4.  The applicant, a lawyer, was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul. He was a member of the board of directors of the Istanbul Bar Association and Istanbul department director of the Contemporary Lawyers Association at the time of the lodging of the application. The applicant also pursued various activities for the furtherance of human rights protection in Turkey. 5.  In his application form the applicant submitted that, on 18 February 1999, a client of his and Ms Several Demir, a certain Ms S.P., committed suicide in prison in protest. When they went to pick up her body at the morgue, together with the deceased’s brother, a police officer approached them and told them that Mr A.Ç., the deputy police chief of the Istanbul Security Directorate, would like to express his condolences and invited them to the Security Directorate to meet him. At the police station the applicant and Ms Demir were asked to wait outside while Mr A.Ç. received the deceased’s brother, Mr A.P. After a while they were also received. The applicant claimed that there were seven or eight other policemen in the room and that, as soon as they entered the room and sat down, Mr A.Ç. asked, in a stern tone, why they were interested in this incident. When the applicant stated that they were the deceased’s lawyers, Mr A.Ç. became angry and told them in a rude manner that the dead people do not have lawyers. The applicant alleged that, when he stated that they were the lawyers of the family, Mr A.Ç became even angrier, got up from his seat, repeated that dead people do not have lawyers, insulted the applicant and punched him in the face. When the applicant tried to get up from his seat, the other police officers held his arms and hands while Mr A.Ç. continued to punch him in the face and stomach. Later he was pushed around and kicked out of the police station, with insults being hurled at him. 6.  According to the Government, the deceased’s brother was at the police station to sort out paperwork regarding the funeral. Two lawyers erupted into the office of the deputy police chief and stated that they were the deceased’s lawyers and wanted to take over the funeral arrangements. The deputy director, maintaining that deceased persons could not be legally represented, asked the lawyers to leave his office. Since they resisted, they were escorted by the police out of the Security Headquarters. 7.  On the same day the applicant submitted an official complaint to the Fatih public prosecutor about the above events and requested the prosecution of Mr A.Ç. and the other police officers on duty that day. In addition, he asked to be referred to the Forensic Medical Institute for a medical examination. 8.  On the same day, at 6.15 p.m., the applicant was examined by a doctor at Haseki Hospital who noted that the applicant had pain in his eye sockets and neck. The applicant was also seen by an orthopaedist who noted that the applicant had pain in his neck and right shoulder. 9.   On 19 and 20 February 1999, press statements were issued by the Turkish Bar Association, Istanbul Bar Association and Contemporary Lawyers’ Association, condemning the incident and requesting the prosecution of those responsible. 10.  On 26 March 1999 the Fatih public prosecutor gave a decision of lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae and transferred the investigation file to the Istanbul Governor’s Office. 11.  On 9 April 1999 Mr E.Y., an Istanbul deputy police chief (“the investigator”), was appointed to carry out a preliminary investigation on behalf of the governor into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. 12.  On an unspecified date the investigator prepared his report and submitted it to the governor’s office. It recommended that authorisation for prosecution be declined. It appears from the report that in the course of its preparation Mr E.Y. heard the police officers on duty that day and two journalists who had been in the waiting room of Mr A.Ç. during the alleged incident. They all testified that the applicant had not been attacked. 13.  On 15 June 1999 the Istanbul governor, on the basis of the investigator’s report, declined to grant the necessary authorisation for prosecution. 14.  This decision was annulled by the Istanbul Administrative Court on 30 November 2001 on the ground that the decision should have been taken by the Provincial Administrative Council and not by the governor himself. 15.  In the meantime, on an unspecified date, Mr A.Ç. was promoted and became the police chief of the Diyarbakır Security Headquarters. 16.  On 15 April 2002 the Fatih Forensic Medicine Department, relying on the findings in the medical report of 18 February 1999, concluded that the injuries rendered the applicant unfit for work for three days. 17.  On 8 April 2002 Mr N.P., the deputy police chief of the Istanbul Security Headquarters, heard the applicant, Mr A.P. and Ms S.D. 18.  In his statement the applicant repeated his allegations. In particular, he maintained that Mr A.Ç. knew him because he was the director of the Contemporary Lawyers Association. He further stated that, when he went to submit his petition to the Fatih public prosecutor’s office, his clothes were ripped and bloody. 19.  In her statement Ms Demir supported the applicant’s version of events. She submitted that she did not see who else apart from Mr A.Ç. had hit the applicant but that she herself had not been verbally or physically attacked by the policemen. 20.  In his statement Mr A.P., the deceased’s brother, maintained that Mr A.Ç. had been angry with the lawyers, and had stated that dead people do not have lawyers, then punched and kicked them out. He further stated that he was outside and that he did not hear or witness what had happened. 21.  Between 4 April and 7 April 2002, Mr N.P. heard five police officers who had been on duty that day, three of whom were the accused. He also heard Mr A.Ç.’s secretary. They all denied that the applicant had been ill-treated. 22.  On 5 April 2002 Mr N.P. heard two journalists, Mr M.Ç. and Mr O.S.Ü. They both affirmed that the applicant had not been ill-treated. In particular, they submitted that the door of Mr A.Ç.’s office was open and that Mr A.Ç. had asked why they were there. When the lawyers replied that they were the deceased’s lawyers and were going to take care of her funeral arrangements, Mr A.Ç. told them that the dead people do not have lawyers and that the incident did not have anything to do with them. However, the lawyers insisted and started making propaganda for an illegal organisation, at which point Mr A.Ç. told them that he would not permit such propaganda in a State building and asked them to leave. When the lawyers refused to do so, Mr A.Ç. asked police officers to escort them out. While they were being removed, the lawyers shouted “establishment police, fascists, you will be held to account for this” in the corridor. 23.  On 9 April 2002 Mr C.S., the Diyarbakır Governor heard Mr A.Ç., who denied the accusations against him. In particular, he maintained that the lawyers had been removed from his room after they had insisted that they would organise the funeral even though he had explained that this matter would be discussed with the deceased’s relative alone. He submitted that the lawyers, while being taken out, had shouted out “establishment police, fascists, you will be held to account for this” in the corridor. 24.  On 1 May 2002 the Provincial Administrative Council of the Istanbul Governor’s Office found, on the basis of the investigation file, that the accused police officers had not beaten or insulted the applicant as alleged, and refused authorisation for their prosecution. On 24 May 2002 the applicant objected to this decision. In his objection he criticised, in particular, the manner in which the investigation had been conducted and the fact that Mr A.Ç. had been promoted in the course of the investigation. 25.  On 18 June 2003 the 2nd Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court decided, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Law no. 4616, as amended by Law no. 4758, to suspend the proceedings concerning the accused police officers.