5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Adana. As some of the facts are disputed by the parties, their submissions will be summarised separately. 6.  The applicant’s husband, Mr Sefer Cerf, was the district leader and administrative board member of the People’s Democracy Party (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi, hereinafter referred to as “HADEP”), a political party which was dissolved by the Constitutional Court in 2003 (see HADEP and Demir v. Turkey, no. 28003/03, 14 December 2010), in the town of Yüreğir, within the administrative jurisdiction of the province of Adana. In the four to five years prior to 1994 he and his family were often harassed, intimidated and threatened by plainclothes police officers on account of his political activities. On 1 October 1994 a man fired a shot at the applicant’s 11-year-old son outside their house, narrowly missing him. 7.  At around 8 a.m. on 3 October 1994, the applicant’s husband Sefer Cerf left home to go to a café in the town centre. According to a number of eyewitnesses, Sefer Cerf arrived at the café and sat outside on the terrace next to his friend, R.Ç., who was also an administrative board member of HADEP. 8.  The witnesses then heard six gunshots and immediately afterwards saw two men with pistols in their hands running away from the café. The applicant’s husband Sefer Cerf and his friend R.Ç. were shot and Sefer Cerf died at the scene. R.Ç. was injured and died while being taken to a hospital by a friend, Mr Ahmet Dizman. A third person, Mr S.S., was also hit by a ricocheting bullet and wounded in the foot. 9.  On the day of the killing there were no police or anti-terrorism officers’ vehicles in the area. This was unusual as ordinarily they would have been patrolling the neighbourhood. Furthermore, it took a considerable amount of time before the authorities attended the scene. When people tried to call an ambulance, they found that the telephone lines had been cut. 10.  Police officers who arrived at the café questioned eyewitnesses and collected six spent bullet cases and two deformed bullets from the scene and sent them for forensic examination. An incident scene investigation was concluded by the prosecutor the same day. 11.  Mr Sait Macir, also a board member of HADEP, was inside the café at the time and went outside to help the two victims. He told the authorities that he had seen the two assailants running away from the scene. Mr Macir was taken to a police station on the pretext of giving a statement but was instead questioned about his relationship with the applicant’s husband. His café was closed by the police for no reason and he was subjected to continuous harassment after the incident. On 30 December 1994 Mr Macir was himself shot and killed outside the same café (see Macir v. Turkey (friendly settlement), no. 28516/95, 22 April 2003). After his death, Mr Macir’s wife was taken to a police station where she was threatened and questioned about her husband’s connections to the applicant’s husband and to Mr R.Ç. 12.  A couple of days after the incident, Ahmet Dizman, who had tried to take R.Ç. to hospital, was detained by the police. The police officers beat him up and told him that they had seen him at the funeral of Sefer Cerf and R.Ç. the day before. They threatened him and told him that if he continued to be involved in such activities, his end would be like those of the dead HADEP members. As a result of that ill-treatment Mr Dizman’s jaw was broken (see Dizman v. Turkey, no. 27309/95, §§ 12 and 15, 20 September 2005). 13.  Threats against the applicant also continued after the killing of her husband. Plainclothes police officers continuously observed their family home, questioned their visitors and, on a number of occasions, threw notes into the garden with messages such as “like your father, your end has come”, addressed to the applicant’s daughter. On one occasion in 1995 the applicant’s daughter was detained at a checkpoint on her return from work and made to wait in a police vehicle before being taken to a police station. When her family sought to locate her, the police denied that she was in their custody. While she was detained, the police questioned her about the death of her father. On her release, the police threatened her and she was followed by the police over the following days. 14.  On 20 October 1994 the Adana prosecutor’s office issued a standing search order in relation to the killing of Sefer Cerf and R.Ç., requesting that the perpetrators be sought as long as prosecution was not time-barred, and that information be given to the office on a regular basis, every three months. 15.  On 4 August 1995 a number of individuals were remanded under an indictment alleging offences including membership of Hizbullah, an illegal organisation which was involved in the assassination of individuals with pro-Kurdish sympathies in south-east Turkey in the early 1990s. On 25 July 1996 the Konya State Security Court acquitted the individuals previously indicted for offences including membership of Hizbullah. That decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation. 16.  On 19 January 2000 a Mr M.D. was arrested. In his statement of 23 January 2000 M.D. admitted membership of Hizbullah, and told the authorities that he had taken part in the killing of the applicant’s husband and his friend R.Ç. He gave a detailed account of the assassination and described the role played by his co-assassins. 17.  Following M.D.’s confession, a “scene report” was drawn up on 30 January 2000. He was taken by helicopter to Adana, where he was taken to the scene of the killing of the applicant’s husband for further questioning. 18.  On 10 February 2000 Mr H.T., one of the persons implicated by M.D. in the killing, and seven of his companions were arrested and detained in custody. H.T. refused to answer any questions put to him regarding the killing of Sefer Cerf and R.Ç. 19.  Subsequently A.Y., A.A. and a number of other persons were also arrested. During his questioning A.A. described the role played in the killing by K.G., who had been their leader and had given them their orders. 20.  The information obtained by the police during the investigations was forwarded to the Adana State Security Court, which subsequently decided that it had no jurisdiction, and sent the investigation file to the State Security Court in Diyarbakır. 21.  On 10 February 2005 the applicant applied to the Adana prosecutor’s office, seeking information and copies of the documents from the investigation file. The prosecutor replied and informed the applicant in his letter that the investigation in question not only concerned the killing of her husband and R.Ç., but the killings of seven other persons in 1994 and 1995. The prosecutor informed the applicant in his letter of 11 February 2005 that on account of the confidential nature of the investigation he could not give her a copy of the entire investigation file. The prosecutor did, however, give the applicant copies of certain documents from the file and informed her that five persons had been identified as possible suspects in the killing of her husband and that criminal proceedings had been initiated against one of those individuals before the Diyarbakır State Security Court. When the applicant insisted on obtaining copies of all the investigation documents so that she could make an application to the European Court of Human Rights, the prosecutor told her that he could not give her those documents because they would be used against Turkey. 22.  In December 2006 the applicant again contacted the Diyarbakır prosecutor’s office, but was told that it would not provide her with information concerning the prosecution because she had no case file number. 23.  On 5 March 2007 the applicant made a detailed submission to the office of the Diyarbakır prosecutor and informed that prosecutor about the actions taken by her in having her husband’s killing investigated. She also shared with the prosecutor the evidence in her possession and informed him of her allegations. She asked the prosecutor to reply to a number of questions set out by her in her submission concerning the investigation. In reply, the prosecutor informed the applicant about the actions taken in the criminal proceedings against the suspects K.G. and A.A. 24.  On 27 August 2012 the applicant’s daughter applied to the Diyarbakır Assize Court, to which the proceedings had been transferred in the meantime, and asked for information on the proceedings against K.G., M.D. and A.A. She was provided with a copy of the judgment of 30 December 2009 in which K.G. and M.D. had been found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. The court did not provide any information on A.A.’s case. On 10 September 2012 the applicant asked the Diyarbakır Assize Court for information about the whereabouts of K.G., M.D. and A.A. However, she was not provided with any information in response. According to news reports obtained by the applicant, K.G. and M.D. had been released from prison on 4 January 2011, and on 26 January 2011 the Court of Appeal had upheld their convictions. Following their release they had left Turkey and fled to Syria. 25.  It appears from the documents submitted by the Government that during the criminal proceedings against them M.D., K.G., A.A. and M.A.O. retracted their earlier statements, which they alleged had been extracted from them under torture, and denied any involvement in the killing of the applicant’s husband. 26.  The applicant’s husband Sefer Cerf died as a result of an armed attack carried out on 3 October 1994. Neither Sefer Cerf nor the applicant had lodged any complaints with the Adana prosecutor on or after 3 October 1994 or made any allegations that they had been harassed or threatened by plainclothes police officers. 27.  Immediately after the killing of her husband the prosecutor visited the scene and prepared an incident report. The prosecutor also secured the evidence such as the bullets, spent cartridges and the clothes worn by the applicant’s husband on the day in question, and sent them for forensic examination. A search of the area was also carried out. The prosecutor and the investigating police officers took statements from witnesses and prepared a sketch of the scene of the incident. 28.  A post mortem examination was conducted on the body of the applicant’s husband the same day, and a bullet recovered from his body was also sent for forensic examination. 29.  On 20 October 1994 the prosecutor issued a standing search order and instructed law-enforcement officials to investigate the killing until expiry of the limitation period. 30.  Starting in 2000, a number of operations were carried out against Hizbullah. On 19 January 2000 M.D. was arrested in the course of one of those operations. 31.  On 30 January 2000 prosecutors at the Ankara and Adana State Security Courts took M.D. to the place where the applicant’s husband had been killed. M.D. provided a detailed description of the killing of the applicant’s husband. 32.  On 14 July 2000 one of M.D.’s co-assassins, A.A., was arrested and confessed to the killings. 33.  Subsequently, the following criminal proceedings were brought against the suspects. 34.  On 9 August 2000 criminal proceedings were brought against A.A. before the Diyarbakır State Security Court for membership of Hizbullah and for carrying out armed attacks on behalf of that organisation, including the killing of the applicant’s husband. In 2004 the State Security Courts were abolished and the criminal proceedings against A.A. were taken over by the Diyarbakır Assize Court. 35.  On 12 May 2009 A.A. was found guilty and sentenced to fourteen years’ imprisonment. His conviction was quashed by the Court of Cassation on 1 April 2010 on the ground that at the time the offences were committed he had been under the age of 18 and that fact had not been taken into account by the first-instance court. 36.  Criminal proceedings restarted before the Batman Assize Court in 2010 and on 9 May 2013 A.A. was sentenced to a total of five years, six months and twenty days’ imprisonment. A.A. did not appeal against his conviction. 37.  A.A. was detained in a prison between 17 July 2000 and 23 March 2006 and between 8 and 22 January 2013. 38.  On 24 May 2000 M.D. was charged with the offence of attempting to undermine the constitutional order. 39.  On 6 September 2000 K.G. was charged with the offence of “attempting to overthrow the constitutional order by arms and to replace it with a system based on Sharia rules”. 40.  In the indictments the killing of the applicant’s husband was also included as one of the acts imputable to M.D. and K.G. 41.  On 30 December 2009 the Diyarbakır Assize Court handed down its 1,153-page judgment. It appears from this judgment that separate criminal proceedings instigated against thirty-one defendants for the killing of a total of 181 people, including the applicant’s husband and his friend R.Ç., had been joined in this case. The Diyarbakır Assize Court found M.D. and K.G. guilty and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Their convictions and sentences were upheld by the Court of Cassation on 26 January 2011. 42.  M.D. and K.G. were remanded in custody on 31 January 2000 and kept there until their conditional release was ordered on 3 January 2011 by the Court of Cassation, which noted that they had been in custody for longer than the ten-year period allowed by statute. 43.  Following the upholding of their conviction, arrest warrants were issued on 29 March 2011 and on 17 May 2011 for M.D. and K.G. with a view to executing the remainder of their sentences. 44.  M.A.O. was indicted on 11 June 2001 and charged with the offence of membership of an outlawed organisation, namely Hizbullah, and for carrying out illegal acts on behalf of that organisation, including the killing of the applicant’s husband. 45.  On 13 February 2008 the Diyarbakır Assize Court found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The conviction and the sentence were upheld by the Court of Cassation on 29 September 2009. 46.  M.A.O. who had been remanded in custody on 23 April 2001, is still in prison serving his sentence. 47.  On 26 July 2000 criminal proceedings were brought against A.Y. for membership of Hizbullah and for carrying out abductions and killings on behalf of that organisation, including the killing of the applicant’s husband. 48.  On 20 December 2012 the Adana State Security Court found him guilty and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. On 2 June 2013 the Court of Cassation upheld that judgment. 49.  While the above-mentioned criminal proceedings were pending, on 11 February 2005 the Adana prosecutor communicated to the applicant, in response to a request made by her, copies of the documents concerning the investigation into the killing of her husband. As the investigation did not concern only the killing of her husband but also those of a number of other individuals, the applicant was only provided with copies of those documents which concerned the killing of her husband. In this connection a decision to classify the investigation files as confidential constituted an obstacle to the applicant’s access to the documents in question. 50.  On 5 March 2007 the applicant made representations to the Diyarbakır prosecutor. On 21 and 27 March 2007 the applicant was provided with replies in respect of those representations.