5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul. As the facts of the case are in dispute between the parties, they will be set out separately. The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 6-8). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 9-13). The documentary evidence submitted by the applicant and the Government is summarised in Section D (paragraphs 14-26). 6.  On 6 March 2005 the applicant took part in a demonstration to mark the Women’s Day celebrations in Beyazıt Square in Istanbul, during which a large number of police officers formed a ring around the crowd. Police officers did not prevent people from entering the square and did not interfere with the demonstrations. 7.  When the celebrations ended with a press release issued by a number of women’s organisations and the crowds began to disperse, police officers started hitting people, including the applicant, with their truncheons and the ends of their weapons and sprayed them with tear gas. As a result of the blows to her head, face and other parts of the body, the applicant fell to the ground. Whilst she was on the ground police officers continued to kick and hit her with their sticks. The police officers also swore at her and insulted her. 8.  The applicant was seriously injured and was left semi-conscious. She had to be helped by a member of the public to leave the area. The incident was widely publicised in the national and international media. 9.  On 18 February 2005 the office of the Governor of Istanbul was informed that a demonstration would be held in Beyazıt Square on 6 March 2005 to celebrate Women’s Day. The request to hold the celebrations in Beyazıt Square was rejected and the organising committee was informed in a letter on 23 February 2005 that the celebrations could be held in Çağlayan Square in the Şişli district and in Beykoz Field in the Beykoz district of Istanbul. 10.  On 6 March 2005 people began gathering at different locations in order to march towards Beyazıt Square. Members of the security forces told them that they would not be allowed to do so because it would obstruct the flow of traffic. 11.  Members of the security forces waited for 20-25 minutes for the demonstrators to disperse. During that time some of the demonstrators left the area. Those who remained blocked the traffic and insisted on marching to Beyazıt Square. Members of the security forces intervened and reopened the road. 12.  At around 11.30 a.m. the dispersed groups gathered in Beyazıt Square and read out a press statement. At 1 p.m., after the press statement had been read out, a group of approximately sixty persons refused to leave the area. When the police warned them the demonstrators responded by throwing stones at the police officers. As a result the police officers arrested a number of the demonstrators and took them into custody by using force. The applicant was not arrested. 13.  During the incident seven police officers were injured and many police cars were damaged by the demonstrators. 14.  The Government submitted to the Court video footage of the events. The footage is a compilation of news aired by national television channels, as well as the official video recording of the events by a police cameraman. The footage shows police officers wearing gas masks hitting with their truncheons a large number of demonstrators who try to run away from the area. Demonstrators fallen to the ground are also kicked and hit with truncheons. A male demonstrator who uses his body to protect a woman on the ground is kicked in the face by a police officer. When police officers notice a number of demonstrators hiding in bushes, they spray them with tear gas[1] before hitting them with their truncheons. Two women on the ground trying to protect themselves from attacks by police officers are sprayed with tear gas. Women who had taken refuge in nearby shops and cafes are dragged out by the police and beaten up. The footage also shows a number of shoppers, shopkeepers and other persons, who had not been demonstrating but who had been in the area and affected by the intense tear gas, wandering around in a confused state. 15.  According to the report prepared by an expert who was appointed by the domestic investigating authorities to examine the video footage and prepare a report, police officers had not issued any warnings to the demonstrators to disperse before attacking them. The demonstrators had not resisted the police intervention and had not attacked the police but had simply tried to run away from the area. Police had hit the demonstrators – including those who had fallen to the ground – with their truncheons, kicked them, punched them and sprayed them with tear gas. 16.  On 8 March 2005 the applicant submitted a written request to the Bakırköy prosecutor and requested a medical examination. She alleged that excessive force had been used by the police officers during the incident and as a result of that force various parts of her body had been injured. The prosecutor referred the applicant to the Forensic Medicine Institute for a medical examination. 17.  According to the report of the medical examination carried out at the Bakırköy branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute the same day, a large number of ecchymosed areas of various sizes were present on her body including her left upper arm, right forearm, left femur, buttocks and knees. The doctor concluded that the applicant’s injuries would prevent her from working for a period of five days. 18.  On 11 March 2005 the applicant lodged an official complaint with the Istanbul prosecutor against the Governor of Istanbul and the police officers responsible for her ill-treatment. She pointed out that, according to the applicable legislation, no prior notice or permission was necessary to read out a press release. She requested, inter alia, that the Governor and the police chiefs who abused their duties by not allowing her to enjoy her right to assembly, as well as the police officers who had ill-treated her, be put on trial. She complained that excessive force and tear gas had been used by the police officers against her and against her fellow demonstrators when they were dispersing and leaving the area of their own accord. Footage shown on television channels and photographs published in newspapers had showed the scale of the incident. 19.  On 8 April 2005 the Chief Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation concluded that the applicant had not mentioned a specific incident that could be attributed to the Governor. A decision was thus made not to prosecute the Governor. 20.  The disciplinary board of the police considered on 6 June 2005 that six of the police officers had kicked the demonstrators and had also hit them with their truncheons. It held that the police officers’ actions amounted to “degrading behaviour”, and decided to “condemn” the actions of three police chiefs for failing to train the six police officers properly. It also imposed a fine – equivalent to three days’ salary – on the six police officers in question. 21.  On 12 December 2005 the Istanbul prosecutor decided not to bring criminal proceedings against forty-four police officers for the offence of abuse of duty in respect of victims and complainants whose bodies did not bear any injuries. In the prosecutor’s decision thirty-nine persons, including the applicant, were named as victims and complainants. The applicant lodged an objection against the prosecutor’s decision in which she repeated her complaints about the excessive use of force against her. The applicant’s objection was rejected on 28 September 2007 by the Beyoğlu Assize Court. 22.  In the meantime, on 9 December 2005 the Istanbul prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul Criminal Court of First Instance and accused a total of fifty-four police officers of the offence of causing injuries by exceeding the limits of their powers on the use of force. In this indictment forty-nine persons, including the applicant, were listed as victims and complainants. 23.  References were made in the indictment to a report which had been forwarded to the prosecutor on 28 April 2005 and which pertained to an investigation conducted by four senior police inspectors in the immediate aftermath of the events. According to the indictment, it was concluded in the inspectors’ report that seven of the fifty-four police officers named as “suspects” in the indictment had used excessive force against fifteen of the complainants and victims, including the applicant. The inspectors considered that the seven officers had not used their truncheons in accordance with the applicable regulations and had even kicked a number of female demonstrators who had already been neutralised. 24.  The trial which began before the Fourth Division of the Istanbul Criminal Court of First Instance (hereinafter the “trial court”) in 2005, was concluded on 12 May 2011. In its judgment the trial court held the following:
“According to the prosecutor’s indictment, the victims and complainants complained of having been injured when the defendant police officers kicked them and punched them and hit them with their truncheons and shields. They also complained of having been excessively sprayed with tear gas. They added that the defendants had been wearing gas masks and hiding the identification numbers on their uniforms. Furthermore, the attacks had taken place very suddenly and when they had already been affected by tear gas. Thus, they could not identify the police officers individually.
The defendant police officers submitted that they had not committed the offence with which they were charged. They maintained that the demonstrators had been harming public order by insisting on continuing with the reading out of their press release as well as by attacking the police with iron bars. They maintained that the force used by them against the demonstrators had not been disproportionate.
Six of the defendants accepted during the preliminary investigation stage that they had kicked the demonstrators from behind. However, the lawyers defending these defendants submitted during the trial that those self-implicating statements had been taken from the police officers by the inspectors under duress and as a result of the press coverage of the incidents. The inspectors questioning the police officers had thus acted contrary to the applicable procedure. The defendants also maintained that, although the medical reports would establish that the incidents had taken place, they were insufficient to establish the identities of the police officers. Thus, the victims should have been required to identify them first. They also added that the offence in question were time-barred and the proceedings against them should have been discontinued.
In his final submissions during the trial the prosecutor agreed with the defendants and argued that the defendants should be acquitted because the victims had been unable to identify the police officers.
The court finds that the defendants’ objections based on the statute of limitations should be rejected. Proceedings against them will be time-barred five years after the last defence submissions were made by them on 8 September 2006.
It must be stressed that the large numbers of defendants and victims, coupled with the fact that this was a large-scale incident, resulted in delays in obtaining all the evidence. The trial was also delayed as a result of the defendants’ covering their faces with helmets and not displaying their identification numbers.
Having examined the video footage of the events, as well as the reports and witness statements, the court finds that it is not possible to expect the victims to identify the police officers who attacked them because it is not possible to recognise the police officers in the video footage.
The inspectors who had questioned the police officers were also heard in the course of the trial proceedings and they confirmed the authenticity and accuracy of the statements they had taken from the police officers. One of the principles of criminal law is that witnesses are presumed to be telling the truth, unless their testimonies are contradicted by official documentation. There are no such documents in the file to discredit the statements taken from the police officers by the inspectors. On the contrary, their statements are corroborated by the video footage which shows the punching, kicking, hitting with truncheons and shields, and using an excessive amount of tear gas.
At the root of this incident is the freedom to express opinions which is guaranteed in the Constitution, and the question whether or not that freedom should be restricted in order to maintain public order. In the Saraçhane area, which is one of the two locations where the incidents took place, the police did not interfere in the demonstration until the demonstrators started walking on the road where there was traffic circulation. That intervention was thus made with a view to maintaining public order. [However] the video footage [also] shows the police intervention against the people who had already surrendered themselves to the police or who had been hiding in bushes after having been sprayed with tear gas. This happens not on the road but off it.
In Beyazıt Square, the other location of the demonstrations, the video footage shows a scuffle between the police and demonstrators carrying banners. The footage also shows the police kicking and hitting with their truncheons and shields persons ­– mostly women – who try to run away from the scene and who are not carrying any banners.
The above-mentioned statements taken from the police officers by the inspectors show that:
- the defendants M.C. and A.O.P. had kicked from behind two female demonstrators who had in their hands nothing to pose a danger to the two officers;
- the defendant S.B. used excessive force against a woman who had taken refuge in a café;
- the defendant C.U. hit a female demonstrator on her shoulder and broke one of her bones;
- the defendant Y.K. kicked a demonstrator who had been trying to seek help from the police after having been sprayed with tear gas; and
- the defendant E.B. kicked a person who had already been arrested.
In light of the foregoing it is accepted that some of the defendants exceeded the limits of their powers on the use of force and used excessive force.
...”. 25.  The trial court concluded in its above-summarised judgment that the police officers M.C., A.O.P., S.B., Y.K. and E.B. had used excessive force against the demonstrators and committed the offence of ill-treatment defined in section 245 of the Criminal Code then in force (Law No. 765). It sentenced these officers to terms of imprisonment ranging from five to ten months. The officer C.U., who was found to have broken a bone of one of the demonstrators, was found guilty of the offence of causing grievous bodily harm while using his powers as a public official, an offence defined in section 86 § 3 of the Criminal Code now in force (Law No. 5237), and sentenced to twenty-one months’ imprisonment. The remaining forty-eight defendant police officers were acquitted for lack of evidence. 26.  According to the information provided to the Court by the Government on 10 November 2011, the criminal proceedings against the police officers were discontinued on 8 September 2011 on account of the statute of limitations.