By This post is also available in: ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ (GREEK) TÜRKÇE (TURKISH)
The decision handed down against public officials in the case of the ‘İsias Hotel’, where 72 people lost their lives in the February 6 earthquake in Turkey, is not merely the outcome of a criminal trial. This decision also reveals a society’s sense of justice, how a state views human life, and the extent to which the right to life is protected in a country.
The outcome of the case, which resulted in the acquittal of three defendants and the sentencing of three defendants to 10 years in prison, yet without resorting to detention measures until the sentence became final, has brought serious debates regarding the deterrent effect of the criminal justice system.
The final expert report submitted to the case file largely coincides with the court’s decision. Although the court has not yet announced its reasoned decision, it is clear that this report was decisive. The report found that three individuals were not responsible, while three others were found responsible. This picture demonstrates, once again, how technical reports determine the course of a trial.
And the most fundamental question that comes to mind is this: How consistent is it with the gravity of the trial that a decision in such a comprehensive case can be announced in approximately 20 minutes?
The technically undisputed issue in this case is as follows: The Isias building collapsed not as an ‘inevitable result of a natural disaster’, but as a result of a chain of illegal construction works, lack of oversight, and negligence by public authorities.
However, the legal focus of the İsias case is not solely on fault ratios, or engineering errors. This case is fundamentally about the violation of the right to life.
Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides absolute protection for the right to life. Consistent with the established judicial opinion of the ECtHR, this protection encompasses not only the state’s obligation to refrain from intentional killing, but also its positive obligations. Accordingly, the Court clearly puts that states have a responsibility to take preventive measures against risks that threaten life, establish effective oversight mechanisms, and effectively implement protective legislation.
The ECtHR considers the failure of public authorities to take measures against risks that they are, or should be aware of to be a violation of the right to life. In other words, the state is responsible not only after a disaster, but also before it occurs. This responsibility begins at the stage of licensing. It continues during supervision. It persists at the time of the implementation of the decision for demolition.
While documents stating that this building ‘needs to be demolished’ already existed, and it was known that the building permits were in contradiction with the law and engineering rules, the administration’s decision to proceed with the process rather than halt it paved the way for the disaster. If these permits had not been issued and the demolition decision had been implemented in time, the chain of deaths we are discussing today would never have occurred.
Why is the trial of public officials so crucial? Because the negligence of public officials cannot be considered a simple mistake made by an individual. Every signature put down on behalf of the public can sometimes determine whether a person lives, or dies.
The file also clearly reveals structural violations: static and reinforced concrete projects that did not comply with earthquake regulations, lack of supervision, illegal floors added in conflict with the project, illegalities legitimized by an amnesty on building violations, and the process of converting the building from a residence to a hotel with fake permits.
The building’s construction process began under the 1975 regulations and continued under the 1995 regulations, rendering the permit effectively void. The concrete quality was altered, an elevator was added to the building, but the static calculations were not updated. The structure was gradually driven to a point of destruction.
Deterrent and effective penalties imposed on public officials send a clear message to those in power: Human lives cannot be sacrificed for profit, personal gain, or political pressure. Otherwise, impunity will deepen, the fight against crime will weaken, and the door will be opened to new disasters.
This article was originally published on 20.01.2026
Source: THE CASE OF ISIAS THAT IS NOW A TOMB: THE STATE’S TEST ON THE RIGHT TO LIFE
