On 2 May 2019, Sertip Şen was shot while grazing his animals in Onbaşılar (Wargenima) village in the Yüksekova district of Hakkari. The shot came from a military area. Şen was taken to Yüksekova State Hospital, where he died the same day. An autopsy conducted on 3 May 2019 found that he died from internal bleeding and injuries to major blood vessels and internal organs. He also suffered fractures to the spine and shoulder blade caused by a gunshot wound.
Following the incident, statements were taken from F.Ş. and A.İ. F.Ş. said that L.İ. called him after finding Sertip Şen unconscious on the ground. They went to the scene and saw a wound and blood on Şen’s left shoulder. They carried him on horseback for some distance before taking him by vehicle to an ambulance. On 6 May 2019, the Hakkari Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office found that it lacked jurisdiction because the incident had occurred in Yüksekova and transferred the case file to the Yüksekova Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office.
On 9 May 2019, the Yüksekova Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office took a statement from Murat Toprak, the soldier suspected in the investigation. Toprak admitted firing one shot at around 4.30 p.m. on the day of the incident. He said that he fired without aiming at a target as part of what he described as “reconnaissance by fire” (cebri keşif). He used an HK33 infantry rifle belonging to H.A., who was serving under his command. Toprak said that they waited for some time after the shot and returned to the base when there was no response. He maintained that he had not aimed at anyone and had not intended to harm anyone.
The same day, the Yüksekova Criminal Judgeship of Peace imposed a judicial control measure on Toprak as part of the investigation into causing death by negligence. He was prohibited from leaving the country.
A report issued by the Van Gendarmerie Criminal Laboratory on 14 May 2019 found no gunshot residue on swabs taken from Sertip Şen. It also found that the shot had been fired from a long distance. On 23 May 2019, Şen’s father requested that the suspect be detained. The request was rejected.
At the prosecutor’s request, the Haruna Gendarmerie Station Command prepared an official report on 14 June 2019 concerning the scene of the incident. The report described the area as close to the Iranian border, supportive of terrorism and far from military bases. It stated that the security of the scene could therefore not be ensured.
Statements were taken from Sertip Şen’s father, C.Ş., and his wife, K.Ş., on 17 June 2019. C.Ş. said that his son had informed the gendarmerie station in advance where he would be grazing his animals and had signed a document at the station.
K.Ş. said that she and her husband went to the station on the morning of the incident and told the officers that they were going to the highland to gather wild plants and graze their animals. They also signed a document prepared at the station. The couple then went to the highland together, where they gathered plants until around noon and ate together. K.Ş. returned to the village, while Sertip Şen stayed behind to continue grazing the animals. Shortly afterwards, she learned that her husband had been shot.
L.İ. also gave a statement that day. He said that he had informed the gendarmerie station that he was going to the highland and that other people were also in the area gathering wild plants. At around 2.00–3.00 p.m., he heard a single gunshot. On his way back to the village that evening, he found Sertip Şen lying motionless on the snow. At first, he thought that Şen had suffered a heart attack. He then informed the villagers.
On 1 July 2019, statements were taken from the soldiers who had been on duty on the day of the incident. They gave similar accounts and said that they did not believe Murat Toprak had acted intentionally or was at fault.
An expert report prepared by a gendarmerie non-commissioned officer on 15 November 2020 described the scene as being directly on the border, on a route used by members of the terror organization and within a special security zone. The report found that Murat Toprak’s shot was “in accordance with the rules on reconnaissance by fire” and that he was not at fault.
A panel of experts reached a different conclusion on 19 January 2021. The panel, consisting of a forensic expert, a firearms expert and a security expert, found that the terrain made it impossible for Murat Toprak to see Sertip Şen, who was approximately 800 metres away. However, given his military training, Toprak should have known the range of the weapon he was using.
The panel found a direct causal link between Şen’s death and Toprak’s negligent conduct in firing the weapon. It also found that the shot had been fired outside the chain of command and without an order. Toprak fired the shot after another soldier’s rifle jammed. The panel therefore concluded that the conditions for reconnaissance by fire had not been met. However, it found that Toprak’s degree of fault should be reduced in view of the characteristics of the area and terrain.
On 17 February 2021, the Yüksekova Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office issued an indictment against Murat Toprak for causing death by negligence.
The Yüksekova 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance accepted the indictment. At the first hearing on 23 February 2021, the court found that the possibility of intentional killing needed to be considered. It therefore ruled that it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Assize Court.
On 5 July 2021, the Yüksekova Assize Court also ruled that it lacked jurisdiction, creating a jurisdictional dispute between the two courts. The 5th Criminal Chamber of the Van Regional Court of Appeal resolved the dispute on 19 November 2021, ruling that the Yüksekova Assize Court had jurisdiction over the case.
The first hearing before the Yüksekova Assize Court was held on 21 January 2022. The court decided to continue the judicial control measure imposed on the defendant.
At the second hearing on 18 February 2022, Murat Toprak presented his defence. He said that they had gone on a reconnaissance and surveillance mission that day based on intelligence reports. H.A.’s weapon then jammed. According to Toprak, he fired a reconnaissance shot to test the weapon and detect possible activity in the area. He maintained that the shot was not random and that he had not aimed at anyone.
At the same hearing, the court heard Sertip Şen’s father C.Ş., his wife K.Ş. and his son A.Ş. They repeated their complaints.
Witness F.Ş. said that the gendarmerie station knew that villagers went to the hamlet and that there were no restrictions on access to the area. A.İ. described what happened after the shooting. He and other villagers went to retrieve Sertip Şen, but the gendarmerie initially refused to let them pass. The villagers insisted and were eventually allowed to enter the area. They reached Şen and carried him to the ambulance.
M.K., one of the soldiers on duty that day, said that Murat Toprak had fired one reconnaissance shot into the air. They returned to the base after receiving no response. A.C.K. gave a similar account, saying that Toprak had fired one shot into the air at an angle of approximately 45 degrees. According to A.C.K., Toprak did not aim at a target and fired for the purpose of reconnaissance by fire.
An official report issued by the Haruna Gendarmerie Station Command on 14 April 2022 stated that civilians were allowed to enter the area after the necessary checks and were warned to return before dark. However, no records were kept of people entering the area on or before the date of the incident. The practice of keeping such records began several months after the incident.
Another official report, dated 7 June 2022, stated that no terrorist incident had occurred at or around the scene during the one-month periods before and after the incident.
At the hearing on 4 October 2022, the court heard İ.K., who had been the commander of the military base at the time. İ.K. said that they heard an explosion nearby on the day of the incident and sent a four-person team led by Murat Toprak to the area for reconnaissance and surveillance. Toprak later contacted İ.K. by radio and reported that he had fired one reconnaissance shot. İ.K. also said that the area was closed to civilians and that grazing animals was not permitted. According to him, villagers were not given permission to enter the area for these purposes.
The court ordered further inquiries. It sought to determine whether there had been any attack or attempted infiltration at the scene during the month before or after the incident and whether there was any intelligence indicating that armed organization members would be active in the area. The court also asked whether there was any record of an explosion being heard at the military base on the day of the incident and sought information or documents showing whether villagers had received permission to graze their animals in the area.
At the hearing on 15 September 2023, witness H.A. said that Murat Toprak had fired one shot into the air with H.A.’s weapon. According to H.A., Toprak did not aim at a target and fired the shot for reconnaissance and surveillance. H.A. said that he only learned from the criminal laboratory report that Sertip Şen had been shot with his weapon. The court continued the judicial control measure imposed on the defendant and decided to conduct an on-site inspection if security conditions allowed.
At the hearing on 2 April 2024, E.N. also said that Murat Toprak had fired one shot with H.A.’s weapon for the purpose of reconnaissance by fire and had not aimed at a target. E.N. also said that the area was a restricted military zone and that there was a sign prohibiting entry.
An on-site inspection was conducted on 31 May 2024. The trial bench, the defendant and the parties’ lawyers were present. Murat Toprak was given an unloaded HK33 rifle that had been made safe and was asked to recreate the shot he had fired on the day of the incident. Toprak took the same position he said he had been in that day. The angle at which he held the weapon was recorded in photographs and video, and experts took measurements at the scene.
At the hearing on 18 October 2024, the court requested information from the Land Forces Command about the weapon used in the incident, including its effective range and the distance at which it could accurately hit a human target. It also requested an expert report on these issues.
The Land Forces Command replied that it was unable to provide the requested information. The court therefore decided to obtain a report from a panel of experts. At the hearing on 9 May 2025, it decided that the experts would be selected from the Istanbul Regional Expert List to prepare a specialist report. There were no developments at the hearing on 24 October 2025.
At the hearing on 12 December 2025, the public prosecutor submitted the opinion on the merits. The prosecutor noted that the area was designated as a special security zone. However, the information and documents in the case file showed that people were, to some extent, given verbal permission to enter. Firing a weapon in the area could therefore endanger people’s lives and property.
The prosecutor argued that, as a soldier serving in the area, the defendant should have been aware of this risk. He had failed to exercise the required care and attention and had caused Sertip Şen’s death. The prosecutor therefore sought his conviction for causing death by negligence under Article 85/1 of the Turkish Penal Code.
At the final hearing on 9 January 2026, the Yüksekova Assize Court sentenced Murat Toprak to one year and eight months’ imprisonment for causing death by negligence.