6.  The applicant was born in 1972 and resides in Sakarya. 7.  The applicant is a Russian citizen of Chechen origin. He left his country in 1993 and arrived in Turkey, where he was granted a residence permit. He claimed that in view of the ongoing armed conflict in his country of origin, he would face extrajudicial killing, imprisonment or death by torture if he were to be deported or extradited there. 8.  On 9 May 2010, following an order issued by the Bakırköy public prosecutor, the police arrested the applicant at Istanbul Atatürk International Airport on suspicion of illegal entry into Turkey with a false passport. 9.  At 8.15 a.m. on 10 May 2010 the applicant was questioned by the police at the airport. He was subsequently detained at the airport police facility for three days without any judicial order to that effect. He submitted that he had been kept in an overcrowded room. 10.  On 12 May 2010 the police took the applicant to the Kumkapı Removal Centre for Foreigners (“the Kumkapı Removal Centre”) pending his deportation. 11.  The applicant alleged that he had been detained in unhygienic, unhealthy and overcrowded conditions at the Kumkapı Removal Centre. 12.  On 29 September 2010 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a complaint with the Istanbul public prosecutor’s office against police officers from the foreigners’ department of the Istanbul police headquarters alleging that he had been unlawfully detained by State officials. He also complained about the conditions of detention at the Kumkapı Removal Centre, particularly overcrowding, insufficient ventilation and poor hygiene. 13.  On 30 September and 4 October 2010 the applicant’s lawyer filed petitions with the Ministry of the Interior and the Istanbul governor’s office requesting the applicant’s immediate release, claiming that his detention was unlawful. 14.  On 4 October 2010 the applicant’s lawyer also applied to the Istanbul Magistrates’ Court for the applicant’s release, challenging the lawfulness of his detention. 15.  On 13 October 2010 the police released the applicant from the Kumkapı Removal Centre on condition that he applied for the renewal of his residence permit. 16.  On 6 December 2010 the Istanbul governor’s office decided not to examine the applicant’s complaint regarding his detention. 17.  On 10 January 2011 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against that decision. He pointed out, inter alia, that on 19 October 2010 he had requested to be provided with the content of the applicant’s file and that on 8 November 2010 he had been given only a limited number of documents. He submitted that some documents had not been provided as they had been classified as “confidential” and that such practice by the police was not prescribed by law. 18.  On 15 March 2011 the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court quashed the decision, holding that the governor’s office had to decide on whether authorisation should be granted for the prosecution of police officers at the Kumkapı Removal Centre. 19.  On an unspecified date the Istanbul governor’s office decided not to authorise the prosecution of the police officers. Subsequently, on 13 September 2011 the Istanbul public prosecutor decided to terminate the investigation opened at the applicant’s request. In his decision the public prosecutor noted that the applicant had been banned from entering Turkey and that he had been apprehended with a false passport. He further noted that the applicant had not been imprisoned but remanded in custody pending his deportation.