5.  The applicants were born in 1938, 1938 and 1964 respectively and live in Istanbul. The first two applicants are the parents and the third applicant is the wife of Mr Taşkın Usta, who was shot dead by police officers at a flat in the Kadıköy district of Istanbul on 17 April 1992. 6.  According to the facts established by the Kadıköy public prosecutor, on 16 April 1992 following the receipt of an anonymous phone call stating that THKP‑C militants were preparing an assault, police officers of the anti‑terror branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate arrived, at around 11.00 p.m., in Çiftehavuzlar Cezmi Or Street, in the Kadıköy district of Istanbul. After securing the surroundings of an apartment building, the police officers knocked on the door of a flat on the 12th floor of the building, in the presence of the building manager and asked the suspects to open the door in order to check their identities. One of the suspects opened the door an inch and closed it immediately stating that he would bring the identity papers. The suspects then proceeded to hang the flag of the illegal organisation from the window of the flat and to shout slogans. They also set fire to some furniture in the flat. At that point the police were unaware of the number of suspects. An ambulance was brought to the scene. The suspects were told to surrender themselves and to open the door of the flat. 7.  However, the occupants of the flat refused to do so and opened fire. At this point, a team headed by Mr R.A., decided to enter the flat by force. At 2.30 a.m. the police tried to open the steel front door using an explosive material called cortex. A clash broke out between the three suspects, including Taşkın Usta and the police officers Mr R.A., Mr A.D., Mr I. S., Mr A.T, Mr A.U., Mr M.B.A, Mr A.Ç and Mr A.T. as a result of which Taşkın Usta and two other suspects died and Mr. I.S. was injured. 8.  The police officers then searched the flat and found nineteen different types and calibres of pistols, two hand grenades, cartridge clips, silencers, wigs, twenty-four percussion bombs, three wirelesses and a number of cartridges. Following the ballistic examination of the guns, it appeared that one of the pistols had previously been extorted from a night guard, K.T., in Eyüp district. 9.  The Kadıköy public prosecutor started an investigation into the events surrounding the circumstances in which Taşkın Usta and the two other suspects met their death. He took statements from all police officers who were on duty on the day of the incident. 10.  On 18 April 1992 an autopsy was carried out on the deceased by forensic experts at the Istanbul Cerrahpaşa Medical Faculty. According to the report, the body of Taşkın Usta bore forty-five bullet entry wounds, thirteen of which were fatal. The report concluded that nine of the shots had been fired at a long range but that a further examination needed to be conducted on the clothes of the deceased in order to determine the shooting range of the others. The report also stated that, according to the toxicology report, no foreign substance, such as alcohol or drugs, had been found in Taşkın Usta’s blood sample. The cause of death was determined as a fractured skull and ribs, internal bleeding and cerebral haemorrhage. 11.  In a ballistics report dated 28 April 1992, prepared by the criminal police laboratory following the examination of the pistols and cartridge cases collected from the scene, it appeared that the 141 Parabellum type 9 mm calibre cartridges, two Browning type 9 mm calibre cartridges and four Magnum type 44 calibre cartridges had been fired from the pistols of the deceased. 12.  On 18 May 1992 the Forensic Institute issued a report concerning the shooting ranges subsequent to the examination of the deceased’s clothes. The report concluded that the shots had been fired from a long distance. 13.  Between 18 January 1993 and 31 January 1995 a number of public prosecutors took statements from police officers who were on duty on 16 and 17 April 1992. 14.  On 18 April 1995 the Kadıköy public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Kadıköy Assize Court against nineteen police officers who took part in the operation. The charges were brought under Articles 450 § 5, 463, 251, 281, 49 § 1, 31 and 33 of the Criminal Code. The defendants were accused of manslaughter without the actual offender being identified. With an additional indictment of 28 March 1996 three other police officers were also charged with the same offence. 15.  At the first hearing held on 15 June 1995, the Kadıköy Assize Court decided to conduct the proceedings in camera given that a fight had broken out in the court room. 16.  On 3 June 1996 the Court of Cassation decided to transfer the case to the Kayseri Assize Court for security reasons. The criminal proceedings were conducted before the latter court which heard oral evidence from the accused police officers and witnesses. The accused claimed that the operation had been conducted in accordance with the law and that they had been compelled to use weapons since the militants had opened fire on them. 17.  On 13 July 2001 Kayseri Assize Court acquitted the police officers of all charges. In its decision, the court, referring to the evidence in the case‑file, (i.e. ballistics reports, incident report, firearms and bombs found in the flat, photographs taken after the incident, witness statements) found that the police officers had done everything in their power to capture the deceased alive and that they had fired their weapons only after the deceased had opened fire and for self-defence. It stated, inter alia, that the operation had lasted for more than nine hours and that throughout this time the police officers had repeatedly ordered the deceased to surrender. Relying on the evidence given by the witnesses and considering the mindset of the police officers during the operation, the court concluded that the police officers had had no intention to kill the militants since they had brought an ambulance to the scene of the incident before the operation and had asked them to surrender by megaphone several times. The police officers had opened fire only after the deceased had started firing on them. With reference to the ballistics report issued by the Forensic Institute, the court also found that the deceased had discharged 700 bullets and the police officers had discharged 420 bullets. It therefore opined that both parties had been equally armed during the clash and that they had both fired on each other. 18.  On 19 June 2002, the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 13 July 2001 on the grounds that there were procedural defects in the investigation. It noted in particular that the accused S.K. and A.T., whose defence submissions had been obtained by a rogatory judge, had not been asked whether they wished to be absent at the hearing. Furthermore, the first instance court had not given any response to the intervention request in so far as it concerns the accused A.Ç., S.T. and Y.K. 19.  On 21 October 2003, having remedied the procedural defects in the investigation, the Kayseri Assize Court again acquitted the police officers. The court found that the police team which carried out the operation had repeatedly asked the persons in the flat to surrender. However the deceased had shouted slogans and hung a flag of the organisation from a window. Then they had started a fire in the flat and opened fire on the police officers, following which a team led by R.A. had decided to enter the flat considering that the militants would not surrender. The police team had opened the flat door using an explosive. The militants had started firing on the police officers and the clash which followed had resulted in the death of the three militants. The police officers had found a number of documents belonging to the illegal organisation, weapons, ammunition and partly burned banknotes at the scene of the incident. The evidence submitted by the parties led the court to conclude that the police officers had acted in self‑defence. The fact that the operation had started at 11 p.m. and ended next day at 8 a.m. and that the militants had repeatedly been asked to surrender indicated that the police officers had had no intention to kill. The court attached importance to the fact that the police officers’ statements were consistent as regards the course of events. 20.  On 25 July 2005 the Court of Cassation upheld the above judgment. 21.  On 8 July 1992 the Pendik Magistrates’ Court declared the applicants legal heirs of Taşkın Usta. This decision became final on 9 July 1992. 22.  On 20 September 1994 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the confiscation of two cars and a flat registered under Taşkın Usta’s name pursuant to Article 36 of the Criminal Code. The applicants were a civil party to the proceedings and their objection to that decision was dismissed by the court on the ground that the impugned property belonged to and was used by the illegal organisation despite the fact that it was registered under the name of Taşkın Usta. 23.  On 22 May 1996 the Court of Cassation upheld the first instance court’s judgment.
a)  Civil proceedings brought by the applicants 24.  On 24 December 1997 the applicants filed an action with the Kadıköy Civil Court of First Instance (3rd Chamber) and requested the determination of the title to the confiscated flat and the two cars. 25.  On 24 June 1998 the first-instance court dismissed the applicants’ request holding that the applicants’ objections had already been dismissed by the State Security Court on the ground that the flat in question and the two cars were the property of the illegal organisation and that this decision had become final. On 2 March 1999 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and upheld the judgment of the first‑instance court.
b)  Civil proceedings brought against the applicants 26.  On 31 October 1997 the Ministry of Treasury filed an action with the Kadıköy Civil Court of First Instance (2nd Chamber) and requested the annulment of the title-deed of the confiscated flat. 27.  On 28 October 1998 the first-instance court, considering that the legal consequence of a decision of confiscation was the transfer of property rights, annulled the title-deed of the confiscated flat and ordered it to be registered under the name of the Treasury. In its decision the court noted that the applicants’ representative had failed to attend the hearings and that the decision had been taken in his absence. 28.  The applicants appealed against the judgment of the first-instance court. In their petition they submitted that the court had given a judgment without giving them the opportunity to prove their case and that it had not taken any decision as regards their request for an adjournment, submitted prior to the adoption of the judgment. 29.  On 27 April 1999 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. On 1 July 1999 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ request for rectification of its decision. This decision was notified to the applicants on 13 July 1999. 30.  A booklet published by the THKP-C in July 1992 described the events of 16-17 April 1992 and contained transcripts of telephone conversation between G.Ş. and the deceased Sabahat Karataş, who was a board member and the wife of the leader of the illegal organisation. The booklet, which was entitled “Our flag will fly all around the country”, praised socialism and stated that Taşkın Usta and the other two deceased had resisted the fascist forces for eight and a half hours. According to the transcripts in the booklet, Sabahat Karataş and Eda Yüksel stated, as relevant, the following:
“Sabo (Sabahat Karataş): Hello. They have surrounded the flat. I am together with two comrades. We have been keeping them busy for the last half an hour. We burned all documents in the bathroom. ... They will start firing soon. We are going to fight. We will join ... the martyrs of 12 July. My comrade wants to talk to you.
Eda: We will become martyrs for the fighters of Devrimci Sol and the people of Turkey. We are fine, very calm. As our comrades who embraced the death with a smile on 12 July in Kızıldere, we will also meet the death smiling and fighting...
Sabo: I was wounded in my arm. A bullet entered and exited. I can still fire. ..
Eda’s voice: Come with your tanks and cannons, cowards...
Sabo: They are trying to open the door with a bomb. We can’t come closer as the telephone is by the door. We are going back. They are entering...
Sabo: We are embracing death with guns in our hands and slogans.... Goodbye...
Intense gunfire can be heard on telephone...” 31.  The survey and assessment report dated 17 April 1992 described the course of events leading to the killing of the three militants and listed the guns, ammunition and the materials found in the flat. The report also described the bodies of the deceased found in one of the rooms. It stated that a sketch map of the scene of the incident had been drawn and photos had been taken by the police officers. The sketch map indicated the positioning of the bodies. 32.  The post-mortem examination report dated 17 April 1992 contained a detailed account of the examination conducted on the bodies of the deceased. It indicated the number and location of the wounds and injuries on the corpses. 33.  The incident report dated 18 April 1992 described the state of the flat where the clash took place. 34.  The autopsy report dated 18 April 1992, prepared by six specialist doctors from the Cerrahpaşa Medical Faculty, stated that the death of Taşkın Usta had been caused by bullets which shattered his internal organs. According to the report, seven 9 mm. bullets had been extracted from the body of Taşkın Usta. 35.  The ballistics report, prepared by a specialist from the Regional Criminal Police Laboratory, gave a detailed account of the examination carried out on the weapons and bullets used at the scene of the incident. The report also indicated the type and number of bullets discharged from each pistol. 36.  Between 17 April 1992 and 29 April 1992 the Kadıköy public prosecutor took witness statements from eighteen persons, including the second applicant and the residents of the building, as regards the killing of the THKP-C militants. The witnesses, except the second applicant, stated in general that the terrorists had refused to surrender to the police, started a fire in the flat and had opened fire on the police following which a clash had occurred. The clashes had caused the killing of the three suspects and the wounding of a police officer. 37.  In a report dated 18 May 1992, the Physics and Ballistics Department attached to the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute issued a report concerning the range of the shootings subsequent to the examination of the clothes of the deceased. The report concluded that long range shootings had caused the death of the deceased. 38.  The autopsy report dated 20 May 1992 indicated the entry and exit location of the bullets on the body of Taşkın Usta and concluded that death had been caused by bullets which shattered internal organs and broken the ribs and the skull of the deceased. The report gave a detailed account of the external and internal examination conducted on the body.