4.  The applicants were born in 1978 and 1980 respectively and live in Istanbul. 5.  On 29 July 2001 the applicants were arrested on suspicion of having participated in an illegal demonstration which took place in Ümraniye. They were subsequently taken to the Ümraniye Security Directorate. 6.  According to the arrest reports drafted by the police officers and signed by the applicants on the day of the incident, in Ümraniye a group of fifteen people closed the main street to traffic by blocking the side streets with dustbins, and they initiated a protest rally. They were carrying torches and shouting slogans in support of the PKK[1]. When they noticed that policemen were approaching, they started to run away. The first applicant, who was identified by the police as one of the protesters, was arrested on the spot. The second applicant was arrested following a chase. The police prevented him from being lynched. It was further noted in the arrest report that the second applicant’s lip was injured. 7.  Following his examination by a doctor at the Haydarpaşa Numune Hospital, the medical report dated 29 July 2001 concluded that the second applicant had an abrasion on his upper lip and a 5-15 centimetre hyperaemia on the right side of his chest. It was noted that it was necessary to consult cardiothoracic and ear, nose and throat specialists. 8.  Thereafter, the applicants were handed over to the Anti-Terrorism Department of the Istanbul Security Directorate. 9.  On 31 July 2001, upon the request of the Anti-Terrorism Department, the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court prolonged the applicants’ detention in police custody until 2 August 2001. 10.  On 1 August 2001, the public prosecutor extended the applicants’ detention for three more days. 11.  The applicants were taken to the Forensic Medicine Institute for medical examinations both in the evening of 3 August 2001 and in the morning of 4 August 2001. The medical reports drafted on these dates concluded that there were no signs of blows on the applicants’ bodies. 12.  On 4 August 2001 the applicants were taken before the public prosecutor, where they denied all the allegations made against them. They contended that they had been forced to sign police statements without reading their contents. Later on, the applicants were taken before a judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. The first applicant contended that, although there were no marks on her body, she had been tortured in police custody. The second applicant maintained that police officers had hit him, pulled his hair and insulted him. He confirmed, however, the outcome of the medical report dated 3 and 4 August 2001. The court ordered their detention on remand. 13.  On 6 August 2001 another doctor at the Forensic Medicine Institute drafted a report concerning the second applicant. The doctor noted that, in view of the findings in the report of 29 July 2001, she could only draft a final report after the applicant had been examined by chest and ear, nose and throat specialists. Subsequently, the public prosecutor ordered the applicant’s transfer to a hospital for a medical check-up. The report dated 8 August 2001, given by the ear, nose and throat clinic of the Sağlamcılar State Hospital, concluded that he was in good health. 14.  On 7 August 2001 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment, charging the applicants with aiding and abetting the PKK under Article 169 of the Criminal Code. 15.  On 1 November 2001 the first hearing was held before the Istanbul State Security Court. The court gave a decision of non-jurisdiction and transferred the case file to the Ümraniye Criminal Court of First Instance. Moreover, considering that the applicants had permanent residences, it ordered their release pending trial. 16.  On 16 February 2004 the Ümraniye Criminal Court of First Instance acquitted the applicants on account of lack of evidence. 17.  On 22 August 2001 the applicants’ lawyer filed two separate petitions with the Fatih public prosecutor, complaining about the applicants’ ill-treatment during their arrest and detention in police custody. He maintained that the first applicant had been beaten, cursed and threatened with rape in police custody. In the petition regarding the second applicant the lawyer argued that the police had intentionally remained passive when people had tried to lynch him. Moreover, he complained that the applicant had been blindfolded, insulted and beaten up. His testicles had been squeezed and his nose and mouth had been covered in order to create a fear of suffocation. He had been forced to clean the floors of the Security Directorate. Additionally, the lawyer noted that both applicants complained that the doctors had not properly examined them, and that they had been unable to complain of their injuries as the police officers were present in the room. 18.  The Fatih public prosecutor initiated an investigation against the four police officers who were allegedly responsible for the ill-treatment of the applicants. On 5 March 2002 the public prosecutor gave a decision of non-prosecution, holding that the second applicant’s injuries, noted in the medical report dated 29 July 2001, had been caused by the people who had attempted to lynch him prior to his rescue and arrest by the police. Furthermore, he concluded that there was no evidence in support of the applicant’s allegations. On 25 March 2002 the second applicant filed an objection against the decision of non-prosecution. On 6 May 2002 the Beyoğlu Assize Court dismissed his objection. 19.  On 9 August 2002 the public prosecutor gave a decision of non-prosecution in respect of the police officers who were allegedly responsible for the first applicant’s ill-treatment, on account of lack of evidence. On 3 September 2002 she filed an objection against this decision. On 17 December 2002 Beyoğlu Assize Court dismissed her objection.