Communicated on 7 January 2014

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 63639/09 Süleyman KESKİN and others against Turkey lodged on 18 November 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are represented before the Court, by Mr K. E. Güzel , a lawyer from Istanbul.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

A. The applicants ’ arrest and subsequent police custody

On 11 January 2008 the applicants, members of a non-governmental organisation, Halkevleri Derneği (Peoples ’ Houses) were distributing leaflets at the Levent tube station in Istanbul. The leaflets aimed to draw attention to a recent draft law on the social security system and it criticised certain proposals of the Government. As the applicants were distributing these leaflets, police officers in civilian clothes intervened and used force against the applicants. At first, they tried to stop Ms Cemre Ay and Ms Demet Yılan , who were both minors at the time, by dragging them by their hair. The officers allegedly swore at them and beat them. The police officers also attacked the remaining applicants. They swore at the applicants, beat them and fired gunshots in the air. The applicants were subsequently arrested, handcuffed, and forced to lie down in a police vehicle. According to the applicants, the beating continued inside the vehicle and the police officers stepped on their heads.

The applicants were then taken to the Gültepe Police Station, where allegedly the ill-treatment continued. The police officers beat Kıvanç Yıldırım and Süleyman Keskin and forced a gun into their mouths, while shouting “It is not up to you to save the country, you bastards. This is how a country is saved.”

On the same day, the applicants were taken to the ÅžiÅŸli Etfal Hospital. During the medical control, the applicants remained handcuffed and the police officers did not leave the examination room.

On 12 January 2008, following their interrogation at the Şişli Magistrates ’ Court in Criminal Matters, the applicants were released.

B. Medical reports delivered in respect of the applicants

The case file contains eight medical reports delivered in respect of the applicants. It is observed that many of these reports do not bear the date or the time of the examination and are drafted in an illegible and hasty manner.

Süleyman Keskin (no date or time specified)

“The person described sensitivity on the frontal part. No signs of injury were noted.”

Kader Cihan (dated 12 January 2008, 4 p.m.)

“Swelling behind the left ear, measuring 1x1 cm; a lesion measuring 0.5 x 0.5 cm under the left eye”.

In respect of Kader Cihan , the case file further contains another undated medical report, which reads:

“The person describes sensitivity. An abrasion under the left eye. No other new signs of ill-treatment.”

Kıvanç Yıldırım ( dated 12 January 2008, 4 p.m .).

“Sensitivity on the left shoulder. No signs of swelling or bruises.”

In respect of K ıvanç Yıldırım , the case file further contains another medical report, undated, which reads:

“No new signs of ill-treatment on the body”.

Mutlu Cihan (no date or time specified)

“Swelling on the occipital region. A neurosurgical consultation is recommended. No other signs of ill-treatment.”

A second medical report, issued in respect of Mutlu Cihan , dated 11 January 2008, at 7 p.m.:

“A hematoma measuring 1 cm. is observed in the occipital region. The x ‑ rays reveal that no neurosurgical intervention is necessary.”

Demet Yılan and Cemre Ay (no date or time specified)

“There is no new sign of ill-treatment”.

C. The investigation of the applicants ’ complaint regarding their alleged ill-treatment

On 27 May 2008 the applicants filed a criminal complaint with the ÅžiÅŸli public prosecutor ’ s office and complained that they had been subjected to ill ‑ treatment by the police both during their arrest and at the police station.

On an unspecified date, the public prosecutor referred the file to the District Governorship and requested authorisation to prosecute the accused police officers in accordance with Law no. 4483 on the Prosecution of Civil Servants and Public Employees.

On 21 March 2008 the public prosecutor, noting that the relevant authorisation had not been granted, decided not to bring any criminal proceedings against the accused officers.

Subsequently, on 28 April 2008 the Beyoğlu Assize Court rejected the applicants ’ appeal, stating that the prosecutor ’ s decision was in compliance with the applicable legislation and procedure.

D. Criminal Proceedings against the applicants

Criminal proceedings were initiated against Cemre Ay and Demet Yılan before the Juvenile Court for resisting police officers. On 18 June 2008 both applicants were acquitted of the charges against them.

Another set of criminal proceedings w as also initiated against the remaining applicants for resisting the police officers before the ÅžiÅŸli Criminal Court. According to the information in the case file, these proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants allege under Article 3 of the Convention that they were subjected to ill-treatment both during their arrest and subsequently at the police station. They further complain that their ill-treatment complaint was not examined thoroughly and effectively by the domestic authorities. In this respect, they criticise the terms of Law No. 4483, according to which the prosecutor needs to obtain an authorisation to initiate criminal proceedings against police officers, who were accused of ill-treatment.

2. The applicants further state that the forceful police intervention took place at the time when they were peacefully distributing leaflets at a tube station. They maintain that they were distributing these leaflets as members of the Halkevleri DerneÄŸi and aimed to draw attention to the terms of a new draft law on the social security system. In this respect, they maintain that the police intervention constituted an unjustified interference with their right to freedom of expression and/or their right to freedom of assembly, under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Were the applicants subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

3. Having regard to the forceful police intervention on 11 January 2008, do the facts of the case disclose an unjustified interference with the applicants ’ right to freedom of expression and/or freedom of assembly under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention?

The Government are further requested to submit a full copy of the investigation file in respect of the applicants ’ allegations of ill-treatment, in particular legible copies of all the medical reports issued in respect of the applicants.