5.  The applicant, Mr Abdullah Yaşa (“A.Y.”), a Turkish national, was born in 1993 and lives in Diyarbakır. He was thirteen years old at the time of the events to which the present case relates.
 A.  The 29 March 2006 incident 6.  Following the deaths of fourteen members of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party) during an armed clash on 24 March 2006, numerous unlawful demonstrations took place in Diyarbakır between 28 and 31 March 2006, during which eleven demonstrators died. In particular, two persons, namely T. Atakkaya and M. Mızrak, were killed by tear-gas grenades in the course of these events. 7.  On 29 March 2006 A.Y., who was at the scene of a demonstration, was injured in the nose by a tear-gas grenade fired by the police while he was allegedly on his way to his aunt’s house. He was taken to the Diyarbakır public hospital the same day. 8.  On 5 April 2006 A.Y. left hospital, where he had undergone an operation for a maxillo-facial trauma on the day of his arrival, according to the discharge report. 9.  On 14 April 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Diyarbakır public prosecutor’s office (the “public prosecutor’s office”) against the police officers of the Diyarbakır security police headquarters, alleging assault and abuse of power. He explained that he had been hit directly on the nose by a tear-gas grenade. 10.  On 2 August 2006 the public prosecutor’s office interviewed the applicant and his father and mother. A.Y.’s father said that he had been at work at the time of the incident and demanded the conviction of the police officers responsible for the assault on his son. 11.  In her depositions the same day, A.Y.’s mother stated that she had been at home at the time of the incident, and she also demanded the conviction of the police officers responsible for her son’s injuries. 12.  In substance, A.Y. himself testified as follows: while on his way to his aunt’s house he had been hit on the nose by an object as he was watching the police officers. At the time of the incident he had seen the helmeted police officers shooting a projectile in his direction by means of a shoulder-borne device. He had been unable to identify his exact position at the time of the incident, nor had he previously seen anyone throwing objects at the police officers. He did not think that the police officers could have shot at him without noticing his presence, since they had seen him when he had been in the street. He did not know the police officer who had shot at him. He requested the identification and punishment of this officer. He had been taken to hospital by a stranger. 13.  His lawyer, having confirmed his statements, requested the formulation of a forensic report and the submission of medical reports from Diyarbakır public hospital. He also requested the identification of the police officers involved on the day of the incident. 14.  On 6 November 2007 the public prosecutor’s office issued the following decision not to prosecute:
“... It emerged from the inquiries launched after the complaint ... that A.Y. had not been injured on his way to his aunt’s house. According to video recordings ... and photographs ... the complainant was injured during a demonstration in which he had been actively participating by chanting slogans in support of the PKK terrorist organisation and its leader Abdullah Öcalan, and throwing stones, sticks and Molotov cocktails at the police officers.
Consequently, the police officers were not criminally liable because they had acted in self-defence within the meaning of Article 25 § 1 of the Criminal Code, and in the exercise of their functions as set out in Article 24 of the same Code. [They] had shot tear-gas grenades in order to disperse the demonstrators who had gathered illegally and were attacking the officers by throwing stones, sticks and Molotov cocktails.
In the light of the foregoing comments ... no action is required against the police officers accused of overstepping the bounds of the use of force ....” 15.  On 13 November 2006 the Diyarbakır Department of Forensic Medicine issued a medical report reading as follows:
“... A.Y. underwent operations on a haemorrhage, a facial oedema, a fractured nose bone and a series of concave incisions.
Conclusion:
The patient cannot be treated by means of a straightforward operation,
His condition is not life-threatening,
The bone fractures constitute moderately severe damage to the applicant’s vital body functions.” 16. On 3 December 2007 the applicant appealed to the Siverek Assize Court (“the Assize Court”) against the decision not to prosecute. He denied his alleged participation in the demonstration in question and argued that the video recordings and photographs on which the decision not to prosecute had been based in no way constituted sufficient evidence of such participation. 17.  By a decision of 31 December 2007, served on the applicant on 10 March 2008, the President of the Assize Court dismissed the appeal. It considered that the police officers’ acts had remained within the framework of the law, since the officers had not acted intentionally but had merely endeavoured to discharge their duties. 18.  It emerges from the case-file that an investigation was automatically launched in respect of the applicant for his alleged participation in an illegal demonstration. On 28 November 2007, as part of this investigation, he was questioned by the public prosecutor’s office. The relevant parts of his statements may be summarised as follows:
“I completely reject the charges levelled against me. [On the day of the incident] I had left home to visit my aunt, who lives in Bağlar, when I saw a group of police officers near the street where the clinic is located. The officers launched a tear-gas grenade, which hit me in the nose. I had eight days of medical treatment in hospital. I had been alone during this incident, I had not thrown any stones, sticks or Molotov cocktails at the police officers, I did not chant slogans supporting the terrorist organisation, and I reject the photographs taken, the video recordings and the police reports. I agree to have a medical check-up.” 19.  On 25 February 2008 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant on charges of membership of a terrorist organisation, propaganda in support of that organisation and resisting the police. 20.  In his submissions on the merits of the case the public prosecutor sought the applicant’s acquittal for lack of evidence. He stressed in particular that it was not possible, on the basis of the images studied by the Ankara criminal police laboratory, to establish that the applicant had taken part in the demonstration in question. 21.  On 10 July 2008, the Assize Court endorsed the prosecutor’s arguments and acquitted A.Y. According to the case file, in the absence of an appeal on points of law, that judgment became final. 22.  During proceedings before the Court, the Government produced a CD-ROM containing a police video recording. The CD-ROM shows several phases of the demonstrations which took place in Diyarbakır on 29 March 2006, and contains images of the period before and after the launching of the tear-gas grenade which injured the applicant’s head. It also shows that most of the demonstrators were teenagers, some of them with their faces covered, who were throwing stones. Moreover, it is clear that the event took place on a very busy boulevard. Some sequences show the applicant among the demonstrators, although it cannot be clearly ascertained that he was taking part in the demonstration. In the course of the events it can be seen that the applicant has been hit by a tear-gas grenade. Although it is impossible to make out exactly how the police officer fired the tear-gas grenade, it would appear from its impact that it was a direct, flat-trajectory shot (that is, it had been fired horizontally, or else at an angle of under 45o), rather than a high-angle shot (where the launcher is aimed as high as possible so that the tear-gas grenades explode in the air and break up before falling back to earth, thus preventing injuries to demonstrators in the event of an impact).