5.  The applicants were born in 1982, 1982, 1968, 1967, 1966, and 1971 respectively. 6.  On 21 July 2005 Mr Erişen, Mr Demir and Mr Akgül were arrested and taken into custody by gendarmes at the Erciş District Gendarmerie Command on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). The same day, along with ten other persons, they were taken to the Erciş State Hospital and examined there by a doctor. According to the submissions of Mr Erişen, Mr Demir and Mr Akgül, during their examination gendarme officers were present in the room. The medical report issued at the end of the examination indicated that there were no signs of ill-treatment on the applicants. 7.  On 22 July 2005 Mr Erişen, Mr Demir and Mr Akgül were taken to the Erciş State Hospital for a medical check. The applicants were examined together with ten other persons, again in the presence of gendarme officers. The doctor noted no signs of ill-treatment on the bodies of Mr Erişen and Demir; however, he observed a swelling on Mr Akgül’s right eye. Mr Erişen, Mr Demir and Mr Akgül were subsequently brought before the Public Prosecutor and the investigating judge. In their statements, taken in the presence of a lawyer, they denied the charges against them. On the same day, on the basis of the evidence in the case file, the investigating judge ordered their detention pending trial. 8.  The other applicants, Mr Sekmen, Mr Kaplan and Mr Altay, were also placed in detention on remand, on 29 July, 1 August and 3 August 2005 respectively, on suspicion of membership of the PKK. 9.  On 26 July 2005 the representative of Mr Erişen, Mr Demir and Mr Akgül filed an objection against the decision dated 22 July 2005, which had ordered the applicants’ detention pending trial. On 29 July 2005 the court dismissed their request, without holding a hearing, having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file. On 8 August 2005 the applicants’ representative filed another objection against the latter decision, which was dismissed on 17 August 2005. 10.  On 4 October 2005 Mr Erişen, Mr Demir and Mr Akgül requested the Van Assize Court to order their release. On 6 October 2005 the court decided to release Mr Demir pending trial, but it rejected the requests of Mr Erişen and Mr Akgül having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file. 11.  On 21 November 2005 Mr Erişen and Mr Akgül applied to the Van Assize Court and requested to be released. On 22 November 2005 their request was rejected on the basis of the case file, and having regard to the nature of the offence and the state of the evidence. 12.  On 30 November 2005 the Van Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Van Assize Court against the applicants and fifteen other suspects, accusing them of aiding and abetting an armed illegal organisation. 13.  On 5 and 19 December 2005 respectively, Mr Erişen requested his release pending trial. On 7 and 19 December 2005 respectively, the Van Assize Court, relying on the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file, dismissed his request for release without holding a hearing. 14.  On 30 December 2005, 2 January 2006, 27 January 2006 respectively, Mr Erişen and Mr Akgül requested their release once again. Their requests were again rejected on the basis on the content of the case file and the state of the evidence. 15.  On 17 February 2006 Mr Sekmen, Mr Kaplan and Mr Altay were released pending trial. The remaining applicants, namely Mr Erişen and Mr Akgül, were released on 10 April 2006 pending trial. 16.  On 6 March 2009 the Van Assize Court acquitted all of the applicants of the charges against them. This decision became final on 16 March 2009. 17.  In the meantime, on 26 and 27 July 2005 respectively, Mr Erişen and Mr Demir wrote handwritten letters to the Erciş Public Prosecutor’s office, claiming in a detailed account that during their custody they had been subjected to ill‑treatment by the gendarmes. They requested to see a doctor. They did not receive any reply to their letters. On 29 July 2005, upon his request, Mr Akgül was examined by a doctor at Erciş State Hospital. According to the medical report, there was a 3x3 cm bruise on his right arm and a 2x3 cm bruise on his left arm, as well as sensitivity on the left side of his chest. Upon the request of the Public Prosecutor, photographs of the applicant’s injuries were taken at the prison. These pictures show extensive bruises on Mr Akgül’s arms. 18.  On 1 August 2005 Mr Erişen, Mr Demir and Mr Akgül lodged complaints with the Erciş Public Prosecutor’s office against the gendarmes who had allegedly ill-treated them in custody, and against the doctors who had examined them during this time, for failing to conduct a proper medical examination, and for conspiring with the gendarmes. In this connection, the applicants claimed that thirteen persons had been examined together in the presence of gendarmes. 19.  The Van Public Prosecutor initiated an investigation against the gendarme officers. In this connection, both Mr Erişen and Mr Demir gave statements to the Bitlis Public Prosecutor on 17 and 26 August 2005. They both stated that they had been ill-treated by the gendarmes during their custody period. Mr Erişen further explained that he had heard that two of the gendarmes’ names were Seydi and Orhan, and that Seydi spoke with an accent of the Black Sea region. 20.  On 22 and 26 August 2005 respectively, Mr Erişen and Mr Demir underwent a medical examination at the Bitlis State Hospital. No signs of ill‑treatment were found on their bodies. In November 2005, Mr Akgül underwent a medical examination at the Thoracic Surgery Department of the Van State Hospital. The doctor indicated Mr Akgül suffered from post trauma, and that with appropriate medication he would recover in 2 to 3 days. 21.  On 9 March 2006 Mr Akgül was taken before the Bitlis Public Prosecutor. The prosecutor showed the applicant fifteen photographs and asked him to identify the gendarme officers who had allegedly ill-treated him. The applicant was not able to recognise any of the gendarme officers. 22.  On 22 February 2007 Mr Demir applied to the Erciş Public Prosecutor and withdrew his complaint against the gendarme officers. He stated that he had alleged that he had been ill-treated because he had been suffering from depression after arrest. 23.  On 8 August 2008 the Erciş Public Prosecutor held that the ill-treatment allegations of Mr Erişen and Mr Demir were not supported by any medical report. He further underlined the fact that Mr Demir had subsequently withdrawn his complaint against the gendarme officers. Finally, the prosecutor noted that Mr Akgül had not been able to recognise the gendarme officers, who had allegedly ill-treated him, from photographs. He accordingly issued a non-prosecution decision. On 16 September 2008 the Van Assize Court dismissed the objections lodged by the applicants against the aforementioned decision. 24.  In the meantime, regarding the complaint lodged against the doctors, on 6 February 2006 the Public Prosecutor’s office asked the Erciş Provincial Administrative Council for leave to open an investigation against the doctors who had examined the applicants in custody. On 6 March 2006 the Council, relying on a report prepared by one of its members, refused leave to open a judicial investigation, on the ground that the allegations were unsubstantiated. On 8 May 2006 the Van Regional Administrative Court dismissed the objection lodged by the applicants and upheld this decision.  In the meantime, on 28 March 2006, the Erciş Public Prosecutor discontinued the proceedings against the doctors on the basis of the Administrative Council’s aforementioned decision. On 13 June 2006 the Van Assize Court dismissed further objections by the applicants to this decision.