4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Adana. 5.  In 1995 the applicant's daughter joined the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party), an illegal organisation. The applicant alleges that, since then, the police have raided her house and harassed and threatened her many times. 6.  The applicant claims that on 19 November 1999, around midnight, three persons who introduced themselves as police officers from the anti‑terrorism branch of the Adana Security Directorate had entered her house, stuffed her scarf in her mouth and beaten, threatened and sexually harassed her. She alleges that the officers had finally raped her by inserting a truncheon in her vagina and that she had passed out following the rape. 7.  On 22 November 1999 the applicant went to the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (hereinafter “the foundation”) where she gave a description of the ill-treatment she had received at the hands of the police officers and complained in particular of pain in the genital area and vaginal bleeding. However, as the obstetrician was unavailable at the time, the applicant was given an appointment for 30 November 1999. She was nonetheless examined by a doctor who noted that there was a severe sensitivity on the applicant's abdomen. 8.  The applicant claimed that on 28 November 1999 her house was raided again by police officers. She was told that they would kill her and her children if she were to lodge an official complaint about the previous incident. They then allegedly broke the picture frame in which the applicant kept her daughter's photograph and one of them had put a gun to the applicant's head and had taken her money. 9.  On 30 November 1999 and 2 December 1999 the applicant was examined by Dr A.Ö. (the obstetrician) at the foundation. The doctor observed a perineal hernia and cysto‑rectocele on the applicant's genital organs. She further observed that the applicant's uterus was bigger and harder than normal. The doctor noted that, given the lapse of time, it would not be possible to see any marks of rape on the body. She also noted that, indeed, there were no such traces. 10.  On 30 November 1999 the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist at the foundation who diagnosed that she was suffering from an acute stress syndrome and major depression. The doctor opined that the applicant's psychological problems were linked to the trauma she had allegedly experienced. 11.  On 3 December 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor's office in Adana, requesting the prosecution of the three plain-clothed police officers at the anti-terrorism branch of the Adana Security Directorate. The applicant gave a description of the events of 19 and 28 November 1999 which she claimed had been perpetrated by the same three police officers. As regards the details, the applicant submitted that one of them had spoken to her in Kurdish only and had said that he was from Urfa. The applicant further noted that the police officer who had pointed a gun at her stomach was tall, thin and had thinning hair. Finally, the applicant maintained that she had been harassed by police officers since 1995, but she had been too afraid to lodge an official complaint. 12.  On the same day, the Adana public prosecutor took statements from the applicant in which she reiterated her allegations of ill-treatment and complained about the police officers from the anti-terrorism branch. 13.  On 7 December 1999 the applicant was examined by three doctors from the Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics at Çukurova University Hospital in Adana, who noted that her genital organs did not bear any injury resulting from physical violence. 14.  On 8 December 1999 a senior official of the anti-terrorism branch of the Adana Security Directorate took a statement from the applicant. 15.  On 9 December 1999 the applicant was examined by Dr B.S. at the Adana Forensic Medicine Institute. The doctor noted that the applicant had prolapsus uteri and a few old tears in the hymen. However, he found no fresh traumatic lesions on the applicant's genital organs. 16.  On 27 December 1999 the applicant applied to the Adana Security Directorate where she gave a statement with the help of her son, who acted as her interpreter. In her statement the applicant claimed that two persons claiming to be policemen - one with a walkie-talkie, the other with a rifle – had came to her house at around 6 p.m. and told her that they knew she had complained about them. She stated that she had never seen them before. They had entered her house, ripped up her medical reports, broken the framed picture of her daughter and destroyed her “green card”[1]. They had then threatened her and beat her up. The applicant indicated that none of the photographs shown to her by the police were the perpetrators. In addition, the applicant gave a short description of the two men and stated that they both had beards. One of the men had spoken Kurdish to her and she thought he might be from Urfa. Finally, the applicant submitted that these persons had not shown her their identification and that she was suspicious as to whether they really were policemen. She requested that these men be found. 17.  On 3 February 2000 the applicant made statements before the Adana public prosecutor with the help of her lawyer, who acted as an interpreter. The applicant stated that, prior to the events in November 1999, the police officers who used to come to her house and ask about her daughter had never resorted to physical force, but that they had always given her misleading information about her daughter. As regards the impugned events, the applicant stated, inter alia, the following:
“On the night of 19 November 1999, I was tricked into opening the door as they said that they were Osman and Şefik, my brothers-in-law. The three people who entered the house said they were from the anti-terrorism branch and they pulled my headscarf over my mouth. They were carrying Kalashnikovs. They asked for my daughter and said they were going to kill me and my children...One of them spoke Kurdish and said that he was from Urfa. The one who was tall and thin, with white skin and black hair, strangled me with an iron cord. One of them, who I cannot describe, took off my baggy trousers and pants. I fainted from shame and fear when the other inserted a truncheon into my sexual organ... When I woke up they were searching the house. They found money underneath the bed and took it with them... When my son arrived he took me to a private doctor. This doctor did not draw up a report but gave me medicine and an injection. As I was not getting better he took me to the doctors at the Human Rights [foundation]... These same three people came to my house on 27 December 1999 and said that it was not good that I had complained about them...they called their superior and a police patrol came to pick us up. My son Teyfik was next to me... At the police station, an officer named Erkan was nice to us... I was sent to the hospital. The doctor said, without examining me, that there was nothing wrong with me. After this date I was not harassed.” 18.  Between 21 and 22 February 2000, the prosecutor questioned two senior police officers at the anti-terrorism branch of the Security Directorate and a policeman who had taken the applicant's statement on 27 December 1999. The senior police officers denied the accusations regarding the anti‑terrorism branch and affirmed that their personnel were ready to proceed with an identification procedure. 19.  On 31 March 2000 the applicant was invited to the Adana Security Directorate to take part in the identification procedure. 108 police officers from the anti-terrorism branch of the Adana Security Directorate entered the identification room in groups of ten. The public prosecutor, the applicant and her son, the applicant's lawyer, a senior police officer, a paralegal and a police officer, Mr M.R.C., who was sworn in as the official interpreter, were present. According to the identification protocol the applicant and her son identified Mr R.G. as one of the people who had entered their house. However, at this point the prosecutor decided that the applicant's son should be taken out of the identification room since he was acting in an agitated manner. The applicant once again stated to the prosecutor that R.G. was one of the persons who had entered her house on 28 November 1999. She said that, as R.G. and the two others had claimed to be journalists, she had opened her door. She further stated that she had seen R.G. but had not seen the others' faces. She maintained that R.G. took the money under her mattress. When asked about the contradictions with her previous submissions, the applicant stated that she might have been confused. She reiterated that R.G. had stolen her money on 28 November 1999, but he had not ill-treated her at all. 20. On 3 April 2000 the Adana public prosecutor sent a letter to the Istanbul University Hospital, requesting information regarding the applicant's state of health. 21.  On 7 April 2000 the prosecutor questioned Mr R.G., the identified police officer, who denied the accusations against him. In particular, he stated that he did not know the applicant or her house, and that he had seen her for the first time during the identification procedure. He pointed out that the applicant's son had told her to identify him. In this respect, Mr R.G. stated that he understood a little bit of Kurdish. G. stated He suggested that, since he had arrested the applicant's son six months ago, he might have told his mother to identify him to revenge a grudge. He further noted that he had worked in the neighbourhood for the past three and a half years and that not everyone liked him. Finally, he referred to the fact that the applicant's statements during the identification contradicted her earlier submissions. 22.  On 17 April 2000 Dr Ş.Y., the director of the Psychiatry Department of the Faculty of Medicine at Istanbul University, informed the Directorate of the Faculty of Medicine that the applicant had been seen on 26 February and 24 March 2000. She was diagnosed as suffering from a post‑traumatic stress syndrome and she was undergoing treatment. Dr Ş.Y. also submitted the protocol established in this connection. 23.  On 25 April 2000 the deputy director of the Faculty of Medicine forwarded the letter of 17 April 2000 to the Adana public prosecutor. 24.  On 23 May 2000 the Adana public prosecutor issued a decision of non‑prosecution concerning Officer R.G. In his decision, the prosecutor noted, in particular, that the applicant's allegations and version of events were inconsistent and contradictory. He further noted that the medical reports did not record any traces of ill‑treatment on the applicant's body. Finally, it found that the applicant had been under the influence of her son in the course of the identity parade on 31 March 2000. 25.  The applicant objected to the aforementioned decision of the prosecutor. 26.  On 3 July 2000 the Tarsus Assize Court dismissed the applicant's objection. This decision was served on the applicant on 31 August 2000. 27.  The applicant claimed that she continued to be harassed by police officers at her house. In this respect, the applicant alleged that she was beaten and threatened on 26 May 2000, 1 April 2001 and 10 June 2001. As regards the first incident, the applicant lodged a complaint with the prosecutor who decided on 27 February 2001 not to initiate criminal proceedings on the ground that the applicant's allegations were unsubstantiated. The prosecutor noted that the applicant repeatedly refused to see a doctor. As to the second incident, the applicant applied to the foundation and the doctor who had examined her found that her physical pains were psychosomatic and referred her to a psychiatrist, who prescribed antidepressants. As regards the last incident, the applicant applied both to the foundation and a State hospital. The medical reports issued by these institutions noted various bruises on the applicant's body and stated that she was still suffering from an acute post-traumatic stress syndrome and that this diagnosis was consistent with the applicant's allegations of ill‑treatment and torture. 28. On 29 April 2003 the applicant petitioned the Adana public prosecutor's office, complaining that she had been harassed by the police. She claimed that on 23 April 2003 a number of police officers had entered her house and threatened to kill her if she did not withdraw her application to the European Court of Human Rights. She submitted that she had been beaten up when she refused to sign a document. The applicant also maintained that on 28 April 2003 a number of police officers had taken her for a car ride which lasted two hours, during which time she was told to withdraw her application to the Court. 29.  On 3 January 2005 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation. On 5 January 2005 she was remanded in custody. On 14 January 2005 the criminal proceedings against the applicant commenced. On 7 March 2005 the court ordered the applicant's release pending trial. On an unspecified date the Adana Assize Court convicted the applicant of aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation and sentenced her to three years and nine months' imprisonment.