authorities did not do everything within their power to protect the applicant’s proprietary interests. In a later case, also from Turkey European Court of Human Rights considered a particularly sad set of circumstances23. On 22 January 2004 Istanbul was hit by a heavy snow storm. Consequently, upon the instructions of the Ministry of Education, schools in Istanbul broke up for the winter beak a day earlier than scheduled. On that day, Atalay, a 7 year old boy, had gone to his primary school on the municipality’s shuttle, which travelled between his home and the school. After the school bulletins had been distributed, classes were dismissed at the beginning of the afternoon, before the normal school day was over. Atalay had not enrolled for the paid school bus, but was using the shuttle that was operated for free by the municipality. As the early dismissal of the classes had not been notified to the municipality, the shuttle did not come when the school was closed. Atalay therefore tried to walk back home, which was 4 km away from his school. Late in the afternoon, when he did not return from school, the applicants called the police. However, it was not possible to find Atalay. His body was found the following day, frozen near a river bed. Atalays’ parents brought a claim alleging that the school’s failure to notify the municipality has caused Atalay’s death and was therefore a breach of his right to life. It was evident that no-one had intended any harm to come to Atalay, nor envisaged the particular chain of events which unfolded. Nevertheless the court found a violation of the right to life, applying what amounted to a test of due diligence (see para. 41): Nevertheless, in the circumstances of the present case, where a primary school is exceptionally closed early due to bad weather conditions, in the Court’s opinion, it cannot be considered as unreasonable to expect the school authorities to take basic precautions to minimise any potential risk and to protect the pupils. Therefore, the Court considers that, as also stated in the Presidency’s decision dated 18 February 2004, by neglecting to inform the municipality’s shuttle service about the early closure of the school, the domestic authorities failed to take measures which might have avoided a risk to the right to life of the applicants’ son. Further the Court emphasized the right to life demanded a process for holding accountable those at fault (paras. 38-39). The State’s positive obligation also requires an effective independent judicial system to be set up so as to secure legal means capable of establishing the facts, holding accountable those at fault and providing appropriate redress to the victim … 23 CASE OF İLBEYİ KEMALOĞLU AND MERİYE KEMALOĞLU v. TURKEY (Application no. 19986/06), 2012 26