month time-limit to the payment date;

 G. A copy of the judgment be SENT to the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources.

 H. A copy of the judgment be SENT to the Ministry of Justice.