5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Diyarbakır. 6.  On 25 February 2008 a group of people, including Members of Parliament, gathered in Diyarbakır to make a press statement against military operations that were being conducted by the Turkish security forces. According to the police records, the security forces had been informed of the demonstration and had taken the necessary measures beforehand. The records noted that following the statement and the speeches made by the Members of Parliament, the crowd started marching and shouting slogans praising the imprisoned leader of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation). After some members of the group attacked police officers with stones, the security forces intervened, as a result of which the crowd dispersed, damaging a number of shop fronts on their way. The records stated that a few hours later the demonstrators regrouped once again, this time setting trash containers on fire and blocking traffic. 7.  During the latter part of the events, the applicant was arrested together with four other people, three of whom were throwing stones at police officers, according to the arrest and seizure report drawn up by those officers later on. The report did not indicate anything as regards the acts conducted by the applicant except for stating that she had been taken to the Çarşı police station with the others. 8.  The applicant alleged that during her time at the said police station, she was insulted, severely kicked and beaten until she was transferred to the Diyarbakır Training and Research Hospital, where she underwent a medical examination. The medical report drawn up afterwards indicated that the applicant had skin abrasions on her lower and upper lips, several red patches (erythema) on her legs (six or seven measuring 2x7 cm above her right knee, two with a 6 cm diameter above both her knees, two or three measuring 2x6 cm below her right knee, and another two or three of 2x5 cm on her left leg), swelling and erythema of 2x3 cm on her nose and her right cheek bone. 9.  On the same day, the applicant was examined for a second time, this time by a doctor at the Diyarbakır Branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute. The medical report issued afterwards maintained that the applicant had claimed to have been beaten, taken to hospital several times and given serum there. It further stated that she had several bruises on different parts of her body (one measuring 20x30 cm on her right thigh, one of 8x4 cm above her right knee, one of 8x10 cm on her left thigh, one measuring 15x4 cm on her left leg, and one of 2x0.5 cm below her right eye) and that various parts of her head, chest and waist were painful to the touch. There were no bone fractures on the body or the skull, no trauma inside the skull and no major lesions, either vascular or on the internal organs. The report finally established that the injuries caused to the applicant were not life-threatening, but could not be treated with simple medical attention. 10.  Following the medical examinations, upon an order of the Diyarbakır public prosecutor, the applicant was taken to the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Diyarbakır Security Directorate. 11.  The next day, on 26 February 2008, the applicant was transferred to the Diyarbakır Training and Research Hospital once again, where she was examined by a doctor and underwent two blood tests and an ultrasound. 12.  On 27 February 2008 two medical reports were drawn up in respect of the applicant: one noting the signs of physical violence on her body, the other stating the results of the ultrasound test. According to the former report, there were widespread bruises on the front of the applicant’s legs and another bruise below her right eye. That report concluded that there were no newly sustained injuries on her body. As for the latter report, it stated that the ultrasound performed on the applicant had revealed a cyst of 2 cm on her right ovary. 13.  The applicant was released three days later, on 28 February 2008. A medical report issued by the Mevlana Health Clinic just before her release indicated the same findings as those of the previous report and noted that the applicant had widespread bruises on her legs and one bruise under her right eye. 14.  On 3 March 2008 the applicant filed a complaint with the Diyarbakır public prosecutor’s office. She maintained that, while she had been walking towards the gathering to find her son and get him to come away from it, she had been hit with a truncheon on her face by police officers, who had then dragged her along by the turtleneck collar of her sweater in such a way that she had choked. She alleged that at the Diyarbakır Çarşı police station, where she had been kept with four other people, she had been insulted, kicked and beaten with truncheons and clubs. She also stated that the ill-treatment had only taken place at the police station and that she had no complaints against the police officers at the Anti-Terrorism Branch. 15.  On 5 March 2008, upon the request of the Diyarbakır public prosecutor, a doctor at the Diyarbakır Branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute drafted a preliminary report, summarising the findings of the first two medical examinations performed on the applicant. 16.  On 25 July 2008 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor requested a detailed forensic medical report from the Forensic Medicine Institute. 17.  Subsequently, on 7 August 2008 a final forensic medical report indicating the findings of the applicant’s medical examinations was submitted to the public prosecutor. That final report noted that although there were no bone fractures on the applicant’s body and the injuries found had not put her life at risk, they were not so light as to have been able to be treated with simple medical attention. 18.  On 24 September 2008 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute. On the basis of the arrest and seizure report drafted by the police officers and the indictment issued against the applicant, he stated that the injuries on the applicant’s body seemed to have been caused by force lawfully employed by the officers during her arrest, which had been within the scope of their duties. Referring to the final forensic medical report, he further stated that the injuries had been able to be treated with simple medical attention. Accordingly, he concluded that there was no concrete evidence in support of the applicant’s allegations that members of the security forces had ill‑treated and insulted her. 19.  The applicant lodged an objection against the public prosecutor’s decision. 20.  On 30 December 2008 the Siverek Assize Court rejected the applicant’s objection, holding that the police officers concerned had not exceeded the limits of legal force. In reaching that decision, the court noted that according to the medical reports drawn up in respect of the applicant, the injuries on her body had been able to be treated with simple medical attention. That decision was served on the applicant on 29 January 2009. 21.  On 24 March 2011, upon the request of the Diyarbakır public prosecutor to that effect, the Siverek Assize Court annulled the decision not to prosecute and held that criminal proceedings should be initiated against the police officers concerned under Articles 86 and 256 of the Criminal Code (Law no. 5237), for intentionally causing bodily harm to the applicant in excess of the limits of legal force. The court stated that following the Court’s communication of the applicant’s case to the respondent Government, it had been realised that the Diyarbakır public prosecutor had mistakenly noted that the injuries on the applicant had been able to be treated with simple medical attention, whereas the medical reports had actually indicated otherwise. 22.  Subsequently, on 7 April 2011 the police officers involved in the alleged acts were invited to the Diyarbakır public prosecutor’s office to give statements. 23.  The proceedings against the officers appear to be pending. 24.  On 19 March 2008 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Diyarbakır Assize Court, accusing the applicant of disseminating propaganda on behalf of the illegal organisation, the PKK, and committing crimes on its behalf without being a member of that organisation, pursuant to section 7 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713) and Articles 220 and 314 of the Criminal Code respectively. 25.  On 11 May 2010 the Diyarbakır Assize Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced her to seven years of imprisonment.