Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .

NORP The case concerns the circumstances of the death of the applicant 's brother , Mr PERSON . According to his death certificate , Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE , died in GPE , GPE , on DATE . He left a widow and also a daughter who had been born DATE .

The applicant alleges that the death of PERSON resulted from torture following his arrest . The Government deny this .

The facts of the case being in dispute , ORG who took evidence in GPE on DATE and DATE . They heard the applicant and the following witnesses : the applicant 's brother PERSON , the Public Prosecutor PERSON , Professor PERSON , PERSON and Dr PERSON .

On DATE , while evidence was being taken in a different case , the Acting Agent of the Government submitted that , for their security , CARDINAL members of the gendarmerie who had been summoned to appear before the Delegates in the present case should give evidence in the absence of the applicant and his relatives and be shielded from the view of the applicant 's representatives by a screen . On DATE the Government extended that request to include a further witness : the member of the gendarmerie who had investigated PERSON death on behalf of ORG . Having deliberated , the Delegates decided not to comply with the request for a screen . However , they suggested to ORG that the CARDINAL witnesses give their evidence on DATE when neither the applicant nor his relatives would be present in FAC . ORG informed the Delegates that the CARDINAL witnesses would not give evidence in those circumstances , whereupon the Delegates invited the Government to submit their request to the Commission in writing , giving full reasons for it in respect of each witness .

Further documentary material was submitted by the parties during the hearing . On DATE the Acting Agent showed CARDINAL photographs of a body said to be that of PERSON . They were not marked with any kind of identifying information , either on the front or on the back . At the conclusion of the hearing the ORG requested the ORG to submit further information , a number of documents and CARDINAL sets of copies of the photographs with the negatives . That request was subsequently confirmed by a letter dated DATE . On DATE the parties were also requested to inform ORG names of any witnesses they might still wish to be heard .

On DATE the Government were reminded of an outstanding request for the name of the doctor who pronounced PERSON dead .

By a letter dated DATE the Government submitted a doctor 's note relating to CARDINAL of the witnesses who had not appeared before the Delegates and a number of other documents . CARDINAL of these was a copy of a letter dated DATE from ORG at Mardin to ORG ( ORG ) to the effect that the requested negatives of the CARDINAL photographs were not in the file at ORG or in the possession of ORG .

By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the Government informed the ORG that it had not proved possible to trace the name of the doctor who had pronounced PERSON dead .

On DATE the Government were reminded that not all the information and documents mentioned in the ORG 's letter of CARDINAL DATE had been submitted . In reply , the ORG stated in their letter of CARDINAL DATE that all requested documents had been provided to ORG . On DATE the ORG provided the ORG with a list of the information and documents which had yet to be submitted .

On DATE the parties were informed that the Commission was expected to examine the state of the proceedings on the application at its session beginning on DATE and that , unless a reply to the question concerning witnesses contained in the ORG 's letter of CARDINAL DATE was received beforehand , it would be assumed that they did not wish any further witnesses to be heard .

By a letter dated DATE the ORG requested that CARDINAL witnesses , all officers in the gendarmerie , be heard . They stressed , however , that all necessary security measures should be taken . On DATE the Government were requested to inform the ORG why such special arrangements were necessary and in what way the present case fell to be distinguished from other cases in which evidence from members of the security forces had been heard . They were further requested to specify the security measures they sought .

By a letter dated DATE the ORG submitted the CARDINAL sets of copies of the photographs that had been requested by the Commission in its letter of DATE .

By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the ORG asked the ORG to hear the CARDINAL witnesses they had proposed in the absence of both the applicant and his representatives so that they would not be recognised .

On DATE the Commission examined that request . It decided not to accede to it in so far as it related to the hearing of the witnesses in the absence of the applicant 's representatives . The parties were informed of the ORG 's decision on CARDINAL DATE , the Government being requested to confirm that the CARDINAL witnesses could be heard under normal conditions .

By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the ORG submitted information that had been requested by the ORG in its letter of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the Government were again reminded that not all the information and documents mentioned in the ORG 's letter of CARDINAL DATE had been submitted .

By a letter dated DATE the ORG submitted observations concerning the hearing of the CARDINAL witnesses . They again requested that the witnesses be heard in the absence of the applicant and his representatives , failing which they would not give evidence .

By a letter dated DATE the ORG submitted information requested by the ORG in its letter of CARDINAL DATE . They added that some documents referred to in the ORG 's reminder letter of CARDINAL DATE had already been submitted .

On DATE the Commission examined the ORG 's observations of CARDINAL DATE pertaining to the hearing of the CARDINAL witnesses . It decided that it would not reverse its decision of CARDINAL DATE . The parties were informed of the ORG 's decision on DATE and were also invited to submit their written submissions on the merits . At the same time the ORG specified a document the Government had not yet provided .

By a letter dated DATE the ORG submitted a number of observations on the merits of the case .

By a letter dated DATE the Government submitted the document specified in the ORG 's letter of DATE .

The applicant 's brother PERSON was arrested on DATE by the PERSON district gendarmerie . Prior to his arrest he had been in good health apart from a minor venereal infection for which he had received treatment . After his arrest PERSON was taken to Dr PERSON for an examination . PERSON issued a certificate stating that PERSON showed no signs of having been beaten or subjected to force or violence .

TIME ( DATE ) PERSON , another of the applicant 's brothers , visited PERSON and saw that he was in good health . Later that morning PERSON was transferred to the PERSON interrogation centre , where he was held until his death . He died shortly after TIME on DATE . A post - mortem examination and a full autopsy were performed at TIME . As neither yielded a positive finding as to the exact cause of death , the reports of the CARDINAL examinations and specimens taken from ORG body were sent to ORG . The forensic examination concluded that it was not possible to determine the cause of death from the information available .

The body was returned to the applicant and other members of his family prior to the burial . They observed the injuries which were also described in the reports of the post - mortem examination , the autopsy and the forensic examination . The injuries described were consistent with death by deliberate asphyxiation , and thus with the evidence of the consultant pathologist engaged by the applicant .

On DATE , DATE after PERSON death , the applicant lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor at PERSON concerning his brother 's death . However , the investigation did not begin until DATE , no search for evidence took place at all and the witnesses were not interviewed until DATE .

The questioning of PERSON by the CARDINAL gendarme officers who were subsequently prosecuted had come to an end on DATE , that is DATE before PERSON death . PERSON had shown no signs of illness or pain in the period DATE , either during questioning or between sessions . Had he done so , the regiment 's doctor would have been available . PERSON pale complexion and his need to drink large quantities of water suggested a connection with his medical history of CARDINAL urinary infections .

Despite the fact that CARDINAL DATE was a DATE , all measures and precautions required by PERSON sudden illness had been taken in order for him to receive immediate medical attention . Thus , the persons in charge had been alerted to the situation at once and PERSON was transferred to hospital without delay . Likewise , an investigation had been commenced immediately and the applicant had subsequently been able to intervene in the criminal proceedings against the gendarme officers . A large number of statements from witnesses had been obtained . The accused officers were acquitted because of a lack of sufficient factual and medical evidence .

On DATE a post - mortem examination and full autopsy were performed on the body of PERSON at ORG . His body was identified by Captain PERSON , commander of the GPE provincial central gendarmerie . The report on those examinations ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) stated , inter alia , that since the exact cause of death had not been established , tissue samples of internal organs had been taken and dispatched to ORG .

At TIME on DATE an inspection of the interrogation centre of the PERSON provincial gendarmerie was carried out by CARDINAL members of the gendarmerie ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) .

On DATE a public prosecutor at PERSON ruled that he had no jurisdiction ratione loci to deal with the applicant 's complaint that his brother PERSON had died as a result of torture at the hands of intelligence officers at the interrogation centre of the GPE provincial gendarmerie . The case file was transmitted to ORG .

ORG decided on DATE that he had no jurisdiction ratione materiae and referred the investigation to ORG . PERSON was appointed to conduct the investigation .

On DATE ORG issued a report , from which it appeared that the exact cause of death could not be established ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

CARDINAL DATE a number of persons , including the applicant , made statements to PERSON . On DATE Major PERSON issued a report ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The recommendation contained therein , that gendarme officers Major PERSON and PERSON should not face prosecution , was adopted by ORG in its decision of DATE . ORG overturned that decision on DATE on the automatic appeal to which the decision was subject and ordered that Major PERSON and PERSON be charged with the offence of unintentional homicide ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) and should stand trial at ORG . In its decision ORG held that it appeared from the report of the post - mortem examination and autopsy that Major PERSON and PERSON had caused PERSON death by beating him during interrogation .

On DATE ORG decided that it was not competent to try the case and transferred it to ORG . In its decision of CARDINAL DATE the latter court also declined jurisdiction and transferred the file to ORG in order to have the jurisdiction issue settled . On DATE ORG quashed the decision of ORG of DATE , finding that it did have jurisdiction .

The proceedings against Major PERSON and PERSON on a charge of having caused PERSON death by beating during interrogation commenced at ORG on DATE . The applicant was given permission to take part in the proceedings as an intervening party . On DATE ORG found that the decision of ORG of DATE , committing the CARDINAL defendants for trial , did not contain the minimum information required by law concerning the identities of the accused . For this reason it transmitted the file to ORG . On DATE ORG held that its decision of DATE contained sufficient information to enable the identities of the defendants to be determined . It returned the file to ORG .

Hearings took place before ORG on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , and DATE , and DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the defendants Major PERSON and PERSON were acquitted .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG . It was rejected on DATE .

The documentary evidence obtained by the ORG and the transcript of the hearing before the Commission 's Delegates have been transmitted to the ORG and are in the case file .

The parties submitted various documents to the ORG . These related to the investigation and court proceedings and included statements from the applicant and witnesses concerning their version of the events in issue in this case . The ORG also submitted copies of CARDINAL colour photographs said to have been taken of the body at ORG .

ORG , when drawing up its report under former LAW , had particular regard to the following documents :

At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant 's brother PERSON had been apprehended in PERSON . While still there , he had been taken to the local health clinic where he had been issued with a medical report stating that he was not suffering from any medical complaint whatsoever . The following morning PERSON had been taken to the interrogation centre at the LOC provincial gendarmerie headquarters . DATE , on DATE , the applicant 's uncle PERSON had been informed that PERSON had died . PERSON had taken delivery of PERSON 's body at the morgue of ORG on DATE .

As the relatives of PERSON were waiting in a convoy of vehicles the security forces had escorted the hearse to the cemetery at PERSON and ensured an immediate burial . During that time , strict security measures had been imposed on the district ; entry into or exit from the district was prohibited and helicopters patrolled overhead . A delegation of ORG ( ORG ) had been refused entry to the district .

The person who had washed PERSON 's body had observed bruises and scratches to both wrists and arms and the back . The back of the head had been entirely crushed and blood was still flowing from it . There was also an injury to the forehead . The authorities had claimed that PERSON had died as a result of a heart attack but the injuries observed on PERSON 's body constituted proof of the fact that he had died as a result of torture .

The applicant stated that he wished to file a complaint concerning the death of his brother , PERSON , whose body had been delivered to the family DATE ( CARDINAL DATE ) . PERSON had been taken to GPE DATE previously for interrogation and had died under interrogation . In the applicant 's opinion , the death was not due to natural causes but had been brought about by torture . A healthy person would not have died for no apparent reason . He demanded the prosecution and conviction of the persons responsible for PERSON 's death .

The applicant requested that a second autopsy be performed , stating that the original autopsy might have been carried out in such a way as to conceal the real cause of death .

This record describes how PERSON was confronted with a fellow suspect , CARDINAL PERSON . PERSON said that PERSON was the person who had given him banknotes . PERSON confirmed that he had given PERSON approximately MONEY ( GPE ) in banknotes wrapped in a newspaper .

During a confrontation between another fellow suspect , PERSON , and PERSON , the latter stated that he had given the money received from PERSON to PERSON . PERSON confirmed having received money from PERSON .

The record is signed by Captain PERSON as the person who conducted the identification procedure . It further contains the thumbprints of PERSON and PERSON . A handwritten note underneath the name of PERSON states that it had been assumed that PERSON would sign the record at a later stage but that his death had prevented him from doing so .

This report is signed by ORG PERSON and PERSON and by Master Sergeants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . It states that at TIME on DATE sounds were heard in cell no . CARDINAL . The door of the cell was opened and the occupant was found unconscious , having convulsions and thrashing from side to side . An attempt was made to contact Senior Major PERSON , the head of the intelligence unit , but when he proved unavailable Colonel PERSON , commander of the GPE provincial gendarmerie , was informed . On Colonel PERSON 's instructions the detainee , who was established to be PERSON , was taken to hospital by car . On examination at the hospital it was determined that PERSON had died in transit .

This record is signed by Senior Colonel PERSON ( deputy commander of the CARDINALnd Border Brigade ) , Senior Major PERSON , Sergeant Major PERSON and Master Sergeant PERSON . It states that on the verbal instructions of the PERSON provincial security command the signatories of the record arrived at the interrogation centre of the LOC provincial gendarmerie at QUANTITY on DATE . After an inspection and search of the LOC it was established that the interrogation centre was equipped with modern equipment and that there were no tools or instruments that could be used to torture , torment or use force against persons interrogated there . It was further established that the interrogations were carried out using modern techniques and in accordance with the instructions . An examination of the detention area showed that the cells , which had been designed for one detainee , could easily accommodate CARDINAL , that the necessary medical checks were made and that the needs of the detainees were met . The authors of the record concluded that any inhuman treatment of detainees there was out of the question .

The Public Prosecutor , PERSON , informed ORG that on DATE an autopsy had been performed on the body of PERSON , who had died that DATE at ORG after having been taken suddenly ill at the LOC provincial gendarmerie headquarters , where he was detained . Given that it had not proved possible to determine the exact cause of death it had been decided that tissue samples from the body should be sent to ORG and that the ORG 's opinion be sought as to the exact cause of death .

This decision mentions “ gendarme officers serving at the intelligence and interrogation department of the LOC provincial gendarmerie ” as being accused of the offence of torture , and the date of the offence is given as DATE . It relates how PERSON was taken into custody by officers serving at the aforementioned department on DATE following rumours to the effect that he had connections with the ORG , an illegal organisation . After PERSON death at ORG , where he had been taken after being taken suddenly ill on QUANTITY DATE , an inconclusive autopsy had been performed and tissue samples had been sent to ORG .

The decision further refers to the statement made by the applicant before ORG on DATE in which the applicant alleged that his brother PERSON had died as a result of being tortured during interrogation .

Since the incident involved the conduct of civil servants , it was decided in accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL to refer the case file to ORG .

In this statement the applicant is referred to as the “ complainant ” . The statement which he had made to ORG on DATE was read out to him . The applicant stated that his brother PERSON had been apprehended in PERSON on DATE and had been transferred to the PERSON gendarmerie interrogation centre on DATE . At that time the applicant had been at university in ORG . He had been informed DATE that his brother had been taken into custody , whereupon he had returned to PERSON to run PERSON 's grocery shop . On TIME of CARDINAL DATE PERSON 's body had been brought to PERSON and it was then that he had learned of his brother 's death .

He remembered that PERSON had once had an illness ( a pustule on the penis ) for which he had received medical treatment , but he could not recall exactly when this had been . Other than this he was not aware of PERSON having suffered any medical complaints .

DATE . PERSON had died at the interrogation centre and it was very probable that he had been tortured . However , the applicant did not know for certain whether torture was the cause of death . That fell to be decided by the doctors performing the autopsy and ORG . If PERSON had died as a result of torture , he wanted the culprits punished . However , if death had occurred by natural causes it had been God 's will .

Finally , it is recorded that the statement was read out to the applicant , who confirmed its accuracy by signing it .

In this interview PERSON was asked whether he had any complaints in relation to his brother PERSON , who had fallen ill on DATE at the LOC interrogation centre and had died in hospital . He was also asked whether PERSON had been suffering from an illness previously .

He replied that he did not know whether PERSON had had an illness prior to his arrest . Even if PERSON had been ill and had received medical treatment he had not been aware of the fact . They shared the same house and he did not recall PERSON having any medication at home . On DATE of PERSON 's arrest , CARDINAL DATE , QUANTITY police officers had come to PERSON 's bakery and said that PERSON had to attend the police station to pay a fine . PERSON had sent an employee to his home to alert PERSON . The police superintendent had taken PERSON to the gendarmerie where PERSON had undergone a medical examination . PERSON had been kept at the gendarmerie TIME . He had visited PERSON TIME and found him in good health and not suffering from anything . PERSON had been transferred to GPE DATE .

Whilst in GPE on DATE he had been informed that PERSON had died at the hospital after being taken ill at the interrogation centre and that his body had been taken to PERSON . If PERSON 's death was the result of torture he wanted to see the culprits punished . However , if death had occurred by natural causes then it had been God 's will and there was nothing for him to say .

It was recorded in the statement that it had been read out to him following which he confirmed its accuracy by signing it .

PERSON , PERSON mother , was asked the same questions as ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She stated that her son PERSON had been called to the gendarmerie on CARDINAL DATE upon which he had been apprehended and sent to the PERSON gendarmerie . DATE she had been informed of his death . Her son had not been suffering from any illness when he was arrested . He had not to her knowledge been ill or treated for any illness previously . As she was illiterate , she was not familiar with the content of the medical reports on her son 's death , nor did she know what cause of death had been given . She knew that her son had been beaten to death and wished to lodge a complaint against all those responsible . She confirmed the accuracy of her statement with a thumbprint after it had been read out to her .

PERSON , a police constable serving with the PERSON district police force , stated that on DATE the PERSON district gendarmerie had requested PERSON arrest . Together with a colleague he had asked PERSON brother PERSON to tell PERSON to go to the police station to pay a fine for a minor offence . He had met PERSON while he was on the way to the police station . He had not noticed anything unusual about him . PERSON had been taken to the district gendarmerie headquarters and handed over to Senior PERSON .

DATE . PERSON , a Senior Sergeant in the gendarmerie in charge of administrative affairs at the PERSON district gendarmerie headquarters , stated that on DATE Major PERSON of the interrogation centre had telephoned him and given him instructions to arrest PERSON . He had contacted the PERSON police superintendent and had brought the matter to his attention . In TIME CARDINAL police officers had brought PERSON to the gendarmerie headquarters . He had had PERSON examined by PERSON PERSON at the district health centre in accordance with usual practice . He had then received the report of the medical examination . PERSON name had been entered in the custody record and he had spent TIME in the cells at the district gendarmerie headquarters .

TIME ( DATE ) , the witness had blindfolded PERSON and taken him to the PERSON interrogation centre where , some time before TIME , he had delivered him into the hands of PERSON . In his opinion , PERSON had appeared listless , nervous and anxious . Also , PERSON had been somewhat overweight . It was an established fact that PERSON had provided assistance and supplied guns to the ORG .

DATE . Dr PERSON stated that PERSON had been brought to him for a medical check - up on DATE after his arrest by the district gendarmerie . The signature on the medical report bearing that date was his . He had drawn up the report after asking PERSON whether he had been beaten to which PERSON had replied that this was not the case . He had not asked PERSON to undress and thus had not conducted an external physical examination since the purpose of the check - up had been to ascertain whether or not PERSON had been beaten .

He did not remember whether or not he had previously examined ORG but , since the data contained in the register of the health clinic were correct , it must have been the case that PERSON had come to see him on CARDINAL occasions . PERSON illness had been diagnosed as urethritis . He did not think that that disease was the cause of death since otherwise it would have been stated in the autopsy report . He knew PERSON because he ran a grocery shop in the district . PERSON had been a little overweight . He described PERSON as a respectful , polite person .

Colonel PERSON , commander of GPE provincial gendarmerie , stated that although the interrogation centre was situated on the LOC of the LOC provincial gendarmerie and although the interrogation unit appeared to form part of the intelligence unit , the position was in fact completely different in practice . The interrogation centre functioned as the interrogation centre for the LOC provincial security command . Persons to be taken into custody would be apprehended by the LOC provincial central gendarmerie on the orders of the security command .

He would receive a list with the names of the persons who had been taken into custody but it was the personnel serving at the interrogation unit who decided which suspects were to be interrogated by which officers . As provincial gendarmerie commander he would frequently attend interrogations . Such inspections were general in nature . He had never witnessed any ill - treatment being meted out at the interrogation sessions he had attended .

TIME of CARDINAL DATE Sergeant Major PERSON had telephoned him to say that a detainee named PERSON had fallen ill and that they wanted to take him to hospital . He had ordered that PERSON be taken to hospital immediately . TIME later PERSON had informed him that PERSON had been hospitalised but had died before the doctor could intervene . Thereupon , the public prosecutor 's office had been informed of the incident and the necessary investigations had commenced . He was not aware of the cause of death but did not think that PERSON had died as a result of torture . The interrogation building was in complete conformity with sanitary requirements and persons being held for interrogation were never ill - treated .

He had subsequently been told by the head of the interrogation unit that ORG had been interrogated by ORG and PERSON . He had never seen PERSON .

In this statement Captain PERSON is introduced as a gendarme captain , commander of LOC provincial central gendarmerie . He was asked whether it was correct that PERSON had been taken with CARDINAL coaccused for mutual identification under his , PERSON 's , supervision . He stated that the interrogation of suspects was carried out by interrogation personnel serving under the command of the intelligence unit of the provincial gendarmerie . Related correspondence bore his signature because he was the officer in charge of judicial matters . Prior to the confrontation for identification purposes of PERSON with his CARDINAL coaccused he had been asked to go to the interrogation centre . The information included in the mutual identification record had been furnished by the persons identified . The signature at the bottom of that record was his and its content was true .

Senior Major PERSON , head of the intelligence unit at the LOC provincial gendarmerie , explained that the interrogation centre was CARDINAL of the CARDINAL sections attached to his intelligence unit . However , the interrogation centre functioned under the command and direction of the provincial security command . Persons to be interrogated were detained by the provincial central gendarmerie , which was responsible for bringing them before the courts . Therefore , the interrogation centre did not operate under his orders .

Interrogations were carried out by interrogation personnel stationed at the interrogation centre . On DATE there had been a total of CARDINAL members of staff at the interrogation centre , consisting of CARDINAL lance corporals , CARDINAL master sergeants and intelligence officer Major PERSON who had been posted at the interrogation centre since DATE in order to direct the interrogation activities and render them more effective .

He had been informed of ORG death by Sergeant Major PERSON , who had telephoned him at home with the news . PERSON had fallen ill and been taken to hospital but had died before the doctor could intervene . Upon hearing this news the witness had gone to the provincial gendarmerie headquarters . Meanwhile , he had given instructions for the public prosecutor to be informed . The provincial gendarmerie commander had also been present at the headquarters . When the public prosecutor arrived they went to the hospital . He had seen the body for the first time at the autopsy but there had been nothing that had attracted his attention . He did not think that PERSON had been tortured because during the DATE he had been in his post he had never seen or heard of anyone being mistreated , let alone tortured , at the interrogation centre .

PERSON stated that he was a gendarme with the rank of lance corporal serving at the intelligence unit of the GPE provincial gendarmerie and head of the interrogation centre .

He stated that he had been on leave on DATE PERSON was taken into custody ( DATE ) . Upon his return on DATE he had visited all the persons detained at the interrogation centre , including PERSON in cell no . CARDINAL . PERSON had been listless , nervous and frightened . No interrogations had taken place on DATE . The interrogations of PERSON had been carried out by Major PERSON , who was in charge of the coordination of the interrogation centre , and ORG . On DATE Major PERSON had gone on leave and Master Sergeant Ercan Günay had gone to GPE on an assignment . Therefore , PERSON had not been interrogated on CARDINAL , DATE or DATE .

On DATE , while he was in the canteen , he had been informed by Master Sergeant PERSON , the duty officer at the interrogation centre , that PERSON had fallen ill . He had ordered a vehicle and had informed Colonel PERSON of the matter . He had then gone to the interrogation centre and seen PERSON being taken out of his cell in a blanket . He had helped PERSON onto the back seat of the car . He had observed that PERSON was breathing and had checked for and found a pulse . He had taken PERSON to the accident and emergency department at ORG , where after an examination , the doctor pronounced him dead .

It had been established before PERSON was taken to the interrogation centre that he had helped and sheltered members of the ORG . PERSON had given TRL CARDINAL and CARDINAL PERSON rifles and ammunition to the ORG .

PERSON , a Master Sergeant in the gendarmerie serving at the intelligence unit of the LOC provincial gendarmerie , stated that Major PERSON had ordered PERSON to be brought to the interrogation centre after it had been established from statements made by members of the ORG and documents that had been seized that PERSON had provided assistance , shelter and supplies to that organisation . On DATE PERSON had arrived at the interrogation centre and a medical certificate and permission from the public prosecutor to take PERSON into custody had been obtained . He had been the duty officer DATE . During his shift he had arranged for the doors of the cells to be opened at TIME to check on the detainees . On each occasion PERSON , who was in cell no . DATE , had told him that he had no problems . He did not observe anything unusual in PERSON behaviour .

He was also the duty officer on DATE . Both before and after TIME he had checked on PERSON and had not noticed anything unusual about him . As the evening meal was about to be served , the private distributing the meals had come to see him and told him that he had heard strange voices coming from cell no . CARDINAL , that PERSON had been banging on the door and that when the private had looked into the cell PERSON had told him that he was ill . Upon receiving this information the witness said that he had immediately gone downstairs to the detention area . The private standing guard had opened the door to cell no . CARDINAL . When the witness called out to PERSON there had been no response . PERSON had been seated and had fainted . The witness had immediately taken him out of the cell to make sure that he got some fresh air . A private had supported PERSON on CARDINAL arm but he had been unable to stand up in his condition and had therefore been laid on a blanket . The witness had given instructions for the relevant superiors to be informed and for a car to be made ready . Meanwhile , Sergeant Major PERSON had arrived .

With the blanket serving as a stretcher , PERSON had been taken to the car and driven to the hospital . He was still breathing when he was taken outside . Later , the witness had been informed that ORG had died at the hospital .

PERSON had been interrogated by Major PERSON and PERSON . The witness did not have any information concerning the methods that had been used . While he was certain that PERSON had not been tortured , he did not know the cause of his death .

Üzeyir Nazlım stated that he was a Master Sergeant in the gendarmerie serving at the intelligence unit of the LOC provincial gendarmerie . He had checked on PERSON in cell no . CARDINAL while on guard duty on CARDINAL and DATE . PERSON had been listless , nervous and anxious . Master Sergeant PERSON had taken over the guard duty from him on DATE . On DATE he had heard that PERSON had become ill and had died in hospital .

PERSON had been interrogated by Major PERSON and PERSON . He did not know how many times PERSON had been interrogated or what methods had been used . He had neither seen nor heard PERSON being subjected to torture during interrogation .

PERSON , a Master Sergeant in the gendarmerie serving at the intelligence unit of the LOC provincial gendarmerie , said that he had seen PERSON on DATE on his arrival at the interrogation centre . As far as he could see , PERSON did not appear to be suffering from any kind of illness , although he was somewhat overweight . He had been detained in cell no . CARDINAL and interrogated by Major PERSON and PERSON .

The witness had been on guard duty on CARDINAL and DATE . As part of his duties he had personally asked the detainees about their health CARDINAL times during DATE and the night . The inactivity displayed by PERSON had attracted his attention . Nevertheless , when he had asked him if he was ill , PERSON had replied that he had no problem . If a detainee complained of aches and pains medical supplies were available at the interrogation centre . Moreover , such detainees were examined by the doctor on duty at the headquarters .

He had not heard anything about PERSON having been tortured or beaten while in detention and had not seen any such treatment .

While on guard duty at the detention area of the interrogation centre on DATE this Master Sergeant in the gendarmerie had checked on PERSON in cell no . CARDINAL a number of times . He had not observed anything unusual . PERSON had been interrogated by Major PERSON and PERSON . The witness had neither seen nor heard PERSON being subjected to torture . In TIME of CARDINAL DATE he had heard that PERSON had become unwell and had died at the hospital to which he had been taken .

PERSON , a master sergeant in the gendarmerie serving in the intelligence unit of the GPE provincial gendarmerie , stated that he had seen PERSON while on guard duty on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE he had ordered the doors of the cells to be opened CARDINAL times in the morning and twice in the evening and had asked the detainees if they had any problems . He had spoken to PERSON who had been in cell no . CARDINAL . He had not observed anything unusual in his behaviour and PERSON had not complained to him about being ill . As he had been resting in the canteen on CARDINAL DATE he had heard the news that PERSON had fallen ill and had died at the hospital . He had no information about any torture .

NORP This master sergeant in the gendarmerie stated that he could not remember whether or not he had seen PERSON , who had fallen ill in his cell on CARDINAL DATE and had subsequently died in hospital . PERSON had been interrogated by Major PERSON and PERSON . The witness had not heard anything about PERSON having been tortured during interrogation , nor had he seen anything of the sort .

ORG . PERSON , a lance corporal in the gendarmerie , stated that although he had been at the interrogation centre when PERSON had been detained there , he had not been on guard duty at the time and so could not remember having seen PERSON , who had been taken ill and had died in hospital .

The witness , a corporal in the gendarmerie , stated that he remembered having been on guard duty at the detention area of the interrogation centre on DATE . During his turn of duty he had let PERSON and other detainees out of their cells at meal times and when they needed to go to the lavatory . He had not observed any signs that PERSON might be ill .

He had again been on guard duty on CARDINAL DATE . He had gone to the room where the detainees were served their meals , which was near cell no . CARDINAL . He had heard somebody knocking on a cell door . In reply to his question , “ Which number ? ” , he had received the answer , “ Number CARDINAL ” . He had unfastened the bolt on the door and asked what the matter was . In a very low voice PERSON had replied that he was ill and in a bad state . Although PERSON was standing up the witness realised that he was seriously ill and had immediately gone to inform Master Sergeant PERSON , the duty officer . PERSON had informed their superiors of the situation . PERSON had been helped into a vehicle that had been summoned and was taken to the hospital . The witness had later heard that PERSON had died either in the hospital or on the way there .

During TIME he had been on guard duty in the detention area he had not heard any unusual voices in cell no . CARDINAL . He had not observed anything unusual about PERSON on the occasions he was removed from and returned to his cell , blindfolded .

The witness , a private in the gendarmerie serving at the intelligence unit of the LOC provincial gendarmerie , stated that as part of his guard duty at the detention area he would let detainees out of their cell when they needed to go to the lavatory or when they went for their meals . He would also give the detainees water if they asked for it . While carrying out those duties he had not observed anything unusual about PERSON behaviour and the latter had not mentioned any sickness to him . PERSON had not been taken out of his cell to be interrogated while he was on duty . He had not witnessed PERSON being beaten .

Ercüment GPE , a private in the gendarmerie , stated that he had been on guard duty for some of the time that PERSON had been detained . While on duty , he would open the doors of the cells when detainees were served meals or water , when they needed to go to the lavatory or when they were sent to the interrogation centre . He had taken PERSON from his cell to the interrogation room CARDINAL or CARDINAL times . On the occasions he had accompanied PERSON from the interrogation room back to his cell PERSON had been in the same condition as when he had been taken from his cell . The witness had not seen PERSON being tortured by Major PERSON or PERSON . Neither had he observed any traces of torture on PERSON body . If PERSON had been tortured in the interrogation room , he would , at very least , have heard their voices . PERSON had not been taken to the interrogation room on DATE before his death .

The witness was a private in the gendarmerie . He stated that he had seen PERSON when on guard duty in the period from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE . He had taken PERSON out of his cell several times to take him to the lavatory , to the area where meals were served and to the interrogation room . He had not observed anything unusual about PERSON . There had been no difference in PERSON appearance between the moment his cell door was opened and he was blindfolded and taken to the interrogation room and the moment he returned from the interrogation room . He had not seen PERSON being tortured or observed any signs of torture on PERSON .

On DATE he had been on guard duty between TIME . The private serving the meals had told him that the detainee in cell no . CARDINAL had fallen ill and said that they should inform the duty officer , Master Sergeant PERSON . He had gone to cell no . CARDINAL , had opened the door and had seen PERSON sitting on a blanket . PERSON had then arrived . A private had held PERSON by CARDINAL arm and he had been taken out of the interrogation room . He remembered very clearly that PERSON had been fine DATE . He was unable to recall whether or not PERSON had been taken to the interrogation centre on DATE . ( The Commission understood this last sentence to mean that Private Bora was unable to recall whether or not PERSON had been interrogated on DATE . )

NORP This witness , a private in the gendarmerie , stated that he was the driver of a ORG car belonging to the interrogation centre . On DATE he had been informed by Sergeant Major PERSON that CARDINAL of the detainees had fallen ill and needed to be taken to hospital . He had helped to carry the detainee from the interrogation centre on a blanket . The detainee had been taken to the hospital in a seated position on the back seat of the car . TIME at the hospital they DATE it is not clear from the text of the statement who are meant by “ they ” ; presumably hospital staff ORG said that the detainee had died . He had not heard anything about the detainee having been tortured at the interrogation centre .

NORP In his statement , Major PERSON is introduced as an intelligence officer serving in ORG . He explained that following clashes between the ORG and security forces in a village in LOC province on DATE a large number of documents had been seized . It had been possible to determine from the documents , inter alia , which people in the region , particularly in the districts of PERSON and PERSON , had collaborated with the ORG . Subsequently , a large number of people , including PERSON , had been taken into custody . The task of interrogating them had been divided up between the personnel of the interrogation centre of the PERSON provincial gendarmerie . Although the witness 's posting was at ORG , he had been assigned to the interrogation centre in order to alleviate pressure of work and had been given the task of interrogating a specific group .

Ali Alay , CARDINAL of the persons who had been taken into custody , had made a statement incriminating PERSON . PERSON was said to have given financial support to the ORG . The witness had referred the matter to the commander of the LOC provincial gendarmerie who had instructed him to contact the PERSON district gendarmerie after also informing the head of the intelligence unit . In coordination with the PERSON district police force the PERSON district gendarmerie had then arranged for ORG arrest and had brought him to the interrogation centre on DATE .

Meanwhile , the witness and his assistant , PERSON , had interrogated PERSON and a person named PERSON , who had surrendered to custody voluntarily .

He had first interrogated PERSON DATE after his arrest . PERSON had denied the accusations made against him by ORG . PERSON had then been brought into the interrogation room and had been asked to relate once more his account of PERSON involvement with terrorists . At that point he had observed that PERSON had suddenly started to perspire and had turned slightly pale . PERSON had asked for water and it had been provided immediately . Although PERSON had initially continued to say that PERSON was slandering him , he was sweating profusely and eventually confessed his guilt . During this time he had requested CARDINAL or CARDINAL glasses of water . The witness had asked him whether there was a reason for him drinking so much . PERSON had replied that he was a little unwell , that he needed to drink a lot of water and could not go to sleep without having drunk a full jug of water . Because he knew that PERSON had had a medical check prior to being taken into custody , he had not made too much of this .

ORG Despite his confession it was clear that PERSON was nevertheless attempting to conceal the involvement of others . Therefore , the witness had given PERSON DATE to reflect and sent him back to his cell .

DATE , which must have been either CARDINAL or DATE , they had again interrogated PERSON in the presence of PERSON . PERSON had been overexcited and again wanted to drink water . Finally , PERSON had given the name of his accomplice . The witness had thanked PERSON for his cooperation and told him that they would not cause him any more discomfort .

Meanwhile , he had had a statement prepared concerning PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , whom they had brought face to face at the beginning . He was not sure , however , if the CARDINAL suspects had signed it , as the interrogation centre had been crowded and matters of signatures were generally dealt with just before detainees were transferred . He nevertheless thought that PERSON and PERSON had signed the statement .

On DATE he had gone on DATE leave . While at home in GPE on CARDINAL DATE he had received the news of PERSON death . He had been informed that he had fallen ill and had died on the way to hospital . Nevertheless , the witness said that his conscience was clear : PERSON had not been subjected to the slightest physical force . He was certain that neither he nor ORG had done anything to precipitate PERSON death . He also did not think it likely that PERSON would have been subjected to any kind of torture after DATE . There had been CARDINAL ranked members of staff at the interrogation centre and it was impossible that such a thing could have been kept out of sight .

Ercan Günay , a Master Sergeant in the gendarmerie , stated that he had been serving at the LOC provincial gendarmerie interrogation centre since DATE . Together with Major PERSON he had undertaken the task of interrogating PERSON . He did not remember interrogating PERSON on DATE the latter arrived at the interrogation centre ( DATE ) . The DATE Major PERSON and himself had questioned PERSON for CARDINAL or TIME about the amount of FAC which PERSON was known to have given to the ORG . During this interrogation PERSON had appeared frightened and apprehensive ; his face had turned white and he had been a little shaky . PERSON had rejected all their claims . The following day PERSON had been confronted with CARDINAL co - accused after which he had confessed his guilt . No kind of torture whatsoever had been used on him . The witness did not know whether PERSON had suffered from any illness in the past . During his interrogation PERSON had asked for water several times . He had also been a little overweight .

On DATE the witness had been sent to ORG on an assignment and Major PERSON had gone on leave DATE . Since according to the procedures and distribution of tasks within the interrogation centre detainees could only be questioned by the same officers , PERSON had not been interrogated on CARDINAL , DATE or DATE .

PERSON was CARDINAL of PERSON co - accused . He was asked how long he had been kept in custody at the PERSON interrogation centre , whether he had been confronted with PERSON and if so , whether the latter had borne any signs of torture . In reply PERSON stated that he could not remember the exact date but that he had been taken into custody at the interrogation centre towards DATE . He had been detained for DATE . Over a period of DATE he had been interrogated twice a day . On CARDINAL occasion the blindfold he had been wearing had been partially removed and he had recognised Ali Alay . He had then been blindfolded once again and for that reason had been unable to see whether there was another person in the room . He did not know whether PERSON had been in the room at that time but he had not seen him . His circumstances in custody had been difficult . It was as a result of this that he had made a false statement accusing PERSON of giving money to a terrorist .

He had been kept in cell no . CARDINAL . There were cells adjacent to and opposite his . He did not know whether anyone had been detained in them . After his release he had heard that PERSON had died under interrogation at the time when he , PERSON , had also been in custody . He had not heard PERSON voice in the interrogation centre .

NORP This report lists the applicant , his brother , PERSON , and their mother , PERSON , as complainants . The allegation investigated was that of manslaughter during torture and the accused were Major PERSON and PERSON . The report then lists the identities of CARDINAL witnesses who had made statements before PERSON , followed by a short summary of the incident and of the statements of the accused and the witnesses .

The summary of the incident describes how the applicant had alleged that his brother , PERSON , had been tortured to death by interrogation personnel of the interrogation centre of the PERSON provincial gendarmerie , where PERSON had been taken on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE PERSON had fallen ill in his cell and had died after being admitted to hospital . The summaries of the statements of Major PERSON and PERSON mention that they had interrogated PERSON once and that they had confronted him with his co - accused once .

NORP The report then goes on to list as “ Other Evidence ” the documents that had been examined by Major PERSON , including statements incriminating PERSON , duty rosters , the record of the inspection of the interrogation centre ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the entries in the register of the PERSON health clinic concerning PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the medical report issued by Dr PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the report of the post - mortem examination and autopsy ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) and the report issued by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

In the subsequent “ Analysis of The Evidence ” , it is stated , inter alia , that Major PERSON and PERSON interrogated PERSON once for TIME and that they supervised the confrontations between PERSON and PERSON and between PERSON and PERSON that had been arranged for the purposes of mutual identification . In a paragraph in which reference is made to the fact that PERSON had been diagnosed with urethritis , Major PERSON observed that according to the statements made before him , PERSON had been excessively thirsty and had drunk a remarkable quantity of water . This section of the report also contains the following paragraph :

“ During his first interrogation ... PERSON denied that he had given financial support to the [ ORG ] organisation and later , when he was confronted by the person to whom he had delivered money , he confessed to the crime . The witnesses state that from that moment on the aforementioned person ( that is to say , PERSON ) had been noticeably subdued , depressed and nervous . It is very probable that PERSON had reached such a mental state as a result of his thinking that the security forces knew that he had bought CARDINAL PERSON guns from the gun smuggler ... and he went into an extreme mental depression and death occurred in this mental atmosphere . ”

NORP The report concluded that PERSON death had not been caused by torture , force , violence or harsh treatment and for this reason Major PERSON proposed that no criminal prosecution be instigated against Major PERSON and PERSON .

A pre - trial review was held on DATE . The court decided , inter alia , to issue a rogatory letter requesting ORG to obtain Major PERSON 's defence submissions and to issue a summons requiring LAW to appear as a defendant . It adjourned the proceedings until DATE .

The applicant was present and the court granted him permission to intervene in the proceedings . He was asked to state his complaint and his evidence . He stated that the deceased , PERSON , was his brother . PERSON had been taken by the gendarmerie for interrogation . After DATE the family had received notification that PERSON had died . PERSON had not been suffering from any health problem prior to his arrest . Given that he had died unexpectedly , the family had filed a complaint as they believed that he had been tortured to death during the interrogation . He had not personally seen evidence that PERSON had been tortured and it would have been impossible for him to do so , since the family had been denied access to PERSON while he was under interrogation . Moreover , PERSON was already dead by the time the family arrived at the hospital . He had seen PERSON 's body TIME after PERSON 's admission to hospital . He had observed abnormal bruising and signs of beating to the outer section of both arms , the forehead and the soles of the feet . Yet shortly after PERSON 's arrest a medical report had been issued , in which the presence or absence of any such signs should have been noted .

The applicant further confirmed that the content of his statement of CARDINAL DATE to the PERSON public prosecutor was correct .

NORP The report of the post - mortem examination and the autopsy of CARDINAL DATE and the report of ORG of DATE ( which should presumably read CARDINAL DATE ) were read out . The applicant stated that he had no comments on the autopsy report but was not satisfied by the report of ORG . However , he did not think that there was anything else that could be done .

The court decided to issue a rogatory letter to ORG requesting Major PERSON 's defence submissions and to issue a summons requiring PERSON to appear . It further decided to issue rogatory letters to ORG in respect of the public prosecutors PERSON and GPE who were to be asked whether , according to the autopsy report , the body of PERSON bore any traces of torture within DATE preceding death . Finally , the court decided to issue witness summons to the other persons whose signatures appeared on the autopsy report , including Dr Güneş Pay and Dr PERSON , and the witnesses whose statements had been taken by ORG . The court adjourned the proceedings until DATE .

The applicant 's brother , PERSON , who was also an intervener in the proceedings , stated that his brother PERSON had been in custody for DATE when the news of his death was received . Apart from when PERSON was detained in PERSON , he had not been able to see him in detention . PERSON had had not been suffering from any illnesses whatsoever . He had washed PERSON 's body ; there had been a wound on the forehead and traces of beating on the right side of the back and on the arms . He believed that PERSON had died as a result of torture . The report of the post - mortem examination and autopsy and the report of ORG were read out . PERSON stated that he had nothing to say about the autopsy report but that ORG report was not true .

Counsel for the defendants stated that , in view of the present posting of his client , Master Sergeant Ercan Günay , his defence submissions should be heard by ORG . The court decided to issue a rogatory letter to that effect . It also decided , inter alia , to instruct ORG to take a statement from Dr PERSON . It adjourned the proceedings until DATE .

The court noted that a number of statements had been received from other courts in GPE as a result of the rogatory letters that had been issued . The interveners requested that they be granted more time to study those statements . They also said that the defendants had tortured their brother , PERSON , for DATE and that when he had gone into a coma one of the defendants had taken leave and the other had been transferred to another post . Since they believed that this had been done intentionally they demanded that the defendants be arrested .

The court examined CARDINAL witnesses : a hospital orderly , a clerk and the driver who had taken the autopsy officials to the morgue . Although all CARDINAL confirmed that their signatures appeared on the autopsy report of CARDINAL DATE , none could remember the incident in issue .

NORP The court adjourned the proceedings until DATE .

The interveners , including the applicant , did not attend this hearing . The court examined CARDINAL master sergeants , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . They all stated that a military doctor carried out examinations every day in the detention area of the interrogation centre . Some of them added that the interrogation centre conformed to the requisite standards and that the rooms where interrogations were conducted were not equipped with sound insulation . Therefore , if PERSON had been tortured or subjected to violence during his interrogation then the sounds of his cries and screams would have been audible outside those rooms , but they had not heard anything of that nature . According to Master Sergeants PERSON and PERSON , the defendant Major PERSON had gone on leave DATE before DATE PERSON had died . As far as PERSON could remember , Major PERSON had left DATE before DATE but he was unable to recall whether the defendant PERSON had been at his post or out on assignment on DATE in question . PERSON said that Master Sergeant Günay had gone on an assignment DATE before DATE PERSON died . These CARDINAL witnesses confirmed the content of the statements they had made before Major PERSON after they had been read out to them .

The court further noted that additional statements had been received from other courts in GPE in reply to rogatory letters . The public prosecutor and counsel for the defendants stated that the principal witnesses had been heard and that those witnesses who had not yet been heard were gendarmes who had said in their preparatory statements – the Commission assumed that “ preparatory statements ” meant the statements taken by PERSON – that they had no knowledge of the incident . They submitted , therefore , that it would be sufficient for the preparatory statements to be read out . The court accepted that submission and decided not to summon those witnesses ; the preparatory statements were read out .

In respect of the merits of the case the public prosecutor said that there was insufficient evidence to convict and submitted that the defendants should be acquitted . Counsel for the defendants agreed with the public prosecutor 's position , adding that no prosecution need have been instigated and that ORG had probably only decided to refer the case to court because of the fact that there had been a death . The court then decided to acquit the defendants as the charges against them had not been proved .

The statement was requested by ORG in its rogatory letter of CARDINAL DATE . The decision of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was read out to Major PERSON and he was asked to submit his defence and evidence concerning the charge against him .

Major PERSON denied having struck PERSON during his interrogation . Nor had he seen anybody else do so . He had gone on leave to GPE while PERSON remained in custody . On DATE of his leave he had been informed of PERSON death , and had cut short his leave and returned to his post . At a later stage CARDINAL of PERSON relatives must have filed a complaint against him and he had become the subject of an investigation . ORG had reached a unanimous decision to the effect that he should not be prosecuted . However , ORG had subsequently accepted that the report of the post - mortem examination and autopsy constituted evidence against him that PERSON death had been caused by beating . He expressed his amazement that he had been committed for trial given that he had no stage struck PERSON . He could also categorically affirm that PERSON had not been beaten by ORG . Finally , he confirmed that the statements he had made previously were correct .

The statement was requested by ORG in its rogatory letter of CARDINAL DATE . The decision of ORG of DATE was read out to PERSON . He made a statement in the presence of his defence counsel .

Master Sergeant Ercan Günay stated that he had been an interrogating officer on the date of the incident . Together with his colleague , Major PERSON , he had interrogated PERSON , who was suspected of having provided assistance to the ORG on various occasions . However , he had not beaten PERSON . He had then been sent to GPE on an assignment for DATE . Upon his return to PERSON he had learned that PERSON had fallen ill , had been taken to hospital and had died there . Accordingly , he denied the charge against him . His counsel added that it appeared from the report of the autopsy and the report issued by ORG that the exact cause of PERSON death could not be established . In spite of this ORG had decided that the defendants should stand trial . However , his client had not had anything to do with the offence with which he had been charged .

NORP The statement was requested by ORG in its rogatory letter of CARDINAL DATE . Public Prosecutor PERSON stated that the public prosecutor 's office had been informed that a person detained at the investigation and interrogation unit of the GPE provincial gendarmerie had fallen ill and died as he was being transported to hospital . Together with Public Prosecutor Ekrem Şendoğan he had gone to ORG where he had attended the autopsy that had been performed by medical experts . He confirmed the content of the relevant report . As was mentioned in that report , during the external examination of the deceased , bruising , possibly resulting from trauma , had been observed on the right arm , on the inside of the right arm and near the right wrist . Other than the marks indicated in the report , they had not observed any other signs which could be attributed to torture .

The judgment stated that evidence had been taken from the following persons : Master Sergeants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ; ORG PERSON , NORP Çileşoğlu , PERSON and PERSON ; ORG ; Police Constable PERSON ; Captain PERSON ; Colonel PERSON ; PERSON ; Senior Major PERSON ; and Corporal PERSON . All these witnesses had testified that the deceased had been detained in order to be interrogated , that the military doctor looked after detainees on a DATE basis and that detainees were referred to hospital if they were ill , and that they had never seen any detainees being ill - treated .

ORG referred to the finding of the post - mortem examination that PERSON presented cyanosis covering the head and various superficial ecchymotic areas on the head , both arms and the back . Reference was further made to the report of ORG which concluded that it was not possible to determine the exact cause of death .

The defendants were acquitted since it had not been possible to obtain wholly incontrovertible evidence that would allow the court conscionably to decide that the defendants had caused death by torture .

The name PERSON and the comment “ urethritis ” are included in the entries for DATE and DATE as ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively .

NORP This report states that PERSON had been brought to the health clinic and that on examination had not presented any signs of beating , or of being subjected to force or violence .

NORP This report states that following information received by telephone at TIME on DATE to the effect that an individual had died whilst being taken to ORG after being taken suddenly ill at the investigation and interrogation unit at the LOC provincial gendarmerie headquarters , the chief public prosecutor had , in view of the seriousness of the incident , instructed Public Prosecutors PERSON and GPE to go to the hospital where they arrived at TIME An expert medical witness , Dr PERSON , was present and , again owing to the seriousness of the matter , a second expert medical witness , Dr PERSON , was immediately appointed .

The body was identified as being that of PERSON by Captain PERSON , commander of the GPE provincial central gendarmerie . Captain PERSON stated that PERSON had been detained on suspicion of involvement with the ORG . Captain PERSON had been informed that PERSON had suddenly fallen ill at TIME and had been taken to ORG , where he died .

Subsequently , the clothes were removed from the body and a photographer brought in from gendarmerie headquarters took a number of photographs from various angles .

NORP On external examination of the body the head was observed to be covered with a mask - like mauve discoloration ( cyanosis ) starting from the upper section of the thorax , QUANTITY below the jaw towards the thorax , and covering the complete surface of the neck including the ears and the back of the neck . The head was examined manually and the bone structure was observed to be intact . In the frontal section of the forehead , QUANTITY above the middle of the left eyebrow , was a one- or DATE graze measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY consistent with trauma . The examination of the neck revealed normal articulation with no breakage or pathological disorder .

On the outer section of the left arm humerus and parallel to the axis of the body an area of ecchymosis measuring QUANTITY consistent with blunt trauma was observed . The left forearm and hand , including the fingers , were covered with extensive ecchymoses . On the outer section of the upper right arm humerus and parallel to the axis of the body was an area of ecchymosis measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY consistent with trauma ; QUANTITY below this was another area of ecchymosis CARDINAL x QUANTITY in size . Under the right armpit and starting near the back was a clean cut , QUANTITY in length and QUANTITY in width , perpendicular to the axis of the body and trailing towards the middle of the armpit . There was a further ecchymotic area on the right forearm near the wrist . CARDINAL of the outer surface of the left foot was covered with a widespread ecchymotic area . The soles of the feet were covered with dirt and calluses . The manual examination of the back revealed an QUANTITY long scar , DATE , in the shape of a half moon on the right shoulder blade . Rigor mortis had started to develop . With the exception of the findings stated above , there were no other pathological diagnoses or signs of injuries caused by sharp , pointed instruments , firearms or otherwise .

On the basis of these findings the doctors observed that the cyanosis covering the head could be consistent with a heart attack or with another incident occurring either before or after death . The findings of the external examination , none of which were by themselves capable of causing death , did not allow the exact cause of death to be established . For this reason it was decided to perform a full autopsy . The expert medical witnesses estimated that death had occurred TIME previously .

On the subsequent internal examination of the head , the thorax and the abdomen no abnormalities were observed . The urethra was found to be positioned normally and no pathological finding was made in this respect . In view of the failure to establish the exact cause of death , it was decided to send tissue samples from the body to ORG in order for the exact cause of death to be determined . Sections from both lobes of the brain , the whole heart , sections from both lungs , sections from the liver and spleen , the whole of the stomach and its contents , a section of the intestine and its contents , sections from both kidneys and a blood sample were taken , placed in glass containers with a formaldehyde solution and sealed .

NORP The time indicated at the bottom of the report is TIME It is signed , inter alia , by both public prosecutors and both doctors .

NORP This report , signed by Professor PERSON and PERSON Hüseyin Sarı , refers to the letter of the PERSON public prosecutor dated DATE in which it is requested that the exact cause of death be established . There then follows a summary of the report of the postmortem examination and autopsy ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

In the macroscopic examination of the internal organs , performed at the morgue specialist department of ORG , the heart was found to weigh QUANTITY , no peculiarities were observed in the samples other than hyperaemia , and the lungs were found to be of a hard and solid consistency and of a multicoloured appearance .

NORP The report issued by the specialist chemical analyses office dated DATE stated that no alcohol , tranquillisers , stimulants or toxic materials had been found in the internal organs .

According to the histopathological report dated CARDINAL DATE there had been post - mortem changes to the heart , liver , kidneys and brain ; hyperaemia and acute swelling were observed in the lungs ; the septal capillaries were full of red blood cells ; the alveolar septa were torn in places and the alveolar cavities had expanded .

This report was commissioned by the applicant and submitted on CARDINAL DATE . PERSON was a registered medical practitioner , Senior Lecturer in ORG at ORG , GPE , and Consultant Pathologist to ORG .

On the basis of the report of the post - mortem examination and autopsy and the report of ORG PERSON concluded that no natural disease had been found to contribute to or account for death . The body had shown injuries to the arms and foot which were in keeping with blows to those areas . The extensive bruising of the left forearm could have been due to the deceased having used his arms to try and ward off blows . The injuries in these areas were referred to as defence injuries which typically involved the forearm and hands . They might also involve the feet if the feet were used to shield blows . The cut to the right arm suggested that it had been inflicted with a sharp implement such as a knife .

The injuries appeared to have been inflicted whilst the deceased was in custody . The scar described as being DATE could have been inflicted during custody . Given that dating of scars was not accurate this injury could have been more recent .

NORP In the absence of any natural disease process to cause death and with the presence of obvious injuries which were not self - inflicted , the possibility that the deceased was a victim of an unnatural disease process had to be seriously considered . Poisoning as a cause of death could be excluded from the toxicological examination performed . However , there were a number of possible mechanisms to account for the appearances . The first of these was traumatic or crush asphyxia . In this type of death the chest was pinioned in such a way as to prevent breathing . Crucifixion caused death in a similar manner , as did so - called NORP hanging where the hands were tied behind the back and the body was suspended from the tied arms which would cause respiratory failure if the position was held for a sufficient length of time . The second possible mechanism was the placing of a plastic bag over the face or head , which was well recognised to lead to death . This would not leave any specific external signs . Finally , in a choke hold or carotid sleeper an arm was held across the neck . In choke holding it was held across the front of the neck , frequently damaging the structures in the neck , particularly the laryngeal cartilages . With carotid sleeper a similar hold was placed , but with the neck being held in the crook of the arm so that the carotid arteries were occluded . Application of either hold could prove fatal .

PERSON did not accept that PERSON had died as a result of a heart attack . In every death the heart would stop , but this was a mode of death and not a cause of death . Moreover , neither in the autopsy nor in the microscopic ( histopathological ) examination had any heart disease been found . In the absence of natural disease and with clear injuries present on the deceased , death as a result of torture must be a very strong possibility in this case .

In respect of the autopsy PERSON remarked that it was not clear to what extent the physicians performing it had had training and experience in forensic pathology . The autopsy report did not appear to contain a detailed description of the internal appearance of the neck . This was a major omission in detailing a death in custody , especially in view of the description of cyanosis of the head and neck . Moreover , injuries in persons having died whilst in custody should be documented and photographed and unlawful methods of killing had to be considered . It was not clear that such a thorough investigation had been conducted in this case . The inability of the doctors performing the autopsy to conduct a microscopic examination , which was an integral part of any post - mortem examination , suggested that they may have lacked the necessary experience to have conducted this examination .

The photographs show the naked body of a man laid down on what is , presumably , a mortuary slab . The colour reproduction in particular is of poor quality , tingeing everything with a green hue . The first photograph shows part of the chest as well as the left side of the face . A mark is visible on the forehead , between the left eyebrow and the hairline . ORG in the shape of a mask can not be observed but the left ear appears bluish .

In the second photograph , the body lies on its left side and the back of the body is portrayed . It is not possible to see the whole of the right shoulder blade . TIME shaped scar is visible . The third and fourth photographs show the body lying on its back . For the third photograph , the photographer would have stood near the feet of the body ; the feet are not visible and of the head only the tip of the nose and the bearded chin can be observed . There appears to be a reddish area of discoloration on the left forearm . For the fourth photograph , the photographer would have stood to the right of the body near the knees . The right side of the face , part of the neck and chest , the right arm , a small part of the left forearm , and the rest of the body down to almost the top of the knees can be seen . No cyanosis is visible . On the outside of the right arm there appears to be a welt - like reddish mark stretching down from the middle of the shoulder to halfway to the elbow . The reddish area of discoloration on the left forearm can also be observed in this photograph .

The evidence of the CARDINAL witnesses heard by ORG may be summarised as follows :

The applicant stated that he had been born in DATE and was a lawyer by profession . Apart from PERSON , he had CARDINAL other brothers and sisters . He was the second youngest .

The last time he had seen his brother PERSON had been DATE prior to the latter being taken into custody . PERSON had seemed to be in good health and had in fact never had an illness . He had not heard of an illness called urethritis .

He had been in ORG , where he was studying , when his elder brother had informed him of the fact that PERSON had been taken into custody . He had immediately returned to PERSON and had arrived home on DATE as PERSON had been apprehended .

PERSON had been a tradesman and a delegate of ORG ( PERSON , “ DYP ” ) . He had never been arrested before .

The applicant had not seen PERSON in detention . During interrogation a detainee was not allowed any visitors for DATE . The family had gone to GPE to try and see PERSON many times but had not been allowed to do so . He had gone to the public prosecutor 's office in GPE but this had not resulted in permission being granted to the family to see PERSON and neither had any information of the charges brought against PERSON been forthcoming . Members of the ORG had tried to intercede , but to no avail . At the PERSON gendarmerie station the family had been told not to worry as PERSON would be released .

DATE after PERSON 's arrest , his uncle PERSON had been contacted by the PERSON gendarmerie station with the news that PERSON 's body could be collected from GPE . The family had brought the body home on DATE and this was where he had seen the body . He had noticed that certain parts had been removed for the autopsy , including parts of the brain . Apart from the scars caused by that , he had seen the mark of an injury on PERSON 's forehead . In his opinion this injury had been caused by a blow , as it did not have the appearance of a boil or of an injury that might have come about as a result of scratching , for example . There had also been marks on the hands , under the soles of the feet and on the elbows .

DATE he had gone to the public prosecutor in PERSON stating that PERSON 's was no normal death . Although at that time he was not familiar with the content of the health report drawn up by PERSON ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) , he knew that every person taken into custody would first be taken to the health centre for an examination . He did not know what kind of tests this examination entailed . When PERSON 's body had been released to his uncle PERSON , officials had said that PERSON had died of a heart attack . The family had not believed this and he had therefore requested another autopsy . Asked why he had not told the prosecutor of the wounds he had seen on PERSON 's body , he said that this must have been because he had been in shock but also because the prosecutor had not asked him about it . Nevertheless , he had clearly stated that PERSON 's death had been brought about by torture . He had read and signed the record of his statement to the prosecutor .

Yakup 's body had remained at the house for TIME and the burial had taken place DATE . He conceded that the text of his statement to the ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , which he had drawn up himself , was somewhat ambiguous . His family had not been prevented from burying PERSON but pressure had been brought to bear on them to hold the funeral on DATE the body was delivered to the family , that is to say CARDINAL DATE . This had been because the authorities feared trouble . However , the family and the district chairman of the ORG had pleaded with the chief superintendent of police to be allowed to hold the funeral DATE so that the body could be kept at home for TIME in accordance with local custom . There had been security forces all over PERSON until the body had been buried . Neither a delegation of the ORG nor the press had been allowed to attend the funeral .

Major PERSON , who had been appointed investigator by LOC , had summoned his mother , his brother PERSON and himself to PERSON police station on DATE to take statements from them . Although as an investigator Major PERSON was supposed to put questions objectively , the interview had not been conducted in such a manner at all . He felt that Major PERSON 's questions had been designed to protect Major PERSON 's own personnel and to cover up the incident . He felt that psychological pressure had been brought to bear on him . For instance , Major PERSON had asked questions like , “ Why are you making a complaint ? Why do you not believe that your brother died of a heart attack ? Why do you not believe that the cause of death is not torture ? ” Major PERSON had further commented : “ There is no need for you to complain . We would not do such a thing ” ; and also : “ It is wrong for you to think like that about security forces personnel . The allegations of torture are wrong . ”

Major PERSON had not asked him whether he had seen PERSON 's body or what its condition was , but both his mother , his brother PERSON and himself had told Major PERSON that PERSON 's death was a result of torture . It had been his brother PERSON who had told Major PERSON that PERSON had had a small pustule on his penis for which he had received medical treatment , as the applicant had not been aware of this previously . When the record of his statement to PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) was put to him , he denied having said to Major PERSON : “ If death has occurred because of natural causes , it is God 's will ” . PERSON had been a very healthy man who would not have died of natural causes within DATE and it was therefore not possible that he would have described PERSON 's death as God 's will . Moreover , why would he have said such a thing when DATE prior to that he had complained to the public prosecutor of torture ? Therefore , the record of his statement to Major PERSON was not completely accurate . He had been told to sign the record and had not read it .

Subsequently , ORG had decided that no prosecution was to be instituted . That decision had been overturned by ORG which had referred the case to ORG . Although according to the law that court had jurisdiction ratione materiae as well as ratione loci , it had declined to exercise it , for the sole purpose of delaying the proceedings . Following a decision by ORG that it had no jurisdiction either , ORG had decided that it was ORG which was the competent court to deal with the case . However , in the meantime DATE had passed .

He had been an intervening party in the criminal proceedings and had attended many hearings . He characterised the trial as disorganised and said that the case had not been actively prosecuted . It was his opinion that the CARDINAL accused ought to have been in custody while the trial was proceeding but the public prosecutor had told the court that it was not necessary to arrest the CARDINAL men . In fact , the accused had not attended court even once to give evidence and on some occasions their counsel had also failed to attend . Most of the witnesses had moved to different places and their testimonies had not been obtained . In spite of all the available evidence the CARDINAL accused had been acquitted .

It was put to him that , despite his objections voiced to the PERSON public prosecutor on CARDINAL DATE , he had told ORG on DATE that he had nothing to say about the autopsy report or the report of ORG . He explained that although the report of ORG had not satisfied him , as he had also pointed out to ORG , according to the law there was no organisation above ORG . Furthermore , by that time DATE had passed and his family had not wanted another autopsy carried out .

As reported by ORG , several times during his testimony this witness became very emotional and cried .

Mr PERSON said that he had been born in DATE . He was an elder brother of the applicant and PERSON . At the relevant time , PERSON had been married and had a DATE baby . PERSON 's widow and child continued to live with him . Following the death of their father in DATE PERSON and himself had become the heads of the family , looking after the younger brothers and sisters who were still at school . They had lived in the same house . He had been very close to PERSON . They had both been traders and DATE they used to go together to the marketplace , where they both had business LOC . They had both enjoyed the sport of wrestling and would frequently wrestle together of TIME . Although he was older than PERSON , PERSON had been the stronger .

He had last seen PERSON alive on TIME after his arrest . PERSON had been held TIME at the PERSON gendarmerie . He had gone there and had found PERSON sitting in the canteen . He had observed PERSON to be in good condition . He had brought PERSON breakfast but because PERSON had been handcuffed he had only given him a glass of milk . PERSON did not know why he had been arrested . He had asked PERSON whether the gendarmes had done anything to him , which PERSON had denied . Then a gendarme had taken PERSON out of the canteen and TIME he had observed PERSON being put in a vehicle and driven away .

Like PERSON , he was also a delegate of the DYP . He had gone to see the district chairman of the ORG who had found out from the gendarmerie that PERSON had been taken to GPE . Although the family had attempted to gain access to PERSON this had been refused .

At TIME on DATE although he said CARDINAL DATE , ORG considered that this was a mistake since DATE was a DATE Mr PERSON had gone to the GPE Governor 's office in GPE , thinking that would be a likely day for detainees to be brought before the court and hoping that he would be able to see PERSON if that happened . Around TIME he had been approached by an acquaintance from PERSON who had told him that PERSON had died and his body taken to PERSON .

He had subsequently learned that at TIME the gendarmes had come looking for him . As they had not found him at home , they had gone to his uncle PERSON who had been taken to ORG . At the entrance to the hospital his uncle had been met by the captain of the gendarmerie who had asked what relation PERSON was to PERSON . When PERSON said that PERSON was his elder brother 's son , the captain had extended his hand and had said , “ Please accept my condolences . PERSON died DATE TIME . ” Upon this , his uncle had made telephone calls to PERSON and all the relatives and many acquaintances had immediately rushed to PERSON : CARDINAL the population of PERSON had gone there , including fellow shopkeepers who had closed their shops . In view of the large number of cars , the security forces had brought the body back to PERSON under military escort .

When PERSON 's body had arrived home the chief superintendent of police had demanded that it be buried immediately . Since he had not yet returned from PERSON , his brother had refused . Upon his return in the evening they had pleaded with the chief superintendent , saying that there was not enough light left to arrange a funeral that night .

PERSON 's body had been laid out in the house . He and the imam had washed the body . PERSON 's forehead , above the left eye , had sunk in and appeared as if it had been hit with a piece of metal . The shoulders were bruised and had turned purple and black . On the right hand side of the lower back there had been a mark in the shape of a DATE new moon . There had been red and black bruising on the arms and on the back of the legs , from the calves down to the lower legs . There had been blood coming from the tip of a toe . The left hand side of PERSON 's face was all bruised .

He had not accompanied his younger brother to the public prosecutor but another brother had done so . He had stayed behind to receive the people coming to express their condolences .

There had been no problem with PERSON 's health or strength . On DATE of his arrest , PERSON had been cutting firewood .

NORP In DATE the witness had been summoned to the police station , together with his mother and brother PERSON . There , PERSON had not asked about the injuries he had seen on PERSON 's body but only if PERSON had had an illness . The witness had replied that he had not and had in fact been stronger than he was . Major PERSON had said that PERSON had visited the health centre in relation to a urinary problem . He had said to Major PERSON that this might have been the case . He had also told PERSON Şeker that PERSON had been murdered by torture and that he wanted the perpetrators prosecuted . The witness said to the Delegates that even if PERSON had gone to the doctor 's with a urinary problem this had not been around the time of his arrest .

He denied having said to Major PERSON that if PERSON 's death was the result of natural causes this would have been God 's will . He had not dared or considered reading the record of his statement when PERSON had given it to him to sign .

Public Prosecutor PERSON stated that he was born in DATE . In DATE he had been working as public prosecutor in GPE . He had left GPE in DATE .

He remembered having attended the post - mortem examination and autopsy that had been performed on PERSON body on DATE , although he had no clear recollection of the details . He had been telephoned at home by the gendarmerie and been informed that a person had become ill while in custody and had died on the way to hospital .

In view of the importance of the incident he had contacted the chief public prosecutor who had instructed him to have a second public prosecutor attend the autopsy also . The seriousness of the incident , referred to in the beginning of the report of the post - mortem examination and autopsy ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , had lain in the fact that a person had died while in the custody of the security forces and also in the fact that this kind of incident could cause speculation . He illustrated this by relating how previously there had been speculation that terrorists who had surrendered to the authorities had been killed by the security forces when they had in fact been killed by other terrorists . Moreover , there had been allegations to the effect that when an autopsy report was drawn up by a public prosecutor , only some of the findings would be listed and certain matters would be omitted altogether . If CARDINAL prosecutors attended , they could act as witnesses for each other if the need arose .

The CARDINAL photographs submitted by the Government ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) were shown to him and he was reasonably certain that the body depicted in the photographs was that of the man on which he had performed the post - mortem examination on DATE . They had been taken by the photographer of the LOC provincial gendarmerie . The negatives would usually be kept at the offices of the photographer 's employer .

In a post - mortem examination it was the public prosecutor who would dictate the findings , drawing on the expertise of the doctor present . However , an autopsy would be performed by a doctor . In the present case , it had not been possible to determine the exact cause of death from the post - mortem examination , although the doctors had suggested at the end of the examination that the death could have resulted from a heart attack . For this reason it had been decided that a full autopsy should be performed . As the exact cause of death had not appeared from the autopsy either , a joint decision had been taken to send tissue samples from the body to ORG .

NORP Although they had been able to observe in the process of the autopsy that the heart had been of normal appearance , he did not know whether this meant that cardiac failure had been ruled out . He did not agree with the suggestion that by the end of the autopsy the doctors and he himself would have had good grounds for suspecting that death had been caused by beating . On the contrary , the doctors had determined during the post - mortem examination that the injuries observed on the body could not have constituted the cause of death .

He was not aware that the form of torture known as “ NORP hanging ” could lead to death by asphyxiation . As he had never heard of this form of torture , he did not know whether PERSON injuries were consistent with somebody having been subjected to such treatment .

ORG If , in the course of the post - mortem examination , any opinion , provisional or otherwise , had been expressed as to the possible cause of the blunt traumata with which some of the observed areas of ecchymosis were consistent , this would have been recorded in the report . Given that such traumata could have many different causes he did not think it likely that the doctors would have been able to determine their exact cause from a post - mortem examination . Forensic experts might be able to establish the exact cause , and this might also be determined in a subsequent judicial investigation . Asked whether it had not occurred to him to enquire of the doctors whether the marks on the body were consistent with ill - treatment while in custody , he said that they had probably assumed that this would be determined by the subsequent investigation .

NORP When asked whether it would not have been extremely important to find out immediately whether or not there had been any instrument or object present in the place of detention capable of having produced the injuries found on the body , he said that the cause of those injuries had not yet been established . In reply to the subsequent question whether a search for an object capable of producing such injuries was not precisely how the cause of the injuries might be established , he conceded that this was probably the case . Given that he had had no jurisdiction in the matter , however , he had not given an instruction for the interrogation rooms at GPE provincial gendarmerie headquarters to be inspected . In any event , it had been established that these injuries were not the cause of death .

He had attended the post - mortem examination and the autopsy in his capacity of public prosecutor because time had been of the essence . However , pursuant to LAW no . CARDINAL establishing a state of emergency regional governorate it was not him but ORG which was the competent authority to investigate the incident . He was familiar with the fact that one of PERSON brothers had lodged a complaint with ORG . The complaint had been transferred to him because ORG had no jurisdiction in the matter . However , the incident would have been investigated regardless of whether or not a complaint had been brought .

On DATE he had issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction in which he confirmed that ORG had no jurisdiction . He had transferred the file to ORG . In his opinion , the most important part of the investigation had already been carried out by that stage , namely the examinations to establish the exact cause of death . After that , the only thing left to do was to take statements from witnesses and suspects .

In its investigation , the provincial administrative council had the same powers as a public prosecutor . He did not know at what stage ORG had been alerted to the incident – it might have been informed at the same time as he . In proceedings before the provincial administrative council an investigator would be appointed who was responsible for the collection of evidence . He thought that in a case like the present the investigator would not be a member of the gendarmerie in view of the fact that the case involved the gendarmerie .

He had only found out that a criminal prosecution had been instituted when he had been asked to testify by a rogatory letter at his new post in Buldan . ORG had requested ORG to take his statement in order to check the accuracy of the autopsy report and to confirm his signature .

Professor PERSON had been an expert in forensic medicine since DATE . He was not a pathologist . He had become a professor in DATE . From DATE until DATE he had worked at the morgue specialist department of ORG , performing autopsies in an expert capacity . DATE , and therefore at the time relevant to the present case , he had been the administrator of the morgue specialist department . DATE until DATE he was President of ORG ( “ the Institute ” ) .

NORP The witness was asked to explain certain parts of the report issued by ORG DATE which bore his signature . He confirmed that the findings of the post - mortem examination and autopsy performed in GPE had been set out at the beginning of that report .

In relation to the findings of the post - mortem examination he explained that a “ mauve coloured cyanosis ” was a dark blue discoloration of the skin . “ Thorax ” meant chest . An ecchymotic area referred to bruising , ecchymoses constituting the proof of a blunt trauma . The axis of the body was the vertical line that passed through the centre of the body . The humerus was the bone of the upper arm .

The hyperaemia , observed in the macroscopic examination of the tissue samples of the internal organs , referred to the appearance of the organs which contained more than the normal amount of blood . This in itself could have many causes , such as illness or poisoning .

After the macroscopic examination the samples had been prepared for microscopic examination and sent to a pathologist . The changes to the heart , liver , kidneys and brain that had occurred after death had been observed in this histopathological examination . It had further revealed hyperaemia in the lungs as well as acute swelling , meaning expansion , of the alveoli in particular . In the alveolar septa , that is the walls separating the alveoli , the capillary walls had been enlarged and had contained great quantities of red blood cells . In some places the alveolar septa had been ruptured , causing the alveolar cavities to enlarge . These were not changes that would occur after death . The rupturing of alveolar septa could occur in patients suffering from emphysema or chronically obstructed lungs , but also in persons who had met with a violent death or , as it was known in forensic medicine , a forcibly induced death such as strangulation , hanging or pressure exerted on abdomen or chest . However , in the case of a forcibly induced death one would expect to see red blood cells in the alveolar cavities in addition to tears in the septa , and this had not been observed .

The report did not admit of a conclusion as to whether the swelling of the lungs had been due to a disease or had occurred after death . Given that it was limited to the breakdown at cell level it could have been caused by cells decomposing . The fact that the lungs were of a hard and solid consistency had pointed to pneumonia but the histopathological examination had not revealed any infected cells which would have supported such a finding . Despite the fact that the heart at QUANTITY had been observed to have been abnormally enlarged , the death had not been attributed to a disease .

NORP The public prosecutor at GPE had requested that the exact cause of death be established . As the findings of the examinations had not revealed very specific information it had not been possible to determine the exact cause . Even in the most advanced centres of forensic medicine PERCENT of autopsies were inconclusive . DATE they would have referred the question of the cause of death to ORG of the ORG if they themselves had been unable to establish the cause of death . However , the policy had been changed and they had been advised that as long as the public prosecutor did not request it , they should not send their reports to this ORG but rather evaluate their own findings and send them to the office of the public prosecutor . If the public prosecutor had only asked for the cause of death , as opposed to the exact cause , the ORG would have provided him with possible causes . In view of the breakdown in the heart and the septa , the witness suggested that death had possibly , but without certainty , been due to heart failure .

Furthermore , the ORG could only work on the basis of the information with which it was provided . In the present case , they had been told that PERSON had suddenly fallen ill while in detention and had died in hospital . If death had occurred at the place of detention its cause might have been tied to mechanical asphyxia . Mechanical asphyxia was death caused by prevention of breathing by mechanical pressure . Typical examples would be hanging , strangulation by hand or rope , and death caused by pressure on the abdomen / chest . In the latter form of asphyxiation cyanosis of the face , resembling a mask , could appear .

When it was pointed out to the witness that according to the report of the post - mortem examination and autopsy PERSON had died on the way to hospital ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) rather than at the hospital as mentioned in his report , he explained that he must have relied on the information contained in the official summary of the incident compiled by the public prosecutor which would have been attached to the autopsy report when it was sent to the Institute .

The marks observed on the body were not from the kind of violent trauma that could cause death . The signs of trauma described in the report were superficial : a skin abrasion on the forehead , ecchymoses on the arms . In the case of severe trauma the ecchymoses would not have been on the surface and there would have been broken bones and internal haemorrhaging .

NORP Asked whether the extensive bruising on the left forearm and the hands were consistent with PERSON having used his arms to try and prevent blows from striking the rest of his body , the witness said if the bruising had been caused by numerous blows he would have expected there to be spaces between the ecchymoses . He explained that blows delivered by a cane or a stick would result in ecchymoses in the shape of lines , and in the shape of railroad tracks if delivered by a truncheon .

The cut described in the report of the post - mortem examination would have been inflicted by an implement with cutting properties . In his estimation , the cut must have been inflicted CARDINAL or DATE previously , since it should have healed within DATE .

When the report was drawn up he had not had access to the photographs taken in GPE ; otherwise they would have been mentioned . On being shown the photographs , the witness remarked that the cyanosis described in the report of the post - mortem examination was not visible . In addition , in deaths caused by heart or lung failure the cyanosis might not be as large as a mask but would be visible on the ears and lips . On the body in the photographs the lips were pale . Also , some of the ecchymoses described in the post - examination report were visible , but not all .

Since there was no visible deformation of the head the skull did not appear crushed as alleged by the applicant in his statement to the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Nevertheless , it would have been possible for the applicant to think that the skull had been fractured if he had seen the body after the autopsy , during which the bony part of the skull had been removed .

He confirmed that in every forensic autopsy the neck should be examined internally .

Dr Hüseyin Sarı stated that he had been born in DATE . At DATE he had been working as an expert of forensic medicine at the morgue specialist department of ORG .

At the morgue specialist department CARDINAL types of work were carried out : autopsies , and examination of internal organ samples sent to the department from elsewhere . In the course of autopsies performed by the department photographs would be taken . No general guidelines existed as to how such photographs should be taken ; whether , for example , maximum contrast should be shown to delimit areas of discoloration . Those photographs that were considered necessary as evidence later on would be taken . However , it was rare for internal organ samples to be accompanied by photographs .

He confirmed that in the present case the LOC public prosecutor had requested the exact cause of death to be established . However , it was not the case that a public prosecutor would ever ask for a possible or probable cause of death . Therefore , he would have to be certain of the cause of death before offering his opinion . According to international medical literature PERCENT of autopsies were inconclusive . He estimated that the percentage of inconclusive autopsies at the ORG would lie somewhere between those CARDINAL figures .

He described cyanosis as a lesion related to an increased amount of carbon dioxide in the blood . It could only be observed visually and could not be detected by examining samples of skin tissue . ORG did not only occur after death , but in cases where it had occurred before death it had to be clinically verified since the changes of gases which took place after death could result in erroneous positive findings . Therefore , a post - mortem evaluation alone did not always give the correct result and could give rise to the suspicion that the deceased had been suffering from a disease or that death had been caused by asphyxiation .

Asked if there was a disease which could cause the lungs to be of a hard and solid consistency and of a multicoloured appearance , as described in the ORG 's report , he said that these findings had been made in the macroscopic examination and pointed to lung oedema or pneumonia . A histopathological examination was required to distinguish oedema from pneumonia . In the present case , the histopathological examination had not revealed anything to support those findings . In any event , the fixative used to prevent the disintegration of the internal organs would lead to a hardening of those organs .

Although there had thus been no findings made of a disease this did not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the cause of death had been unnatural . For example , the heart , liver , kidneys and brain had undergone post - mortem changes and had not been evaluated . Post - mortem changes occurred for CARDINAL reasons : CARDINAL being the time that had elapsed between the death and the autopsy and the other a mishap in the course of transportation of the tissue samples . If the proper fixative was used and proper transportation procedures followed , such a sample would not undergo any change .

The marks of the traumata described in the report of the post - mortem examination had been rather small and simple , and most of them had been located on the arms and legs . In his opinion , the cause of death could not be determined from those traumata alone .

In all autopsies an internal examination of the neck would be carried out .

Dr Güneş Pay said that he had been born in DATE . He had graduated from medical school in DATE . As part of his medical training he had had CARDINAL or DATE training in forensic medicine . Only those students wanting to specialise in forensic medicine would be given extensive training . In DATE he had been working as a general practitioner at ORG .

NORP The witness confirmed that he had participated in the post - mortem examination and autopsy on the body of PERSON and that he had signed the report dated CARDINAL DATE . PERSON , with whom he had performed the autopsy , was a surgeon . Since the autopsy had been performed DATE previously he had no clear recollection of the events and based his replies mainly on the content of his report . Moreover , at the present time he was specialising in neurology , not forensic medicine , and it had been DATE since he had last performed an autopsy .

Although he could not remember exactly , he assumed that he must have participated in other autopsies before the CARDINAL which he performed on the body of PERSON . This would be part of a general practitioner 's duty if there was no expert in forensic medicine at the place where the general practitioner was performing his obligatory service . While working in GPE for DATE he had performed many autopsies .

He was referred to the phrase in the report reading : “ With the exception of the findings stated above , there were no other pathological diagnoses or signs of injuries caused by sharp , pointed instruments , firearms or otherwise . ” He explained that this did not mean that in those “ findings stated above ” he had found marks of such instruments .

The fact that rigor mortis had begun to set in was CARDINAL of the reasons why death had been estimated to have occurred TIME . However , the purple colour of the corpse had also served as an indication of that . He confirmed that if a person died in hospital , and if it was a properly run hospital , the time of death would be recorded and it would not be necessary to give an estimate of this time in the subsequent examination .

He could not remember whether or not an internal examination of the neck had been carried out but he noted that nothing was mentioned about it in the report . He thought that if such an examination had been performed it would have been recorded , but it was also possible that if nothing unusual had been found in the course of that examination it had been omitted from the report altogether . He knew that in theory an internal examination of the neck area would be conducted in cases of death by hanging or by strangulation by hand or by rope . He did not think , however , that he had performed an autopsy on the body of a person having met with such a death .

As the autopsy had taken place such a long time ago he was unable to confirm that the photographs shown to him were of the person on whom he had performed the autopsy . The cyanosis described in the report was not visible in the photographs . Nevertheless , he was certain that there had been cyanosis as CARDINAL doctors had come to that conclusion and had recorded it in the report . All but CARDINAL of the marks visible on the body in the photographs corresponded with those recorded in the report . The cut , QUANTITY in length , was not visible in the photographs and neither was the lesion above the scapula . Perhaps this was due to the quality of the photographs .

He had not formed any provisional view as to a likely or possible cause of death in the light of the marks he had seen .

The Commission 's Delegates had also called as a witness PERSON , the uncle of the applicant and the person to whom PERSON body had been delivered . During the hearing , the applicant 's representatives informed the Delegates that PERSON was too old and frail to travel to GPE .

Dr PERSON , the second doctor who had performed the autopsy , did not attend the hearing as , according to the explanation given by ORG at the hearing , it was not possible for him to leave his post , no replacement being available . On DATE the Government provided the ORG with a doctor 's note dated DATE prescribing Dr PERSON DATE rest .

On DATE and DATE the Acting Agent informed ORG that the following members of the gendarmerie would only give evidence if certain security measures were put in place :

Major PERSON ;

Master Sergeant Ercan Günay ;

Captain PERSON ;

Senior Major PERSON ;

Sergeant Major PERSON ;

Master Sergeant PERSON ;

Corporal PERSON ;

Private Ercüment Erbil ;

ORG ;

Senior PERSON ;

PERSON .

In that connection , ORG submitted that most of these gendarmes were constantly exposed to terrorist attacks and would only feel secure if they were able to avoid confrontation with the applicant or his relatives and if a screen were placed between them and the applicant 's representatives .

The ORG 's consideration of this request is summarised in paragraph CARDINAL above .

Following the hearing in GPE , the ORG requested that CARDINAL members of the gendarmerie ( Senior Major PERSON , Master Sergeants Günay and PERSON , Senior PERSON and Sergeant Major GPE ) be given the opportunity to give evidence . They insisted that these witnesses should not be seen either by the applicant or by his representatives and that the hearing should therefore take place in the absence of both .

The DATE 's decisions on this request are summarised in paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above .

NORP Since DATE , serious disturbances have raged in the south - east of GPE between security forces and members of the ORG ( ORG of Kurdistan ) . This confrontation has , according to the ORG , claimed the lives of CARDINAL of civilians and members of the security forces .

CARDINAL principal decrees relating to the south - eastern region have been made under the PERSON on ORG ( Law No . CARDINAL , DATE ) . The first , Decree No . CARDINAL ( DATE ) , established a State of Emergency Regional Governorate in CARDINAL of the CARDINAL provinces of south - eastern GPE . Under LAW ) and ( d ) of the Decree , all private and public security forces and ORG are at the disposal of the Regional Governor .

The second , Decree No . CARDINAL ( DATE ) , reinforced the powers of ORG , for example to order transfers out of the region of public officials and employees , including judges and prosecutors , and provided in LAW

“ No criminal , financial or legal responsibility may be claimed against ORG or a NORP Governor within a state of emergency region in respect of their decisions or acts connected with the exercise of the powers entrusted to them by this decree , and no application shall be made to any judicial authority to this end . This is without prejudice to the rights of an individual to claim indemnity from the ORG for damage suffered by them without justification . ”

The Criminal Code contains provisions dealing with unintentional homicide ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , intentional homicide ( Article CARDINAL ) and murder ( Article CARDINAL ) . It is a criminal offence to subject someone to torture or ill - treatment ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) or to issue threats ( LAW ) .

For all these offences complaints may be lodged , pursuant to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , with the public prosecutor or the local administrative authorities . The public prosecutor and the police have a duty to investigate crimes reported to them , with the former deciding whether a prosecution should be initiated , pursuant to LAW . A complainant may appeal against the decision of the public prosecutor not to institute criminal proceedings .

NORP The public prosecutor has no jurisdiction with regard to offences alleged to have been committed by members of the security forces in LOC . LAW . CARDINAL provides that all security forces under the command of the Regional Governor ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) shall be subject , in respect of acts performed in the course of their duties , to the PERSON on the Prosecution of Civil Servants . Thus , any prosecutor who receives a complaint alleging a criminal act by a member of the security forces must decline jurisdiction and transfer the file to a provincial or district administrative council . These councils are made up of civil servants and have been criticised for their lack of legal knowledge , as well as for being easily influenced by the Regional Governor or ORG , who also head the security forces . A decision by a provincial administrative council not to prosecute is subject to an automatic appeal to ORG .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides as follows :

“ All acts or decisions of the ORG are subject to judicial review ... The ORG shall be liable for damage caused by its own acts and measures . ”

This provision is not subject to any restrictions even in a state of emergency or war . The latter requirement of the provision does not necessarily require proof of the existence of any fault on the part of the ORG , whose liability is of an absolute , objective nature , based on the theory of “ social risk ” . Thus , the ORG may indemnify people who have suffered damage from acts committed by unknown or terrorist offenders when the ORG may be said to have failed in its duty to maintain public order and safety , or in its duty to safeguard individual life and property .

Proceedings against the ORG may be brought before the administrative courts , whose proceedings are in writing .

Any illegal act by civil servants , be it a crime or a tort , which causes pecuniary or non - pecuniary damage may be the subject of a claim for compensation in the ordinary civil courts . Pursuant to LAW , an injured person may file a claim for compensation against an alleged perpetrator who has caused damage in an unlawful manner whether wilfully , negligently or imprudently . Compensation for pecuniary loss may be awarded by the civil courts pursuant to LAW and for non - pecuniary damage pursuant to LAW .