5.  The applicants were born in 1970, 1924, 1955 and 1957 respectively. The first applicant lives in Istanbul, the second and third applicants live in Erzincan and the fourth applicant lives in Neunkirchen (Austria). The first applicant is the wife, the second applicant is the mother and the third and fourth applicants are the brothers of Mr Süleyman Yeter, who was born in 1962 and died on 7 March 1999. 6.  On 22 February 1997 Mr Süleyman Yeter was taken into police custody at the Istanbul Security Headquarters on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the MLKP (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party). He was subjected to torture while in custody. On 6 March 1997 Mr Süleyman Yeter was remanded in custody by a judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. 7.  On 10 March 1997 Mr Süleyman Yeter filed a complaint with the Fatih public prosecutor against the police officers who had tortured him during his detention. Subsequently, on 4 July 1997 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed an indictment against nine officers before the Istanbul Assize Court, accusing them of ill-treatment under Article 243 of the Criminal Code. Mr Yeter joined the case as an intervening party. 8.  In the meantime, on 8 October 1997 he was released from detention on remand. 9.  At a hearing on 2 March 1999 the Istanbul Assize Court decided to confront the accused police officers and the plaintiffs at the next hearing, to be held on 29 April 1999. 10.  On 5 March 1999, the police raided the office of the magazine Dayanışma (Solidarity)[2] in Istanbul. Mr Süleyman Yeter and four others who worked for the magazine were arrested and taken into custody by police officers from the anti-terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate. 11.  On the same day, a medical report taken from the Haseki State Hospital certified that Mr Süleyman Yeter bore no signs of ill-treatment. 12.  On 7 March 1999 Mr Süleyman Yeter collapsed while his statement was being taken by deputy superintendent A.O. and police constable M.Y.; he died on the way to the hospital. 13.  The same day, the Fatih public prosecutor examined the state of the room where Süleyman Yeter had collapsed and checked the custody register. An incident report drawn up by him and two police officers noted that nothing had been erased from the custody records. He also took statements from officers A.O. and M.Y., who had been present. 14.  On 8 March 1999 a post-mortem of the body was conducted in the presence of the public prosecutor and the family’s lawyers. The examination revealed wounds to the forehead and chin, and extensive bruising to the rest of the body. 15.  On the same day, the applicants submitted a petition to the Fatih public prosecutor’s office, requesting that the prosecutor hear testimonies from the persons who had been detained at the same time as Mr Süleyman Yeter in the detention unit. 16.  On 9 March 1999 the applicants’ lawyers filed a complaint with the Fatih public prosecutor’s office against H.O. (the Istanbul police commissioner), A.C. (the deputy to the commissioner of the Istanbul anti-terrorism branch), and S.K. (the director of the anti-terrorism branch), as well as the police officers who had allegedly detained and interrogated Mr Süleyman Yeter. They argued that the two senior police officers were the hierarchical superiors of those officers who had tortured and killed Mr Süleyman Yeter. They further stated that, for the proper administration of the investigation, all these persons should be suspended from duty in order to prevent the possible destruction of evidence. They also requested that the public prosecutor bring criminal proceedings against these persons and that they be remanded in custody, having regard to the nature of the offence. 17.  On the same day, an administrative investigation was launched by the Ministry of the Interior and three chief police officers were appointed as inspectors to investigate the incident. The inspectors heard statements from the police officers of the anti-terrorism branch who had been on duty at the time of the incident. 18.  On 10 March 1999 the Fatih public prosecutor took a statement from E.E., a co-detainee of Mr Süleyman Yeter at the anti-terrorism branch, who testified that one or two days after his arrest, the police officers had brought Mr Süleyman Yeter into his cell. Upon entering the cell, Mr Süleyman Yeter told him that he had been suspended by his arms and tortured. Later that day, the officers had taken Mr Süleyman Yeter from the cell again. He never returned. The following day, E.E. had told a police officer that Süleyman Yeter’s coat was left in the cell. The officer responded: “He does not need a coat anymore!” E.E. added that he would definitely be able to recognise that officer. 19.  On 11 and 25 March and 2 and 4 June 1999 the Fatih public prosecutor took statements from ten police officers who had allegedly been involved in the arrest and questioning of Mr Süleyman Yeter, including A.C. and S.K., their hierarchical superiors. They all denied their involvement in Mr Süleyman Yeter’s questioning. Some of them alleged that they had only taken Mr Süleyman Yeter upstairs from his cell, which was why their signatures were on the custody records. 20.  A.C. stated that on 5 March 1999 S.K. had telephoned and informed him about the arrest of four persons from the Dayanışma magazine. He had immediately ordered that the detainees undergo a medical examination. On 7 March 1999, at around 7.30 a.m., S.K. had called him about the death. A.C. maintained that, as chief police officer, he was not involved directly in questioning but only supervised such occasions. He added that he had been targeted because of his position in order to intimidate him. S.K.’s statement was identical. 21.  On 18 March 1999 the applicants’ lawyers further petitioned the Fatih public prosecutor’s office. They cited five other people (B.N., E.O., I.Y., H.K. and E.Er.), who had allegedly witnessed the events. They requested that the public prosecutor take statements from these people. Apart from E.E., who had previously been interviewed by the Fatih public prosecutor, no statements were taken from these persons at that time. 22.  On 28 April 1999 the doctors who had conducted the post-mortem examination submitted their autopsy report. The report noted numerous grazes, lesions and bruises on twenty-five different parts of Mr Süleyman Yeter’s body. The report was then referred to the First Committee of Experts of the Forensic Medicine Institute in order to determine the precise cause of death. 23.  On the same day, B.N., one of Mr Süleyman Yeter’s fellow detainees, made an official complaint to the Fatih public prosecutor’s office. Stating that he had been placed in the cell next to Mr Süleyman Yeter, he maintained that he had seen the police officers take Süleyman Yeter from the cell in the evening of 5 March and bring him back the following morning. It was evident that Mr Süleyman Yeter had been tortured. B.N. confirmed that Mr Süleyman Yeter had again been taken out of his cell that afternoon. On 9 March 1999 he himself, together with other detainees, was brought before the investigating judge, where he learned that Mr Süleyman Yeter had died. 24.  On 28 July 1999 the First Committee of Experts of the Forensic Medicine Institute submitted its report, which confirmed the findings of the autopsy examination, such as the scars, scratches and bruises on different parts of Mr Süleyman Yeter’s body. It also noted fractures and bleeding in the bone and cartilage of the neck. The report concluded that these findings were consistent with the definition of torture given in the World Health Organisation’s Tokyo Declaration and that, on the basis of an assessment of all the findings, the death had occurred as a result of mechanical asphyxia caused by trauma to the neck area. 25.  On 5 August 1999 the Fatih public prosecutor drew up a report in which he recommended that the Istanbul public prosecutor initiate criminal proceedings against sixteen police officers who had been on duty at the anti-terrorism branch at the time of the events in question, including their superiors A.C. and S.K., under Article 243, Article 452 § 1 and Article 463 of the Criminal Code. He concluded that a separate complaint should be made in respect of H.O. (the Istanbul police commissioner) in view of his high office. 26.  On 18 August 1999 the Istanbul public prosecutor returned the report to the Fatih public prosecutor. In his covering letter he stated that, according to the file, some of the accused had been appointed to other branches of the security directorate prior to the incident, whereas others had only taken Mr Süleyman Yeter from the cell to the questioning room. He also stated that the chief police officers’ involvement in the incident was not clearly defined in the report. He maintained that, considering the seriousness of the incident, all of Mr Süleyman Yeter’s fellow detainees should be interviewed, that a confrontation should be carried out and that evidence enabling the establishment of a causal link between the act of torture and the death should be collected in order to identify those who had interrogated Mr Süleyman Yeter. 27.  On the same day, as a result of the administrative investigation conducted by the chief police inspectors, deputy superintendent A.O. and two police constables, M.Y. and E.Er., were suspended from duty, as it was considered inadvisable to allow them to remain in their posts. 28.  On 23 August 1999 the chief inspectors submitted their investigation report to the competent disciplinary board. They opined that A.O., M.Y. and E.Er. had been responsible for Mr Süleyman Yeter’s death. They also concluded that these police officers should be punished by dismissal from the force, in accordance with section 8 of the Police Force Disciplinary Regulations, on the grounds of allegedly committing the offence of torture. The report was forwarded to the competent disciplinary board. On 29 December 1999 the Central Disciplinary Board decided that no further action should be taken on the file because it fell under Amnesty Law no. 4455. 29.  On 16 September 1999 the Fatih public prosecutor submitted a second report to the Istanbul public prosecutor, in which he accused four police officers, A.O., M.Y., E.Er. and a certain S.Yz., of torturing and killing Mr Süleyman Yeter. He further issued a decision not to prosecute twelve other officers on the ground of insufficient evidence. 30.  On 29 September 1999 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court against three of the aforementioned police officers (A.O., M.Y. and E.Er.), accusing them of murder as a result of ill-treatment, under Article 243 and Article 452 § 1 of the Criminal Code. He decided not to prosecute S.Yz. 31.  On 28 October 1999 the applicants challenged the Fatih public prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute before the Beyoğlu Assize Court. In their application, they maintained that some of the accused should at least be liable for dereliction of duty as they were the superiors of the defendant police officers, whilst others were members of the team which had questioned Mr Süleyman Yeter and, therefore, had been in direct contact with him. On 19 June 2000 the Beyoğlu Assize Court dismissed that objection. 32.  On 4 November 1999 the Ministry of Justice decided not to take further action in the prosecution of H.O. (the Istanbul police commissioner). 33.  On 29 November 1999 the Istanbul Assize Court commenced the trial of the three police officers. The applicants and their lawyers requested and were granted permission to intervene in the proceedings as complainants. They further asked the court to remand the accused in custody. On the same day, the court issued arrest warrants in absentia for the defendant policemen. 34.  On 30 November 1999 the Istanbul Assize Court asked the Istanbul Security Directorate to provide it with a list of the police officers who had been on duty at the material time. The court also heard evidence from the applicants as intervening complainants. On 10 February 2000 the Security Directorate provided the names of ten police officers who had been on duty between 5 and 7 March 1999. 35.  On 7 April 2000 two of the defendant police officers, E.Er. and M.Y., surrendered to the police. The court took statements from them on 17 July 2000. 36.  In his statement, E.Er. submitted that he had been working as a driver at the anti-terrorism branch. He stated that the day before the incident, at around 7.30 p.m., A.O. had asked him to take Mr Süleyman Yeter from his cell and hand him over to A.O. on the fourth floor. E.E. maintained that this was why his signature was on the custody record. The Istanbul Assize Court asked him two further questions regarding inconsistencies between his current statement and those made earlier to the public prosecutor and the chief police inspector. He maintained the current version given to the court, and denied ever having participated in the questioning of Mr Süleyman Yeter. 37.  M.Y. recounted that, on 7 March 1999 at 7 a.m., A.O. had told him that a statement had to be taken from Mr Süleyman Yeter. Accordingly, Mr Yeter had been brought to the statement room by police officers and seated next to A.O. behind M.Y., who was sitting in front of the computer. He submitted that, when typing Mr Süleyman Yeter’s identification details, he had heard a noise behind him. Turning round, he saw that Mr Süleyman Yeter had collapsed. He had immediately been taken to hospital. M.Y. further maintained that he had been working as a typist at the anti-terrorism branch and that he had never seen Mr Süleyman Yeter before that morning. He added that A.O. had been in charge of the questioning of Mr Süleyman Yeter, and had already questioned the deceased several times by 7 a.m. that morning. M.Y. partially denied the content of the statement he had made to the public prosecutor. He maintained that he had not actually been asked by the chief police inspector to give a statement. He was told that a statement had been drafted on his behalf which was consistent with that of A.O. He was unable to question the content of that statement as it was his superiors who had asked him to sign it. 38.  E.Er. and M.Y. were released pending trial on 12 March 2001 and 19 November 2001 respectively. 39.  At the hearings on 17 July, 11 September, 23 October and 4 December 2000, the Istanbul Assize Court heard statements from the police officers whose names had been mentioned in the letter of 10 February 2000 as witnesses.[3] Some of them stated that Mr Süleyman Yeter had been in good health when they had seen him. Others said that they had assisted their colleagues in taking him to hospital after his collapse. 40.  On 11 June 2001 the applicants’ lawyers asked the court to broaden its investigation. In their application they requested the court to:
–  inspect the crime scene and conduct an on-site investigation;
–  find out whether Mr Süleyman Yeter’s clothes had been examined after his death and, if not, ask the Fatih public prosecutor why;
–  ask whether a video recording of Mr Süleyman Yeter’s questioning had been made and, if so, obtain it; and
–  hear evidence from the chief police commissioners who had been in charge of the anti-terrorism department.
The court dismissed these requests except for the one concerning the video recording. 41.  During the hearing on 11 October 2001, the court noted that Mr Süleyman Yeter’s questioning had not been recorded. 42.  On 1 November 2002 the applicants submitted their written observations to the Istanbul Assize Court, drawing the court’s attention to the inadequacy of the preliminary investigation. They further requested the court to:
–  lodge a complaint against the officers who had failed to comply with the arrest warrant and find A.O. (the fugitive defendant);
–  sentence the accused police officers, pursuant to Article 450 § 3 of the Criminal Code, for having committed a brutal murder;
–  bring proceedings against the hierarchal superiors of the defendants; and
–  order that the defendants who had been released pending trial be remanded in custody in view of the vicious nature of the crime. 43.  On 27 November 2002 the public prosecutor concluded that E.Er. should be acquitted and M.Y. convicted, pursuant to Article 243, Article 452 § 1 and Article 463 of the Criminal Code. 44.  On 1 April 2003 the Istanbul Assize Court, in the absence of the accused, acquitted E.Er. because of insufficient evidence and convicted M.Y. of the unintentional killing of Mr Süleyman Yeter. M.Y. was first sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. This sentence was subsequently reduced to five years because the offence had been carried out by two or more people and the main perpetrator had not been identified. The court further reduced this sentence to four years and two months’ imprisonment because of M.Y.’s good conduct during the hearings. It also disjoined the case against the fugitive defendant, A.O. 45.  The applicants appealed against the judgment. The public prosecutor and the defendants also appealed. 46.  On 3 November 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Istanbul Assize Court. The proceedings against A.O. are still pending before the latter. 47.  The convicted police officer M.Y. was arrested on 28 February 2005 and was conditionally released on 19 March 2005. 48.  In the meantime, on 6 March 2000 the applicants applied to the Ministry of the Interior, claiming compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage they had suffered as a result of Mr Süleyman Yeter’s death. 49.  On 27 March 2000 the Ministry dismissed their claim. The applicants brought an action for compensation against the Ministry of the Interior before the Istanbul Administrative Court. 50.  On 31 March 2003 that court partially allowed the applicants’ claim and awarded the first applicant, Ms Ayşe Yeter, 22,012,913,956 old Turkish liras (TRL) and the second applicant, Ms Sırma Yeter, TRL 1,262,162,871 for pecuniary damage. The court also awarded all of the applicants a lump sum of TRL 35,000,000,000 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained by them. The applicants appealed against that decision. 51.  On 11 January 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of the first-instance court as regards non-pecuniary damage and upheld the judgment in respect of pecuniary damage. According to the information provided by the parties, the case is currently pending before the Istanbul Administrative Court and no payment has yet been made to the applicants.