4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Montreuil (France). The applicant's brother, Vedathan Gülşenoğlu, was a nineteen year-old university student at the material time. 5.  On 22 March 1994 Vedathan Gülşenoğlu participated in a demonstration in Istanbul during which he allegedly threw Molotov cocktails at a bank. He was arrested, along with another person named İ.M., by three traffic police officers, who had been on duty in the neighbourhood. 6.  According to the police officers, Vedathan Gülşenoğlu and İ.M. had been taken to the Kasımpaşa police station in a taxi, without being searched or handcuffed. According to İ.M., both he and Vedathan had had to cover their heads with their jackets. 7.  At the police station, Vedathan Gülşenoğlu and İ.M. were kept in separate rooms. A few minutes later a shot was heard. Vedathan Gülşenoğlu was shot in the back of his head by A.B., one of the traffic police officers who had arrested him. He was taken to the Taksim hospital, where he died while being prepared for surgery. 8.  On the same day, a police officer took a statement from A.B., who explained that while he was on duty in the Kasımpaşa neighbourhood, a large group of demonstrators had gathered and thrown Molotov cocktails at several banks. When he saw three demonstrators, one holding a gun, running away, he had taken out his gun and started chasing them with other police officers. The demonstrator holding a gun had escaped down a side street but they had caught the two others, Vedathan Gülşenoğlu and İ.M., and taken them to the police station. When he had tried to search Vedathan Gülşenoğlu in the station, the latter had taken out a gun and pointed it at him. There had been a struggle during which a bullet had been fired from his gun. 9.  On the same day, the body was examined by a doctor in the presence of the public prosecutor. The doctor's report observed two sutured injuries of 2 x 1 cm. on the right parietal lobe and on the left occipital lobe and fractures on the cranium. The report further indicated that Vedathan Gülşenoğlu had been reported dead following the explosion of a bomb which he had been holding in his hand. To determine the exact cause of death, the body was sent for a classical autopsy. 10.  On 23 March 1994 the autopsy was performed by four forensic medicine experts from the Cerrahpaşa Faculty of Medicine. The doctors indicated that the cause of death was a fracture of the cranium and cerebral haemorrhage due to a gunshot wound. The doctors delivered their final report on 9 May 1994, which stated that the gun had been fired from a long distance and that there was a bullet entry hole on the left side of the occipital lobe. 11.  Again on 23 March 1994, the Istanbul provincial criminal police laboratory carried out a ballistic examination of two weapons, a 7.65 mm calibre Browning-type, which allegedly belonged to Vedathan Gülşenoğlu, and a 9 mm Parabellum-type, belonging to officer A.B, as well as a cartridge found at the site of the incident. The report indicated that the cartridge had been fired from A.B.'s weapon. 12.  On the same day, statements were taken from the other traffic police officers who had arrested the applicant's brother and İ.M. They all contended that there had been a struggle between Vedathan Gülşenoğlu and A.B. and that the former had been shot during this struggle. 13.  On 25 March 1994 a scene of incident report was drafted, which was signed by the Beyoğlu public prosecutor and eight police officers, including A.B, who were at the Kasımpaşa police station on 22 March 1994. A sketch plan was also drawn. 14.  On the same day, the Beyoğlu public prosecutor took statements from three police officers who had been on duty at the Kasımpaşa police station on 22 March 1994 and the three traffic police officers who had been involved in the arrest of Vedathan Gülşenoğlu. The police officers, who had been on duty at the police station, maintained that they had not witnessed the shooting. The traffic police officers, however, all contended that there had been a struggle between A.B. and Vedathan Gülşenoğlu. 15.  On 25 March 1994 the Beyoğlu public prosecutor again questioned A.B., who reiterated his statements of 22 March 1994. 16.  On 28 March 1994 the Beyoğlu public prosecutor took a statement from İ.M., who contended that the police officers had not carried out a body search when they had arrested him. He further maintained that he had covered his head with his jacket. He had been waiting at the entrance of the police station when he heard the gunshot. He explained that he had not witnessed the shooting of Vedathan Gülşenoğlu. 17.  On 3 June 1994 the Beyoğlu public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Beyoğlu Assize Court, charging A.B. with homicide under Article 448 of the Criminal Code. The public prosecutor considered that Vedathan Gülşenoğlu had taken out a gun at the police station and that A.B. had shot him at long range. 18.  On 8 September 1994 the Beyoğlu Assize Court held the first hearing in the case and heard evidence from three witnesses. 19.  On 24 October 1994 the Beyoğlu Assize Court heard evidence from A.B., who reiterated his previous statements. 20.  On 1 November 1994 the applicant joined the criminal proceedings as an intervening party. On the same day, the first-instance court heard evidence from two more witnesses. 21.  On 22 December 1994 two more witnesses made statements before the Beyoğlu Assize Court. On the same day, the court issued summonses, requiring other witnesses to give evidence. 22.  On 15 December 1995 statements were taken from another witness. 23.  Between 21 September 1995 and 4 July 1996, the first-instance court postponed the hearings due to the absence of two witnesses, M.T., a watchman, and M.B., a traffic police officer who had arrested Vedathan Gülşenoğlu along with A.B. 24.  On 4 July 1996 the first-instance court heard evidence from M.T. 25.  Between 4 July 1996 and 18 January 2000, the Beyoğlu Assize Court postponed twelve hearings as M.B. could not be located. 26.  On 18 January 2000 M.B. made statements before the assize court. On the same day, the court ordered A.B.'s pre-trial detention. 27.  On 12 January 2001 A.B. gave himself up. He requested that the provisions of Law no. 4616 be applied in his respect and that he be released pending trial. The court dismissed the request and ordered his pre-trial detention. 28.  On 23 January 2001 A.B. maintained before the first-instance court that he had been using the 9 mm Parabellum-type weapon until 12 January 2001. 29.  On 13 April 2001 the Beyoğlu Assize Court ordered A.B.'s release pending trial. 30.  Throughout the proceedings, the applicant maintained that his brother had not possessed a firearm. In this connection, he claimed that both his brother and İ.M. had had their jackets over their heads and that, if they had been carrying firearms, the officers would have seen them. The applicant alleged that his brother had been shot from a long range in the back of his head, which demonstrated that the killing had been deliberate. 31.  On 28 June 2001 the Beyoğlu Assize Court convicted A.B. as charged and sentenced him to twenty years' imprisonment. In its judgment, based on witness statements and medical reports, the court held that if A.B. had shot the applicant's brother during a struggle as he alleged, the deceased would have been shot at close range, not from a long distance. The court further decided that the provisions of Law no. 4616 applied in respect of the execution of A.B.'s sentence. 32.  On 13 November 2001 the applicant appealed. 33.  On 2 October 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on procedural grounds. 34.  On 9 October 2003 the Beyoğlu Assize Court once again convicted A.B. of homicide and sentenced him to twenty years' imprisonment, following rectification of the procedural defects. 35.  On 24 December 2003 the applicant appealed. 36.  On 21 October 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 9 October 2003. It considered that the first‑instance court had not sufficiently examined the question of whether Vedathan Gülşenoğlu had had a firearm and whether he had attempted to use it. The case file was subsequently referred to the Beyoğlu Assize Court. 37.  According to the information available from the case file and the information provided by the parties to date, the criminal proceedings against A.B. are apparently still pending before the Beyoğlu Assize Court.