Mehmet Keleş, a construction worker who is married and has one child, went to the aquapark in Yenimahalle with his 2 siblings and 2 cousins on July 31 last year. Mehmet Keleş lost his balance when he was hit by his older brother Özmen Keleş, who was coming from behind him while he was sliding down the water slide, and fell from a height of 9 meters onto the concrete floor, losing his life. In the investigation initiated by the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, business owner İ.Ö. and slide attendant B.H.G. and elder brother Özmen Keleş testified as suspects. The single expert appointed in the file stated that the victim's standing up and jumping on the slide on his own initiative constituted a primary fault in the incident, and that the owner of the business, the officer and Özmen Keleş had no fault. In line with the report, the prosecutor's office decided that there was no need to prosecute the suspects.
Evaluating the objection made by the family through a lawyer, Ankara 12th Criminal Court of Peace ruled that an effective investigation was required to reach the material truth and leave no room for doubt, and annulled the decision that there was no need for prosecution for the business owner and the slide manager.
THE DEFECT HAS CHANGED IN THE NEW REPORT
The file was sent again to the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office. Within the scope of the investigation, a new report was prepared by a panel of three experts in their field. In the report, it was pointed out that the slide subject to the accident had a complex architecture that created a blind spot, that the facility did not have the electronic signaling, turnstile or camera tracking system required by TS EN 1069 standards, that the water flow rate was not controlled to ensure uninterrupted sliding, and that there was no safety net and shock-absorbing floor covering under the slide to prevent falling. In the report, these technical and administrative deficiencies were evaluated as the main element of the accident. In the report, business owner İ.Ö. and slide attendant B.H.G. were stated to be at fault in the incident.
'WE WILL OBJECT'
Handan Sayan Özgül, the family's lawyer, said that they would also object to the new report and said, "Although the expert report made an assessment of secondary fault on the part of the business owner and the slide attendant, we believe that the report was based on an incomplete examination because it was prepared without completing the witness statements and without evaluating all the evidence regarding the manner in which the incident occurred. As such, the report is not sufficient and auditable in terms of shedding light on all aspects of the incident and determining the fault status in a healthy way. For this reason, after the statements of the witnesses are taken and the missing issues within the scope of the investigation are completed, the subject of the file is "We demand that the expert be entrusted to a new expert committee and that the manner in which the incident occurred, the security measures of the enterprise, the technical features of the slide system, the supervision and control obligations of the personnel, and the fault status of the parties be re-evaluated in detail."
