5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the village of Bağıvar, Diyarbakır. 6.  The applicant and her husband, Mehmet Özdemir lived in the village of Bağıvar, Diyarbakır. They have eight children. The applicant submits that her husband was a member of HADEP (People's Democracy Party) at the material time. 7.  In 1995 the Diyarbakır State Security Court tried and acquitted Mehmet Özdemir of the charges of aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation, namely the PKK (The Kurdistan Workers' Party). 8.  On 5 August 1997 Mehmet Özdemir was arrested and taken into police custody where he remained until he was released pending trial on 9 August 1997. Criminal proceedings were initiated against him on the ground that he was aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation. These proceedings ended with Mehmet Özdemir's acquittal on 23 January 1998. 9.  The applicant alleged that, prior to his disappearance, her husband had been harassed by security forces. She claimed in this connection that he had been arrested a few times and subjected to severe torture. 10.  The applicant also alleged that her house had been raided by security forces about twenty days prior to her husband's disappearance. She maintained that after this event her husband had left home to stay with his relatives in Diyarbakır for fifteen days. However, she later learned that during this time her husband had once again been arrested, interrogated and subsequently released. The applicant stated that her husband had told her that he had been instructed by a police officer to report his whereabouts every day. She alleged that her husband had phoned the number given to him twice but that no one had responded. 11.  The applicant did not witness the abduction of her husband. She was informed by an eye-witness who told her that, on 26 December 1997, two armed men, dressed in civilian clothes, with walkie-talkies had entered the coffee house where Mehmet Özdemir was sitting with his friends and told him to come with them. They had taken him outside to a white taxi. Mehmet Özdemir had not initially resisted the men, but when he saw a third person sitting in the back of the car, he had started to struggle and had been eventually forced into the car. 12.  The applicant stated that, since the eye-witness was illiterate, he had been unable to write down the registration number of the taxi. 13.  On 29 December 1997 the applicant lodged a petition with the public prosecutor's office at the Diyarbakır State Security Court requesting information as to the whereabouts of her husband who, she stated, had been arrested by policemen in civilian clothes at a coffee house. On the same day, this petition was stamped. This stamp read “taken into custody by Security Directorate”. However, the stamp bears no signature of a public official. 14.  On 7 January 1998 the applicant lodged a petition with the disappearance bureau of the Diyarbakır public prosecutor's office. In this petition she submitted, in particular, that her husband had been arrested on 26 December 1997, at around 3.30 p.m., by four armed policemen, in civilian clothes, at a park near the Diyarbakır vegetable market. She further stated that her petition of 29 December 1997 had been stamped stating that her husband was in custody, but that later she had been informed orally that her petition was stamped by mistake and that her husband was not in custody. 15.  The Diyarbakır public prosecutor (“the prosecutor”) commenced an investigation into the disappearance of Mehmet Özdemir. The prosecutor requested the Diyarbakır Security Directorate to inform him whether Mehmet Özdemir had been taken into custody as alleged. The Government submitted documents of various dates in 1998 issued by various branches of the Security Directorate, the prosecutor and the gendarmerie command in which it is stated that Mehmet Özdemir was not taken into custody. 16.  On 12 January 1998 the Security Directorate, upon the applicant's petition, informed her that her husband was not in custody. 17.  In the meantime, on 13 January 1998, the applicant lodged an application with the Human Rights Commission of the Turkish National Assembly. In this petition, the applicant submitted that her husband had been arrested by four armed policemen with walkie-talkies while he was sitting at a coffee house in Çiftkapı. 18.  On 26 February 1998 the Security Directorate, upon the applicant's petition, reiterated that her husband was not in custody. 19.  On 20 April 1998 the applicant was shown an unidentified body. She confirmed that the corpse was not her husband. 20.  On 20 April 1998 the Diyarbakır Deputy Mayor informed Mehmet Özdemir's sister, upon her petition of 17 April 1998 requesting information, that they had no information as to the whereabouts of her brother and that the investigation into his disappearance was ongoing. 21.  On 23 June 1998 the applicant lodged a petition with the Diyarbakır public prosecutor's office requesting that criminal proceedings be initiated against the security force officials on duty on 26 December 1997 at the Anti-Terrorism branch of the Diyarbakır Security Directorate. In this petition, she stated, inter alia, that her husband had been arrested while he was sitting at a coffee house with his friends near the Şehitlik vegetable market. The applicant submitted that she was certain her husband was taken into custody by police from the Anti-Terrorism branch of the Security Directorate because he had been arrested at least 7-8 times before and had been threatened and tortured. Finally, she maintained that she could not provide the names of eye‑witnesses as they were afraid to talk. 22.  On the same day, the applicant was interviewed by the prosecutor. She stated, inter alia, that she had not heard from her husband for the past six months and that two people who were afraid to give their names had claimed to have seen her husband in custody. The applicant pointed out that she had initially been told that her husband was in custody, a fact which was later denied by the authorities. 23.  On the same day, the prosecutor requested the Diyarbakır Security Directorate to inform him whether Mehmet Özdemir had been taken into custody and if so, the date(s) of his detention. 24.  On 4 January 1999[1] the applicant was interviewed again by the prosecutor. She stated that a person whom she did not know had approached her and informed her that her husband had been taken into custody by JITEM (Gendarmerie Anti-Terror Intelligence Branch). 25.  On 27 May 1999 the prosecutor interviewed Mehmet Özdemir's sister. 26.  On 25 June 1999 the prosecutor informed the Diyarbakır prosecutor's office that the search for Mehmet Özdemir was ongoing and that he had requested the Security Directorate to inform him of any developments in the case every three months. The Government submitted documents of various dates in 1999 issued by various branches of the Security Directorate, the prosecutor and the gendarmerie command in which it is stated that Mehmet Özdemir was not taken into custody. 27.  On 12 August 1999 the Human Rights Commission of the Turkish National Assembly informed the applicant that following their investigation they had found that her husband had been released from custody on 9 August 1997 and that since that time he had not been taken into custody by the Diyarbakır Security Directorate. 28.  On 27 November 2000 the prosecutor requested the Diyarbakır Security Directorate to inform him of any developments in the case every three months. The Government submitted numerous documents issued by various branches of the Diyarbakır Security Directorate during the years 2000-2002 in this connection. In these documents, some of which are accompanied by copies of relevant custodial records, it is maintained that Mehmet Özdemir was not taken into custody as alleged and that his name does not appear in the custodial records of that date. 29.  On 12 May 2003 the prosecutor interviewed the applicant. She reiterated her earlier statements and submitted that she had not heard from her husband since his disappearance. In particular, the applicant stated that she had not witnessed the arrest but had been told about it by people who were at the Esnaflar coffee house. 30.  On 18 November 2003 the prosecutor ordered that the search for the alleged abductors of Mehmet Özdemir be continued until the end of the statutory time limit for that crime (26 December 2007) and that he be informed of any developments in the case every three months. The Government submitted numerous items of correspondence between the various branches of the Diyarbakır Security Directorate and the prosecutor in this connection. 31.  On 19 December 2003 the prosecutor decided not to open any criminal proceedings regarding Mehmet Özdemir's abduction. The applicant objected. On 1 September 2004 the Siverek Assize Court dismissed the applicant's objections on the ground that there was no evidence that anyone was responsible for the disappearance of her husband. This decision was served on the applicant on 16 December 2004.