5.  The applicants were born in 1970 and 1979 respectively and live in Istanbul. They are the sister and wife of Ş.Y., allegedly a member of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal organisation. 6.  On 28 November 1997, at 1 a.m. and 4 a.m. respectively, the applicants’ separate flats were raided by police officers from the anti‑terrorist branch of the Istanbul Police Headquarters. They were looking for Şabettin Yeşilmen. Subsequently, they took him and the applicants and their children into custody. 7.  The applicants and their children were subjected to ill-treatment both when at their flats and when they were taken to the police headquarters. In particular, Gülçin Bozdemir, who was pregnant at the time, was stripped naked, beaten, insulted and threatened with the killing of her children. She lost her baby as a result of the ill‑treatment deliberately inflicted on her by the police officers. She concealed this for cultural reasons and never mentioned it until after the application was communicated to the Government. She was also forced to watch her brother being tortured. 8.  Maşallah Yeşilmen was insulted and threatened with the killing and torture of her children. She was beaten with a truncheon. She received blows to her hands and abdomen. She was stripped naked and threatened with rape in the presence of her husband. 9. On the same day, when Şabettin Yeşilmen confessed to the charges against him, allegedly as a result of the ill-treatment that he and his family members had suffered, the applicants and their children were taken home by the police. The detention of the applicants and their children at the Istanbul Police Headquarters was not recorded. 10.  On 2 December 1997 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Fatih public prosecutor’s office, claiming that they had been taken into custody on 28 November 1997 and subjected to ill-treatment at the Istanbul Police Headquarters. 11.  On the same day, Gülçin Bozdemir was examined by a doctor from the Istanbul branch of the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey, who observed a purple bruise measuring 8 x 5 cm on her upper left arm, a purple bruise of 6 x 2 cm on her left biceps, a purple bruise of 4 x 4 cm on her right biceps, a purple bruise of 7 x 5 cm and a yellow-green bruise of 3 x 2 cm on her left thigh, and a purple bruise of 3 x 4 cm on her left foot. The doctor diagnosed Gülçin Bozdemir as suffering from, inter alia, soft tissue trauma, an upper respiratory tract infection and an acute stress disorder. On 28 July 1998 a committee of three doctors from the same organisation drafted a medical report on Gülçin Bozdemir’s medical examination and concluded that the diagnosis of soft tissue trauma and acute stress disorder was consistent with the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, and that it was possible that the applicant’s upper respiratory tract infection was the result of the alleged ill-treatment. 12.  On 3 December 1997, at the request of the Fatih public prosecutor, the applicants were examined by a doctor at the Istanbul branch of the Institute of Forensic Medicine. The doctor reported the following in respect of Maşallah Yeşilmen:
“There are purple and yellow bruises on the left palm. She complains of pain in her neck.”
As regards Gülçin Bozdemir, the doctor reported the following:
“Purple-green bruises of 3 cm and 2 cm in diameter are observed on the left and right biceps respectively. There are also purple‑green bruises of 1.5 cm and 2 cm in diameter on the left thigh and left foot.” 13.  The doctor certified Gülçin Bozdemir and Maşallah Yeşilmen unfit for work for three days and one day respectively. 14.  On an unspecified date Şabettin Yeşilmen contended before the court which tried him that his sister, Gülçin Bozdemir, had been tortured in front of him when he was in police custody. 15.  On 13 April 2000 the Fatih public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute six police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul Police Headquarters. In his decision, the public prosecutor noted that there was no evidence, such as an arrest report, or documents containing statements by the applicants or witnesses, in support of the applicants’ allegation that they had been taken into police custody on 27 and 28 November 1997. He therefore concluded that there was insufficient evidence to commit the police officers for trial in connection with the applicants’ allegations of ill‑treatment. 16.  The decision of 13 April 2000 was not served on the applicants or their representatives. The applicants’ representatives obtained the decision from the Fatih public prosecutor’s office in October 2002. 17.  On 30 October 2002 the applicants lodged an objection against the decision of 13 April 2000. In support of it, they submitted the report dated 28 July 1998 concerning Gülçin Bozdemir’s medical examination (see paragraph 11 above). 18.  On 11 April 2003 the Beyoğlu Assize Court dismissed the applicants’ objection, holding that the decision of 13 April 2000 was in accordance with the law. 19.  On 3 December 1997 the applicants’ lawyer lodged a complaint with the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s office alleging that the applicants had been taken into custody on 27 November 1997 and had been subjected to ill‑treatment by the police officers on duty. The lawyer requested a medical examination of the applicants. 20.  On the same day, the applicants underwent medical examinations at the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute. The medical report issued by the doctors stated that Maşallah Yesilmen had an ecchymosis on her palm and Gülçin Bozdemir had bruises on her arms and left foot. 21.  On 4 December 1997 the applicants’ legal representative filed an application with the Fatih public prosecutor’s office in Istanbul complaining that on the night of 27 November 1997 the applicants had been arrested, together with their husbands, at their homes and had been taken to the Security Directorate by police officers from the anti-terrorist department. She alleged that the applicants had been beaten during the arrest in the presence of their children and that ill-treatment in the form of beatings, insults and threats had continued at the Security Directorate. Relying on the medical reports issued by the forensic doctor, she claimed that the applicants had been unfit for work for one and three days respectively. She thus requested the prosecuting authorities to carry out an investigation and to bring the police officers involved in the ill‑treatment to justice. 22.  The Fatih public prosecutor immediately commenced an investigation into the applicants’ allegations. In this connection, by letters of 8 December 1997 and 5 February 1998 he requested the Istanbul Security Directorate’s anti-terrorist department to furnish the statements taken from the applicants at the police station, together with the custody records and medical reports. He also asked for the names of the police officers who had taken part in the questioning of the applicants. The prosecutor also asked the Ümraniye Police Department to find the applicants and to ensure that they attended at his office. 23.  In a report dated 13 January 1998 a police officer, after visiting the applicants’ residences a number of times, noted that, according to information given by the neighbours, the applicants had not been living at their homes for the last two months. 24.  By a letter of 16 February 1998 the Security Directorate informed the Fatih public prosecutor that the applicants had not been taken into custody. The custody records were made available to the public prosecutor’s office. The logbook did not contain the applicants’ names. 25.  On 19 July 1999 the public prosecutor took a statement from the second applicant in relation to her allegations. She stated that on the night of 27 November 1997 she had been taken from her home and taken to the anti‑terrorist police department, where she spent three days. She had been beaten up, denied food, sexually abused and threatened with rape. The police officers had also spent a night in her house in the hope that members of the illegal organisation might visit her. 26.  The public prosecutor also took statements from the police officers who were on duty on 27 and 28 November 1997. The police officers all denied the allegations and claimed that they had not arrested or detained the applicants. 27.  On 13 April 2000 the Fatih public prosecutor issued a decision of non-prosecution in relation to the applicants’ complaints, on the ground that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations. He noted that there was no documentary evidence, such as an arrest report, custody record or witness statements, which could help prove the allegations. 28.  On 30 October 2002 the applicants’ lawyer filed an objection against the Fatih public prosecutor’s decision with the Beyoğlu Assize Court. 29.  On 11 April 2003 the Beyoğlu Assize Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal on the basis of the evidence contained in the investigation file and the reasons given by the Fatih public prosecutor. 30.  The Government furnished three reports concerning police operations carried out on 29 November 1997 subsequent to the killing of a police officer and the wounding of two others in a police patrol car in the Ümraniye district of Istanbul. 31.  According to the first report, which had the title “Arrest, search and seizure report”, police officers arrested a suspect, namely M.Ç., in relation to the aforementioned terrorist attack. The suspect told the police officers that he could show them the flat where members of the [PKK] terrorist organisation were staying. The police officers then raided that flat and arrested three people, namely Şabettin Yeşilmen, who was the owner of the flat, A.B. and H.D. The police officers searched the flat with the permission of Şabettin Yeşilmen but did not find anything illegal. 32.  According to the second and third reports, the suspects, Şabettin Yeşilmen and M.Ç., told the police officers that they could show them the locations where they had hidden the weapons used during the said attack. At a construction site shown to them by Şabettin Yeşilmen, the police officers found weapons, ammunition and hand grenades and seized them. The police officers then searched a house with the permission of the owner, A.B. They found more weapons, ammunition and a number of documents belonging to the illegal organisation, and seized them. 33.  The relevant pages of the custody logbook kept at the anti-terrorist police department of the Istanbul Security Department contain the names of the people taken into custody between 25 November 1997 and 3 December 1997. The list does not contain the names of the applicants. 34.  The relevant pages of the police duty logbook contain the names of the police officers who were on duty at the police station each day and night between 27 November 1997 and 1 December 1997. 35.  M.Ç., who was arrested on 27 November 1997 and spent seven days in custody at the anti-terrorist police department, alleged that he had seen both applicants in custody. He had seen them being tortured, insulted and sworn at during their transfer from their cell to the interview room. He stated that from his cell he had been able to hear the applicants’ screams while being tortured. This witness’s name appears in the custody log provided by the Government.
(b)  Statement by A.Y. 36.  The witness is the father-in-law of Şabettin Yeşilmen and the father of the second applicant. In November 1997, he had been with Şabettin Yeşilmen when police officers had raided the latter’s flat. He stated that his son-in-law and daughter had been beaten, arrested and severely beaten up by fifteen to twenty police officers and that they had then been taken to the anti‑terrorist police department on Vatan Street. He had later learned that they had been subjected to further torture during their detention.
(c)  Statement by Mehmet M.O. 37.  The witness, who is the nephew of Şabettin Yeşilmen, was at the latter’s flat on the night of the incident. He claimed that on the morning of 28 November 1997, at around 3.30 a.m., police officers had raided his uncle’s flat and, after severely ill-treating him and his wife (the second applicant), had taken them away by car. He had heard that his uncle and the second applicant had been subjected to torture while in police custody.
(d)  Ş.B.’s statement dated 24 April 2008 38.  The witness lives in the same neighbourhood as the second applicant. She is also a friend of the second applicant. She stated that on the morning of 28 November 1997, at 10 a.m., she had gone to visit the second applicant but there had been no one at home. When she had enquired as to the whereabouts of the second applicant, she had been told by the neighbour of the second applicant living on the second floor of the building that police officers had arrested Maşallah Yeşilmen along with Gülçin Bozdemir, her uncle, A.B., and Şabettin Yeşilmen. When released from custody, the aforementioned persons had borne the marks of severe torture.
(e)  Şabettin Yeşilmen’s statement dated 18 April 2008 and his allegations before the Istanbul State Security Court (in file no. 1997/512) 39.  The witness, who is currently serving his sentence in prison, is the brother of the first applicant and husband of the second applicant. He alleged that early in the morning of 28 November 1997 a number of police officers had broken into his flat, where he, his wife, children, father-in-law, sister, brother-in-law, and two nephews had been sleeping. He claimed that the police officers had severely beaten him and manhandled his guests. He had been arrested together with his sister Gülçin Bozdemir and his wife Maşallah Yeşilmen and had been taken to the anti-terrorist department. He had been insulted and severely tortured by the police officers during his detention. The police officers had tortured his wife and sister in front of him. They had further threatened to rape them if he did not confess to the charges against him. 40.  The witness alleged at the first hearing of the Istanbul State Security Court that while in police custody his sister and wife had been tortured in front of him in order to compel him to confess to the charges.