8.  The applicant is a Turkish national of Kurdish origin, resident in Diyarbakır. She is the wife of Mr Ali Tekdağ (A.T.), who disappeared in Dağkapı (Turkey) on 13 November 1994. 9.  The facts surrounding the disappearance of the applicant's husband are disputed. 10. The applicant's version of events is set out in Section 1 below. The Government's version is set out in Section 2. A list of the documents submitted by the parties and a summary of statements by the witnesses whose testimonies were heard by the Court's delegates at hearings conducted in Ankara are provided in Part B. 11.  On 13 November 1994 at about 11.00 a.m. the applicant and her husband A.T. went shopping in the village of Küçükkadı, in Diyarbakır. When they got off the bus at Dağkapı A.T. told the applicant that he had to attend to something and that she should wait for him for about five minutes. He went off in the direction of the bus station. 12.  A.T. returned less than two minutes later but, instead of coming to meet the applicant, he walked right past her without looking at her. When she called out to him, he said: “Don't come near me!”, made signs with his hands and walked into a street nearby. He was being followed by people with walkie-talkies and long-barrelled guns. 13.  There was gunfire and everyone, the applicant included, threw themselves to the ground. When the firing stopped, plain-clothed policemen arrived on the scene. They took A.T. into a nearby building and a few minutes later took him away in a white minibus. A.T. was bleeding from a head wound received when he threw himself to the ground. There was a military vehicle parked in front of a bank near the scene, but the soldiers inside did not intervene. A salesman called Mr Necmettin was an eyewitness to the incident. 14.  The applicant has not seen her husband since he was taken away by the police on that day. She alleges that a witness, Mr Seyfettin Demir, saw A.T. in custody at the Diyarbakır Headquarters of the Rapid Intervention Force while he himself was being held there and that in November 1994 other witnesses had seen A.T. in custody but were afraid to testify. 15.  On 16 November 1994 the applicant petitioned the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court for news of her husband, but was turned away by the police. She continued to submit petitions every day for thirty days until she was at last taken to see the Principal Public Prosecutor, Mr Bekir Selçuk. 16.  The applicant reported her husband's disappearance to Mr Selçuk who said he would deal with the matter. When she returned a few days later, he said he had yet to obtain information. The applicant explained that, according to an article in Özgür Gündem newspaper, witnesses had seen her husband in prison but they were afraid to testify. She indicated that Seyfettin Demir was, however, willing to make a statement. Mr Selçuk replied that he wanted to know the names of the other witnesses, adding that the security forces could not have abducted her husband. 17.  After forty days the applicant met the provincial governor Mr Doğan Hatipoğlu and explained the situation to him. Mr Hatipoğlu said he would make enquiries. When the applicant returned a few days later, he said he did not have the means to conduct an investigation. 18.  Some time later the applicant, accompanied by her daughter Nuran (aged 21), went back to see Mr Selçuk, who denied that her husband had been taken into custody and said that A.T. was responsible for numerous illegal acts. Mr Selçuk said that if A.T. had been taken into detention he would bring charges against those responsible. 19.  A.T. had previously been taken into custody by the Turkish security forces 19 times, on 17 of which he had been put in prison. He had changed his identity and assumed the name Mehmet Aslan to avoid being recognised, arguing that the police detained him whenever they saw the name “Tekdağ”. 20.   About seven months after A.T.'s disappearance, policemen raided the applicant's house. 21.  The first written request for an investigation into A.T.'s disappearance was signed by his mother and dated 5 January 1995. The request was addressed to the Provincial Governor of Diyarbakır, who forwarded it to the State of Emergency Bureau, which sent it to the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters. The latter issued a reply on 9 January 1995 denying that A.T. had been taken into custody. 22.  A letter from the Public Prosecutor's Office at the Diyarbakır State Security Court to the Ministry of Justice indicated that the applicant had been told that A.T. had never been taken into custody and that she would have received a written reply if she had asked for one in writing. 23.  A.T.'s illegal change of identity could indicate that he was still using a false identity and had joined the PKK terrorist organisation. 24.  The applicant's daughter was arrested on 7 November 1995 on charges of aiding and abetting the PKK.
An investigation into the death of the applicant's brother showed that he had been assassinated by the terrorist group Hizbullah. 25.  On 21 January 1996 the Evrensel newspaper published some news, issued by an anonymous source, according to which A.T. had been allegedly murdered while in the custody of the Armoured Brigade barracks in Silvan. The editor of the newspaper, interrogated on this point by the Public Prosecutor of Silvan, refused to disclose the identity of the source. 26.  The main investigation file concerning A.T.'s disappearance contains 108 documents, including instructions by the judicial authorities to the security forces to investigate, information provided by the security forces to the public prosecutors, and judicial decisions. 27.  The parties submitted various documents concerning the investigation into A.T.'s alleged abduction. The main documents of relevance are as follows:
(a)  The applicant's further applications to the authorities 28.  The applicant reiterated her allegations in two further documents:
(i)  A statement of 11 February 1995 regarding the disappearance of her husband;
(ii)  A statement of 22 March 1997 sent to the European Commission of Human Rights.
(b)  Documents from the domestic investigation 29.  The main file on the investigation into A.T.'s disappearance is the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor's preliminary investigation file no. 1998/130. It contains 108 documents. The six previous investigation files, which were finally incorporated into this file, are as follows:
(i)the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor's office file no. 1996/748 (this investigation ended with a decision of no jurisdiction ratione loci); 
(ii)the Silvan Public Prosecutor's office file no. 1996/70 (this investigation ended with a decision of no jurisdiction ratione loci); 
(iii) the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor's office file no. 1996/6950 (this investigation ended with a decision of no jurisdiction ratione loci); 
(iv) the Silvan Public Prosecutor's office file no. 1996/685 (this investigation ended with a decision to discontinue the prosecution);
(v)the Silvan Public Prosecutor's office file no. 1996/286 (this investigation began following the Ministry of Justice's intervention and ended with a decision of no jurisdiction ratione loci); 
(vi) the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor's office file no. 1996/7840 (this investigation ended with a decision of no jurisdiction ratione loci); 
(vii) the Silvan Public Prosecutor's office file no. 1996/286 (the investigation was reopened and ended with a decision of no jurisdiction ratione loci).
The main documents in the investigation file concerning A.T.'s disappearance are as follows:
(i) the Diyarbakır Security Directorate's letter of 9 January 1995 to the Governor's office in Diyarbakır;
(ii) the Diyarbakır Security Directorate's letter of 8 March 1995 to the Governor's office in Diyarbakır; 
(iii) the Diyarbakır Security Directorate's letter of 8 March 1995 to the Principal Public Prosecutor in Diyarbakır;
(iv) the Diyarbakır Security Directorate's letter of 20 March 1996 to the Principal Public Prosecutor in Diyarbakır;
(v) the Diyarbakır Provincial Gendarme Commanding Oficer's letter of 31 March 1996;
(vi) the Diyarbakır Principal Public Prosecutor's decision of 11 April 1996 to discontinue the criminal proceedings;
(vii) the Silvan Public Prosecutor's letter of 6 May 1996 to the public prosecutor in Diyarbakır, which states:
“Further to the investigation conducted by our public prosecutor's office in connection with the person named Ali Tekdağ, who is alleged to have been taken into custody in Diyarbakır on 13.11.1994, then taken to the Silvan Armoured Brigade Base and killed in custody, and in connection with the allegations contained in Hatice Tekdağ's attached application to the European Commission  of Human Rights,
1- please identify the police officers who were on guard duty at the Refah Party Diyarbakır Provincial Branch Office on the date of the incident and interview them about what they know or saw regarding the allegations; and 
2- interview the person named Seyfettin Demir, who is in Diyarbakır E-Type Prison as a convict or remand prisoner, about what he knows or saw regarding the allegations, and send the reply to this request to the principal public prosecutor's office. 06.05.1996. Three enclosures.”
(viii) the Silvan Public Prosecutor's letter of 21 June 1996 to the public prosecutor in Diyarbakır, which states:
“We ask you again to please report further to our letter sent under the same number and dated 06.05.1996, requesting that the police officers on guard duty at the Refah Party Diyarbakır Provincial Branch Office be interviewed about what they know or saw in connection with the person named Ali Tekdağ, who is alleged to have been taken into custody in Diyarbakır on 13.11.1994, then taken to the Silvan Armoured Brigade Base and killed in custody, and that the person named Seyfettin Demir, who is in Diyarbakır E-Type Prison as a convict or remand prisoner, be interviewed about what he knows or saw regarding the allegations, and for the completed request to be returned to us.”
(ix) the Diyarbakır Principal Public Prosecutor's decision declining jurisdiction and transferring the file to the Principal Public Prosecutor in Silvan;
(x) Public Prosecutor no. 31618's letter of 6 September 1996 to the Diyarbakır Police, Public-Order Section, which states:
“This is a letter requesting that (1) the complainant whose full identity is given below be summoned to your office and, in view of her allegation in the enclosed letter entitled “To the Human Rights Project” that her husband has disappeared and has been seen by persons in custody, asked the full names and addresses of those persons; (2) since in the same letter the complainant alleges that Seyfettin Demir, who saw the complainant's husband while in custody, is in Diyarbakır E-Type Prison, that this person be summoned as a witness and interviewed in connection with the enclosed petition.
Complainant, Hatice Tekdağ. Address...
Seyfettin Demir, in Diyarbakır E-Type Prison as a convict or remand prisoner.”
(xi) the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor's letter of 18 September 1996 to the E-type Prison in Diyarbakır which states:
“To the E-Type Prison Warden's Office, Diyarbakır. Please arrange for Seyfettin Demir, who is on remand at the E-Type Prison of our province, to be produced in connection with the investigation.”
(xii) Public prosecutor no. 36866's letter of 6 February 1998 to the Diyarbakır Police, Public-Order Section ;
(xiii) Public Prosecutor no. 36866's letter of 13 April 1998 to the Diyarbakır Police, Public-Order Section; 
(xiv) Public Prosecutor no. 36866's letter of 27 September 1999 to the Diyarbakır Police, Public-Order Section;
(xv) Public Prosecutor no. 29010's letter of 15 October 1999 to the Security Directorate in Diyarbakır; 
(xvi) Mr Rana Yılmaz's letter of 5 November 1999 to the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor, Mr Hasan Şakrak; 
(xvii) Public Prosecutor no. 39945's letter of 9 November 1999 to the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court;
(xviii) Public Prosecutor no. 38172's letter of 10 February 2000 to the Diyarbakır Security Directorate; 
(xix) Public Prosecutor no. 39945's letter of 29 March 2000 to the Diyarbakır Public-Records Office; 
(xx) Public Prosecutor no. 39945's letter of 29 March 2000 to the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court. 30.  The Court held a hearing in Ankara on 13 and 14 October 2000 and took oral evidence from nine witnesses. 31.  The applicant repeated her previous statements. As regards her allegation that she had been intimidated by State agents on account of her application, she said she could not identify or describe the persons who had raided her house at night. She thought they were plain-clothed police officers. 32.  Mr Bekir Selçuk was the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court at the time. He did not remember having met A.T. or having carried out an investigation into his disappearance. He said that no incident involving gunfire such as the one described by the applicant had been referred to him or to his office on the date of the alleged incident. He found it inconceivable that members of the security forces would detain someone without informing the public prosecutor. During his two meetings with the applicant, he had merely informed her that her husband had not been taken into police custody in connection with a case that was being dealt with by his office. 33.  Mr Hasan Şakrak was the Public Prosecutor in Diyarbakır who had been in charge of the case since 1999. It was he who had conducted the investigation into the disappearance of A.T. and into the alleged intimidation of the applicant by police officers. His investigation file only contained testimonies from the applicant and her daughters, Yasemin and Remziye, in which they made no references to the other people who had allegedly witnessed both incidents. Mr Şakrak said that a large part of the documents concerning A.T. had never been handed over to him. He had never heard of Seyfettin Demir and the documents concerning Mr Demir were not in his investigation file. 34.  Mr Ramazan Sürücü was the Director of the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters at the time. He had no idea what role Seyfettin Demir had played in A.T.'s disappearance. He denied that A.T. had been taken into custody by his unit. He also stated that A.T.'s brother had been abducted and killed by Hizbullah and that his team had caught the killers. 35.  Mr Ahmet Duran Alp was the head of the Rapid Intervention Force at the time. There were approximately 400 uniformed officers in these units. He said he had never heard of A.T. 36.  Mr Necmi Çakar was the head of the Interrogation Unit of the Anti-Terrorism Branch in Diyarbakır, under Mr Ramazan Sürücü's orders. He said that A.T. had been taken into custody on various occasions and interrogated in connection with his links to the PKK. Mr Çakar knew that members of Hizbullah had murdered A.T.'s brother. He said that officers from the Interrogation Unit could use ordinary police cars and vehicles, including minibuses, with civilian number plates. 37.  Mr Hasan Şenay was the Deputy Director of the Police Headquarters in Diyarbakır. He had signed two letters to the applicant, indicating that A.T. had not been taken into police custody at the alleged time (the letters were not produced by the Government to the Court). The letters were consistent with the information contained in the police custody registers that were sent to the Headquarters by all the police departments. 38.  Mr Kürşat Kılıçarslan was a sergeant and head of the Pirinçlik Gendarme Station at the time. His deputy's name was G. Alp. It was gendarme practice to take statements from persons connected with incidents that occurred in their area of jurisdiction. The witness had no idea who A.T. was and did not remember the name. 39.  Mr Münir Büyükelçi was the Public Prosecutor in Silvan, and had for a certain period been responsible for the investigation into A.T.'s disappearance. He had taken a number of steps to elucidate the facts. He had taken statements from the complainants and from the editor of the Evrensel newspaper on A.T.'s alleged murder while in the custody of the Armoured Brigade barracks in Silvan. 
Mr Büyükelçi said that he had begun a serious in-depth investigation but, having received no replies to his queries, he had transferred the file to the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor. By letters of 6 May 1996 and 21 June 1996, he had invited the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor's Office to trace the police officers who had been on guard duty at the Refah Party office situated near the scene of the incident and the main witness, Seyfettin Demir. He had not received any notification that action had been taken further to his requests. It became clear from his statement that the information about Seyfettin Demir, who was recorded as being in prison in Diyarbakır in 1994, had never been transmitted to him. Furthermore, he had not taken any steps to hear testimony from possible witnesses to the event, such as residents of the district where the incident had occurred. 
Mr Büyükelçi was asked to examine the investigation file which was produced on the spot by the Government, and through his explanations, it became apparent that the Government had not submitted to the Court large parts of the investigation file.