JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE S SAJ Ó AND KARAKA Ş

( Translation )

We do not share the majority ' s opinion that there was a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its procedural aspect in the present case .

The applicant did not produce any prima facie or other evidence in support of her alle gations of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention ( see, for exa mple, Avcı v. Turkey (dec.) , n o. 52900/99, 30 November 2004 ; Kılıçgedik v. Turkey (dec.) , n o. 55982/00, 1 June 2004 ; and Jeong v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 34140/03, 13 February 2007).

The sole medical report, drawn up on 9 March 2000, stated that there were no signs of assault or violence on her body . The applicant did not dispute the reliability of the report but alleged that she had been ill-treated after it had been drawn up, when she had been brought before the prosecutor attached to the Edirne Magistrates ' Court and the judge of the same court who, later that day, had ordered her pre-trial detention.

As to whether or not there existed a cassette containing a recording of the questioning, the applicant ' s lawyer did not ask for the cassette to be produced in evidence before the Istanbul State Security Court until 2001, long after the second hearing. The Istanbul court refused the request on the ground that the cassette in question was not in the case file and there was no indication that it had been found in anyone ' s possession ( em anete alındığına dair bir kayıt olmadığı ). The majority attached a certain amount of weight to the Government ' s silence on this matter in their observations. However, although the Government did not mention the letters from the national authorities on the subject, documents supplied by the applicant ' s lawyer refer to the Government ' s request to be sent the cassette and to the replies from the gendarmerie, the public prosecutor and the trial court denying its existence; only the applicant ' s lawyer, in 2001, had ever claimed that it existed. None of the evidence at our disposal provides a conclusive answer as to whether or not this item was indeed real. Furthermore, there is no proof that at that time there was a practice in Turkey of recording police or gendarmerie questioning .

Allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence ( see G ü zel (Zeybek) v. Turkey , n o. 71908/01 , § 68, 5 December 2006, and Martí nez Sala and Others v. Spain , n o. 58438/00 § 121, 2 November 2004).

In the present case we believe that the applicant did not produce conclusive evidence in support of her allegations of ill-treatment or any other material that could have given rise to a reasonable suspicion in that regard .

Accordingly, we consider that in the absence of an arguable complaint or a reasonable suspicion, Article 3 did not require the national authorities to investigate the alle gations of a breach of that Article ( see, to similar effect, Işı k v. Turkey (dec.) , n o. 35064/97, 2 September 2003, and Yi ğ it v. Turkey (dec.) , n o. 4260/02, 4262/02, 4271/02, 5 December 2006).

[1] . Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation.