4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Ardahan. 5.  At the time of the events the applicant was a shopkeeper and the chairman of the Ardahan Branch of the Democratic People’s Party (DEHAP). He was also involved in a local campaign to highlight the social and environmental impact of an oil pipeline to be built by a State company. 6.  On 5 May 2004, while the applicant was passing by the Ardahan police station, a policeman asked him whether he was Ferhat Kaya. He was then taken into the station, where he was told that a warrant had been issued for his appearance at a court hearing the following day and was asked for his ID documents. The applicant then called a friend, Mr B.A., and informed him that he was at the police station. Subsequently, he was taken for a medical examination. At 6.30 p.m. the applicant was examined by a doctor at Ardahan State Hospital, who noted no signs of ill-treatment on his body. 7.  After his return, the applicant was allegedly subjected to insults, and was told that he supported the PKK and that he was a traitor. According to the applicant, he lost consciousness when was taken to a meeting room and he could not recall how a glass door had shattered. He was allegedly pushed by a police officer and fell on the broken glass and was beaten and kicked by five or six police officers as he was lying on the floor. According to him, one of the police officers pointed a rifle at him and said that he was going to shoot him. During the incident, the applicant’s friend, Mr B.A., was also present at the police station. According to his statement taken by the police on the same day at 7.30 p.m., Mr B.A. had brought a packet of cigarettes to the applicant. He then heard a policewoman ordering the applicant to hand over his personal belongings and to sign a document. He heard the applicant refuse. The applicant was then dragged into another room by several police officers and during the scuffle the applicant fell down. Mr B.A. heard the glass door shatter but did not see how it happened. 8.  At 7.30 p.m. the same day, the applicant was taken for another medical examination and was re-examined by the same doctor at the Ardahan State Hospital, who found the following injuries: a cut measuring 0.5 cm on the inside of the right wrist, a superficial cut on the outside of the wrist, a small graze on the third and fourth fingers of the right hand, redness around the left wrist, 10 cm x 2 cm of redness on the right side of the back (scapula region), redness on the right shoulder and a number of small patches of redness around the right side of the back. It was also reported that the applicant was unfit to work for three days. During the medical examination, the police officers remained in the room. 9.  According to a report drafted at 8 p.m. and signed by thirteen police officers, the applicant was invited to the police station, while he was passing by, in order to establish his work and home address in accordance with the instructions of the Erzurum Enforcement Court dated 4 March 2004. He refused and started shouting that they could not do anything to him and that he was the chairman of the DEHAP. The police officers called the public prosecutor, who ordered the applicant’s arrest. As a result the applicant was taken for a medical examination. Upon his return, the applicant, when asked to put his personal belongings on the table, became aggressive and started to shout and threaten the officers and to throw his clothes about. The applicant punched the glass door, causing it to shatter, started hitting his head on a table and tried to hurt himself with broken glass. In order to prevent him from hurting himself, he was handcuffed and was later on taken for a medical examination. 10.  On the same day, the police officers drafted official documents regarding the incident. A number of them gave written statements complaining about the applicant’s behaviour. 11.  On 6 May 2004, at 9.30 a.m., the applicant was examined by a doctor, who noted a superficial graze below his right wrist. 12.  On 6 May 2004 the applicant was brought before the Ardahan Magistrates’ Court. He denied the accusations against him and reiterated the submissions he had made to the prosecutor. The court remanded him in detention. Subsequent requests by the applicant for release were refused on 7 and 11 May 2004 respectively. 13.  On 14 May 2004 criminal proceedings were instigated against the applicant for defamation, using physical violence against police officers in the course of their duties and destroying State property. 14. On 23 May 2004 the applicant was released pending trial. 15.  On 7 May 2007 the Ardahan Criminal Court found the applicant guilty of defamation of a police officer under Article 258 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to 10 months’ imprisonment. The court further found the applicant guilty under Article 516 of the Criminal Code of destroying State property and sentenced him to 3 months and 10 days’ imprisonment. 16.  On 5 June 2008 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court for a reconsideration of whether the pronouncement of the judgment could have been suspended for a period of five years pursuant to Article 231 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure. 17.  The case was accordingly remitted before the first-instance court, which on 20 November 2008 decided that Article 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code could not be applicable in the applicant’s case as he had a previous criminal record. It accordingly repeated its previous judgment and found the applicant guilty as charged. 18.  On 19 December 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant’s conviction in respect of destroying State property. However, in respect of the offence of defamation of a police officer, the appeal court found that the statutory time-limit had expired. It accordingly dismissed the case in that respect. 19.  On 10 May 2004 the applicant filed an official complaint with the Ardahan public prosecutor, complaining of ill-treatment in police custody on 5 May 2004, and requested the identification and prosecution of the police officers responsible. 20.  On 11 May 2004 the Ardahan public prosecutor heard evidence from the applicant. The latter also identified six police officers from photographs. 21.  Between 12 and 15 May 2004 the Ardahan public prosecutor heard evidence from the accused police officers, who denied the accusations against them. 22.  On 13 May 2004 the Ardahan public prosecutor heard evidence from Mr B.A.. In his statement, Mr B.A. explained that he had seen the applicant being beaten and that he himself had been threatened, sworn at and hassled when he had gone to take cigarettes to the applicant at the police station. He explained that when the applicant refused to sign the list of his personal belongings, a policeman started shouting and swearing at him. The applicant resisted and shouted as well. When a police officer pushed the applicant, he fell down and several police officers started hitting the applicant in his stomach and back. Mr. B.A. explained that he had not seen how the glass door had been broken. He stated that he also wished to file a complaint against the police officers who had sworn at him. 23.  On 17 May 2004 the Ardahan Public Prosecutor filed an indictment with the Ardahan Criminal Court against eleven police officers from the Ardahan Security Directorate, accusing them of ill-treating the applicant and Mr B.A.  The applicant did not join the criminal proceedings as a civil party.  On 7 July 2004 Mr B.A. informed the court that he wished to withdraw his complaint against the police officers. 24.  Throughout the trial, the police officers denied the accusations. They stated that when the applicant had been asked to hand over his personal belongings, he had become angry and started shouting at them. According to the accused police officers, when the applicant tried hitting a policewoman, he was taken to the meeting room. There, the applicant continued his threats, shouting that he would kill them all once he was out. He also broke the glass door, and said he would accuse all of them with ill‑treatment. 25.  On 22 September 2004 the Ardahan Criminal Court acquitted the police officers of the charges against them on the ground of lack of evidence. In its decision the court held that the injuries noted in the second medical report dated 5 May 2004 had been sustained when the applicant had resisted the police officers. The court therefore held that the evidence in the case file did not suffice to convict the accused officers. This judgment, which was delivered in the applicant’s presence, became final on 30 September 2004 as no one appealed against it. The applicant, having failed to intervene in the proceedings as a civil party, did not have the right to appeal according to the Criminal Procedure Code.