Preliminary objection rejected (exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 8;Not necessary to examine P1-1;No violation of Art. 34 (former Art. 25);Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award

On DATE at TIME CARDINAL plain - clothed policemen went to the applicant PERSON office in Cizre . After being searched , the applicant was taken to the gendarmerie . At TIME QUANTITY policemen , including the CARDINAL who had detained the applicant , returned with him to search his office . They seized all the applicant 's note - books , powers of attorney , case files ( particularly concerning applications to the Commission - no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL NORP and CARDINAL others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL GPE v. GPE and no . PERSON v. GPE ) . His collection of newspapers ( the pro - NORP PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) , magazines and books were also seized . The applicant signed a procès - verbal concerning his provisional detention . At TIME the policemen took the applicant to his home , where they made a search but did not seize anything . He was kept at the police station until being handed over to the Cizre gendarmerie command DATE .

He alleged that he was ill - treated by the NORP police . He was stripped naked , insulted , threatened and beaten up . His testicles were squeezed and cold water was poured on him . This lasted TIME . Then they took the applicant to the Cizre district gendarmerie command where he was kept , blindfolded , for DATE in a basement . Thereafter he was handed over to the ORG provincial gendarmerie command .

NORP Throughout this time the applicants had to leave their children with neighbours .

On DATE he was brought to court after a cursory medical examination by a doctor who , apparently being frightened of the gendarmes , did not mention the evidence of torture in his report . After his release , the applicant received treatment for kidney and stomach problems . ( For further details see the summary of his oral evidence , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL below . )

The applicant alleged that during his detention he was severely beaten , threatened with execution , insulted , deprived of sleep and food and blindfolded much of the time . He stated that PERSON , PERSON and PERSON had been tortured with cold water .

During his detention he was taken to the toilet twice a day , at TIME . It was impossible to use the toilet or get drinking water at other times . He received a slice of stale bread TIME .

On DATE the applicant was taken into custody when he was leaving ORG . He was transported to the ORG provincial gendarmerie command . In general he was made aware by his interrogators that the ORG confessor , PERSON , had alleged that he was in league with ORG prisoners , had acted as a courier for them , and had smuggled unlawful materials into prisons , e.g. a flick knife . The applicant denied the allegations .

The applicant 's brother had been detained in the same prison as Mr Güven . PERSON also attended all interviews with clients . The applicant was confronted , whilst blindfolded , with PERSON . He signed certain statements , the contents of which he did not know , because of the psychological pressure brought to bear on him . He was released on DATE . ( For further details see the summary of his oral evidence , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL below . )

On DATE the applicant was taken into custody by gendarmes after leaving ORG around TIME , together with Meral PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . He was transported to the ORG provincial gendarmerie command . When he was interrogated , he was questioned about the cases he had defended before ORG . He was accused of assisting ORG detainees by acting as a courier and not charging fees for his work . He was told that the ORG confessor , PERSON , had made certain allegations about him and other local lawyers . The applicant denied these allegations . He signed various statements , the contents of which he did not know , under physical and psychological duress . He was released on DATE . ( For further details see the summary of his oral evidence , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL below . )

On DATE the applicant was arrested at another lawyer 's office . After the official search report noted that nothing incriminating had been found , he was taken into custody by gendarmes . He was transported to the ORG provincial gendarmerie command . He was accused of being a member of and assisting the ORG , and of constantly defending ORG cases . He denied the allegations . The applicant signed certain documents under duress in order to avoid being tortured . He did not know their contents at that point as he had been blindfolded . He was released on DATE . ( For further details see the summary of his oral evidence , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL below . )

At no point were the applicants ill - treated . They were dealt with in accordance with the law and their conditions of detention were acceptable .

DATE . Other evidence against the applicants consisted of their statements at the gendarmerie command , which they subsequently repudiated as having been made under duress . ORG reserved the issue of the admissibility of those statements . The remaining evidence comprised incriminating documents such as ORG notes , receipts and newsletters , which the applicants alleged had been fabricated .

On DATE ORG suspended the proceedings for DATE , to be taken up again should any of the applicants commit an offence of the same or more serious kind during that time ; otherwise they would be definitively closed ( see Law No . DATE on conditional release , the suspension of proceedings or the execution of sentences in respect of crimes committed before DATE , paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Three Delegates of ORG took evidence in GPE DATE . The applicants , with the exception of ORG , appeared before the Delegates , as did several Government witnesses . The applicants ' representatives stated that ORG maintained her application even though she did not testify for fear of having to re - live the events and because she was pregnant at the time . The oral evidence may be summarised as follows :

PERSON

Mr Elçi was born in DATE . At the material time he was a practising lawyer in Cizre , but was now working in GPE .

In DATE there had been some CARDINAL practising lawyers in Cizre . He himself was registered at FAC and handled different types of criminal cases . However , many people were taken into custody at that time and the applicant found himself more and more defending people before ORG .

On DATE he was in his NORP office at TIME preparing a case with a client . Suddenly CARDINAL armed officials entered his office and demanded that he accompany them to the NORP police station . CARDINAL other officials waited outside . He was taken to the NORP police headquarters , and his car was removed .

After waiting there for some time , Mr Elçi was taken back to his office by several other officials ( requiring CARDINAL or CARDINAL vehicles ) . His office was searched . All his belongings were put in sacks , including many case files , notebooks , books ( except legal text books ) , newspapers , magazines , an address book and other documents . Amongst the case files were several involving applicants to ORG : PERSON and others v. GPE ( No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , PERSON and others v. GPE ( No . CARDINAL ) and ORG v. GPE ( No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . A further application by PERSON and CARDINAL others was in the course of preparation . These Commission files were never returned to the applicant in their entirety , unlike the domestic files .

In answer to questions from ORG , PERSON claimed that a document purporting to have been found in his office headed “ Comrade PERSON with an “ ERNK ” stamp on it , was a complete fabrication and was not to be found in the document delivery report .

The officials had drawn up a short , hand - written report , concluding that nothing incriminating had been found . His brother , PERSON , being present , had signed the report .

The applicant was then taken to his house where another search was conducted , but nothing incriminating was found . He was returned to the NORP police headquarters where his personal belongings ( belt , money and wallet ) were removed . He was blindfolded and put in a dark cell in the basement .

Later he was taken out of the cell by a large group of officials and kicked , beaten , threatened with his life and insulted . He was made to remove his clothes , cold water was poured over him and his testicles were squeezed . He was asked why he took cases concerning villagers who had been evacuated from their homes , and why he denounced GPE abroad . He did not think this was an interrogation , rather the officials were venting their anger on him . This ill - treatment lasted TIME before he was returned to his cell .

One of the Cizre policemen involved in this was a certain PERSON or GPE , who had already accosted the applicant in the street to check his identity . As a member of ORG , assisting destitute villagers at a time of great tension in LANGUAGE , involving clashes between the ORG and ORG forces , threats had been made to him previously by the NORP police .

During TIME he was transferred to the NORP district gendarmerie command , where he was kept blindfolded in a corridor in the basement . He was not ill - treated there . Either DATE after , he was taken to the ORG provincial gendarmerie command where he was made to lie , double - blindfolded , on a cement floor . There were other detainees , including the applicant PERSON , but nobody really talked to each other except in short whispers .

On DATE Mr Elçi was taken for interrogation . He was asked about his dealings with the ORG ; when he said he had none , he was punched very hard .

DATE he was interrogated again . He was confronted with PERSON , a prisoner and ORG confessor , whom Mr PERSON had known as a neighbour and fellow student . Mr Güven recounted that Mr Elçi had acted as a courier for him , taking notes to ORG aids in Cizre . Mr Elçi vehemently denied the allegations , whereupon he was beaten .

The Delegates of the Commission asked Mr Elçi about a statement made by PERSON that he had met a ORG connection called GPE at Mr PERSON 's house . Mr PERSON denied this , suggesting that Mr Güven might have slandered him out of jealousy because of his success as a lawyer , whereas PERSON was a common criminal and murderer .

Mr Elçi claimed that CARDINAL documents purporting to be records of interviews with him and a confrontation with Mr Güven were complete fabrications , as shown by the fact that he had not signed them .

DATE he was taken in a vehicle to a field where his execution was simulated - officials fired a gun about CARDINAL times and ordered him to talk . Mr Elçi shouted insults in reply . On the way back to the detention centre , he was again ordered to get out of the vehicle on a gravel road and a couple of shots were fired . He had been extremely frightened .

DATE he was presented to ORG to whom he recounted his background . However , to avoid any fabrication of his statement , he refused to sign anything , whereupon he was insulted and returned to his place of detention .

Perhaps DATE , Mr Elçi was to be presented to a court . He was taken into a room where his blindfold was removed and placed at a simple table where a bright light was shone in his face . He refused to sign a statement that was put in front of him , despite efforts to trick him into doing so . He was then taken to a back room , stripped naked and hosed down with cold , pressurised water , to the front of his body and genitals . His testicles were squeezed CARDINAL or CARDINAL times and he was freezing , aggravated by the fact that it was DATE .

There were other people detained with him , including the applicant PERSON , who at CARDINAL point covered Mr Elçi with his jacket to protect him from the cold . He heard the applicant PERSON moaning and crying . PERSON also called out to him . Mr Elçi was returned to the previous detention room where co - detainees said they had signed documents out of fear .

He was subjected to cold water hosing whilst naked on DATE , together with PERSON , who was screaming . It seemed to TIME . Loud nationalistic music was played at the same time . They were ordered to sign or die . However , neither of them signed any document . Mr GPE believed at that stage that he was indeed about to die .

Mr Elçi had only met PERSON when they had been detained together . The latter had been brought from GPE . Mr PERSON was not in custody at the same time as PERSON and PERSON , who were also brought from GPE .

During his detention , Mr Elçi received generally CARDINAL piece of bread a day and was taken to the toilet twice a day . Despite the bitter DATE cold , he was given no blanket . He sat on concrete in his own clothes . Some of the other detainees had a thin smelly blanket .

Mr Elçi had not been seen by a doctor when he was first detained . He was presented to a doctor on DATE , when he was taken to ORG . Apart from asking him whether he had any ailments , this doctor did not examine him , and Mr Elçi did not mention the ill - treatment , in order not to prolong his detention any longer . Anyway , he had no corroborating injuries on his body as far as he knew then .

Mr PERSON told ORG and ORG about the ill - treatment to which he had been subjected , but his impression was that he was not taken seriously . In the statement to the Prosecutor he was recorded as having complained of having been left naked with cold water being poured on him , of torture by electricity and of having had his testicles squeezed . However the electricity claim was incorrect . He had signed his statement to ORG without reading it over , as nothing detrimental had been said about him . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE , Mr Elçi was detained on remand without further ill - treatment . On DATE , he was discharged after recounting to the court his allegations of ill - treatment , and nothing had happened since , although the prosecution against him was still pending . At first he was accused of being a member of an illegal organisation , modified later to assisting members of that organisation .

NORP Some time in DATE , Mr Elçi was summoned by the police headquarters in GPE to give a statement about the treatment to which he had been subjected in Cizre . DATE , he was required by the prosecution office to undergo a medical examination which , naturally , disclosed nothing so long after the events . However , he repeated his earlier allegations . In DATE he was informed that ORG had decided not to pursue criminal proceedings against any of the Cizre officials allegedly involved in the matter . Mr Elçi objected to that decision but did not know what the outcome of that had been .

PERSON

Mr PERSON was born in DATE and was a practising lawyer in GPE at the material time .

On DATE , whilst the applicant was waiting to plead a case in ORG , he was taken into custody by policemen from the GPE Anti - Terror Department . From there , the applicant was taken to his home , where his wife was waiting , and a search was made . Both were taken back to ORG before their children came home from school , so a neighbour agreed to look after them .

The officials were unable to explain why the couple had been detained , other than saying that they were acting on the instructions of the ORG gendarmerie . PERSON and PERSON were kept together in the same cell until TIME CARDINAL officers from GPE arrived and Mr PERSON was taken to a ORG office where he paid for everyone 's tickets to ORG , for which destination they left at TIME on DATE .

At GPE airport they were handed over to other officers and taken in a minibus , with their heads covered , to what he later learnt was the ORG provincial gendarmerie command .

Mr PERSON was not told about the charges against him . During interrogation he was accused of being involved in the closure of FAC , of being a ORG courier between various prisons , in some of which he had never set foot , and of denigrating GPE . He acknowledged involvement in the campaign to close FAC .

He was asked questions about PERSON , whom he had never met directly . It was alleged that Mr Güven had used him as a courier . He and his wife were accused of defending left - wing and ORG cases .

It was DATE , when he was presented to ORG , that he was informed that Mr Güven had made formal allegations against him . He was not confronted with PERSON during his detention as far as he was aware , having been blindfolded throughout .

Mr PERSON had not made any applications outside GPE on behalf of any of his clients . He had contacted ORG and similar institutions about the allegedly inhuman conditions in the cell system at Eskişehir prison . He had not filed any applications for clients to ORG .

He had signed a confrontation record and statement which he subsequently disavowed , as the signature had been made under pressure after being tortured .

He was taken before an Investigating Judge who apologised for having to arrest him and his wife despite the CARDINAL children , but he had been ordered to do so by his “ chief ” .

Mr PERSON was released on DATE , together with his wife . It took him DATE to recover from the experience and before he could resume his legal practice in GPE . In the meantime he performed his military service . He had no clients left when he started work again .

PERSON

PERSON was born in DATE and was a practising lawyer in GPE at the material time .

On DATE she had been at home when her husband telephoned around TIME to say that he had been taken into custody and that she should wait for him to be brought home by the police .

CARDINAL police officers and her husband arrived between TIME and she was told that she was also to be taken into custody . A search of TIME was made of the house and a report drawn up which they did not sign there . Nothing was seized . She asked a neighbour to look after their CARDINAL children , as she was expecting to be away for DATE . PERSON and PERSON were taken to the First Branch of ORG , without being told of the reasons for their detention , other than a reference to unspecified instructions from ORG .

Around TIME on DATE she and her husband were handed over to CARDINAL plain - clothed officials from ORG , to where they flew at TIME They were taken , head - covered , to a place called the ORG at the ORG provincial gendarmerie command , according to the officials there . She claimed that the ORG had no legal status .

In ORG they were not informed of what they were accused . The questions put to them were unrelated to any possible criminal offence . She was asked about her work for newspaper publishers whose editions included “ PERSON ” , a purportedly separatist newspaper . She was asked why she had married a NORP and why she defended dissidents . She was told that she was a traitor and a separatist . No mention was made of NORP complaints .

It was only before ORG of ORG , to whom she was presented on CARDINAL or DATE , that she heard that ORG had made specific allegations against her . She had not been confronted with him , as far as she was aware , being blindfolded throughout . The ORG said that PERSON accused her of acting as a ORG courier , serving as a ORG lawyer for the newspaper , being financed by them and the like . It was true that she had signed a confrontation document concerning PERSON , but this was at the end of the alleged torture period when she was disoriented , intimidated and tricked into signing a document , the contents of which she had been unable to verify due to the blindfold .

The indictment dated DATE concerning her and other detainees was not shown to her until DATE after its issue , by her lawyers , when she was on remand at the ORG central maximum security prison .

The indictment mentioned that PERSON had drawn up documents which had been faxed to human rights associations in NORP countries . PERSON acknowledged having prepared documents which colleagues in LOC would have submitted to ORG . She also actively campaigned in GPE against unlawful events and had spoken to foreign human rights delegations who had visited GPE .

Prior to her arrest , she had visited a prison in ORG where she researched an article for “ PERSON ” , and had acted as the newspaper 's representative in a civil defamation claim . During that visit , ORG had been in the room . She had not taken up the defence of any ORG prisoners .

ORG

Mr Kaya was born in DATE and at the material time was a practising lawyer in ORG .

On DATE at CARDINAL CARDINAL p.m. , CARDINAL plain - clothed policemen went to the applicant 's office which they searched even though they did not have the proper authorisation from ORG pursuant to ORG DATE of the Law on Advocates . They had had Mr Kaya 's agreement . A record of the search was drawn up , which he signed . Nothing was seized .

He was then taken into custody at the ORG provincial gendarmerie command without any reasons being given . Prior to that time , he knew that other colleagues of his had been taken into custody by the ORG , but he was detained by the police , so he made no connection with the previous events . On arrival at the police station he was told that he had been detained on the ORG 's instructions . His personal belongings were removed and he was taken for a medical examination before being handed over to ORG officers at the hospital .

During interrogation he was told that he had ORG connections , about which he was asked . It was said that he was a ORG lawyer . He was confronted with someone purporting to be ORG . The applicant did not see him because of a double blindfold . He had met PERSON Güven when interviewing clients in ORG prison , at which interviews the former had been present as a prisoners ' representative .

Mr Güven accused him of recruiting lawyers for the ORG , which ORG denied . According to a written statement by PERSON , not put to the applicant orally during the interrogation , PERSON was accused of having acted as a courier between GPE and LOC prisons . However , Mr Kaya had never set foot in the latter establishment , and he denied the allegation .

Mr Kaya signed statements at the end of his interrogations after having been intimidated by harassment , kicking and beatings , and the fear of being left a cripple .

Among his co - detainees , the applicant saw that PERSON had been beaten up and was in acute pain . Meral PERSON was moaning and freezing cold , presumably after being hosed down with cold water . This treatment had been inflicted on PERSON and PERSON in the toilet area at the end of the cell corridor , from which one could hear screams , shouting and pouring water . It was very cold outside at the time .

They were kept in a corridor and slept on the floor , CARDINAL blanket for CARDINAL people . Each day they were fed CARDINAL a loaf of left - over bread which had traces of other food on it . They were taken to the toilet twice a day and were given drinking water . Deafening nationalistic music was blaring all the time and they were blindfolded .

Before the Public Prosecutor PERSON refuted the statement he had signed under torture .

On his release being ordered by a court , the applicant and several other lawyers were addressed by a gendarme regiment commander , PERSON , who warned them that , just because they had been released , they had not been cleared of suspicion as far as the security forces were concerned .

PERSON

PERSON was born in DATE and at the material time was a practising lawyer in ORG .

On DATE around TIME police arrived at his house and conducted a search . A report was drawn up concluding that no incriminating evidence had been found , and nothing was seized . PERSON was taken into custody at the ORG provincial gendarmerie command .

PERSON protested at the lack of authority and jurisdiction for his detention by the gendarmerie . He was told that he was in the hands of a gendarmerie intelligence service - the ORG .

He was detained for DATE ( DATE according to official records ) and interrogated about his professional activities and alleged involvement with the ORG , given his legal representation of cases before ORG .

Mr Tur was confronted with ORG , a ORG confessor whom the applicant had met as a prisoners ' representative in FAC when visiting clients there . The applicant 's name and that of several lawyers had been cited in his confessions , but PERSON believed that these events would in any event have happened to him , without such denunciations , because of his human rights involvement . PERSON vehemently denied PERSON allegations .

Contrary to official claims , he had not been confronted with his maternal aunt 's husband , PERSON . He denied having carried out NORP tasks with him , including aiding , abetting and harbouring a wounded ORG member , who , in the applicant 's view , had never existed .

Mr Tur was kept in a cell CARDINAL x QUANTITY . When in the cell , he was able to remove his blindfold . He received CARDINAL of a loaf of bread a day and , as far as he could remember , he was taken to the toilet once TIME . Drinking water was not readily available . He was forbidden to speak to other co - detainees . Those who disobeyed were severely beaten , insulted and tortured .

He claimed to have been severely beaten , insulted and threatened with execution . He was deprived of sleep due to very loud music being played all the time . He had been blindfolded throughout and had signed statements DATE under duress . He repudiated the contents of those statements .

PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( and possibly PERSON ) were also tortured , particularly with cold water hosing , which he heard being used on them in the toilet area . He recognised their voices , as he knew them well . They lost weight and their overall demeanour deteriorated as a result .

The officers who escorted them to interrogation were not the same as those who performed the interrogation . As far as he could tell , being blindfolded , CARDINAL or CARDINAL people conducted his interrogation .

Mr Tur was taken to a doctor at the end of the custody period but , as he showed no visible marks of torture , the doctor said he was unable to record anything . He nevertheless related his complaints of torture to the doctor , ORG and the Investigating Judge .

Before being released , he and some of his colleagues were addressed by a ORG regiment commander who warned them that the case was not closed and they would still be followed .

Mr Tur had been detained CARDINAL times previously in connection with the ORG activities of his brother , PERSON . His brother was killed in a clash in DATE . The applicant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment twice for assisting and harbouring the ORG . This background might have explained his detention in DATE . At the time of his appearance before the Delegates , he was serving a DATE prison sentence for ORG related offences .

PERSON

Mr PERSON was born in DATE and at the material time was a practising lawyer in ORG . His work involved both civil and criminal cases , including ORG defendants . He had visited some clients in the various regional prisons .

Around TIME on DATE some CARDINAL policemen , gendarmes and members of a special team went to the applicant 's house and made a TIME search , without asking his permission and without any explanations . All his personal correspondence , articles and reports which he had written , and books which they considered to be illegal , were seized . However , the latter had all been lawfully purchased from book shops . A report was drawn up , listing the seized items . Nothing was ever returned to the applicant . Some of the materials were put in the prosecution file .

Mr PERSON was escorted to hospital by police superintendent PERSON , where a certificate of good health was delivered . He was then blindfolded and taken to the ORG provincial gendarmerie command in a taxi , during which trip he was punched and insulted . He was severely beaten on arrival , causing him earache . He was then thrown into a cell . He believed he was at the ORG interrogation centre of the gendarmerie in the PERSON neighbourhood of ORG .

DATE he was interrogated , double blindfolded . CARDINAL people seemed to speak . He was asked why he went to the prisons to talk to political prisoners ; why he took on their defence ; why he was a member of ORG ; why he prepared reports , inspected and gathered evidence of human rights abuses ; and what connections he had with the ORG for whom he was said to be working . He was insulted , kicked , slapped and beaten during the interrogations , as well as being threatened with death .

PERSON made allegations against him . Mr PERSON knew Mr Güven , who had been present as a prisoner 's representative when he had visited clients in prison . Although blindfolded , he accepted that he had been confronted with PERSON during the second ( or third ) interrogation .

Mr PERSON denied all of Mr Güven 's allegations against him , particularly the allegation that he had brought cyanide into ORG prison . In order to mitigate his own crimes , Mr Güven had obviously made things up , copying from another ORG confessor 's statement involving a similar allegation about someone else ( paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He signed certain incriminating statements , unbeknownst to him at the time , under the pressure of torture , for fear of resuscitating a previous kidney injury he had sustained in a car accident , and of being left a cripple .

He was kept in custody DATE ( DATE according to official records ) and recognised other colleagues who were there by their voices , such as Meral PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . PERSON , ORG , PERSON and ORG were in the corridor . PERSON , together with Mr and PERSON , were in cells .

PERSON , PERSON who had been brought from GPE , GPE PERSON and ORG were subjected to a different form of torture than him - cold water hosing . He could tell from their screams and moaning .

The cell in which he was detained was small , dark , damp and very cold ( below freezing ) . There was no heat or light . A filthy , worn out blanket was provided . He received a piece of stale bread once DATE , drinking water twice DATE and was allowed CARDINAL visits , at TIME , to the toilet per day .

He was brought to a doctor on DATE who was afraid to note the applicants ' allegations of torture in the absence of any visible injury , all bruising or other injury having cleared up during his DATE detention . He told ORG about the alleged torture , but it was not recorded . ORG before whom he was brought noted some , but not all , of the applicant 's allegations .

Mr PERSON was indicted before ORG and the proceedings were still pending .

Prior to his detention , PERSON had reported on human rights matters to ORG and other international non - governmental organisations . He had been the Director of the ORG branch of ORG DATE . Human rights abuses were frequent in the area at that time . The ORG 's premises were bombed and he was threatened and insulted in public by policemen . In this way he was harassed in his legal practice . The articles and reports which he had written about human rights abuses and which were seized during the search on DATE were used by the Prosecutor against him .

In the indictment , reference was made to faxes he was alleged to have sent to human rights associations in LOC . He did not know whether this was a reference to ORG . He presumed it had meant non - governmental associations .

Niyazi Çem

Mr PERSON was born in DATE and at the material time was a practising lawyer in GPE .

On DATE he participated in a press conference given by ORG and lawyers of the GPE contemporary ORG , in front of the building of ORG , in order to denounce the allegedly unlawful detention and interrogation of fellow lawyers by the ORG . At some time CARDINAL , he was taken into custody .

He was held for DATE in GPE ( the police centre for political detainees ) , then he was transferred to ORG . CARDINAL or DATE , he was taken to ORG , where he was held at the ORG provincial gendarmerie command for DATE .

Mr PERSON 's house was searched , but not his office . Nothing was seized .

In GPE he was taken by a team of plain - clothed policemen to an unknown destination . He was not interrogated on DATE .

On DATE or DATE he was interrogated and accused of assisting a certain PERSON to make contact with the ORG , which organisation the latter then joined . The applicant denied the allegation . He was told that ORG had made the allegation . He had met PERSON Güven as a prisoners ' representative when interviewing clients . He was purportedly confronted with PERSON during the interrogation but , as he was blindfolded , he did not know if it was truly him . He refused to sign any confrontation report or statement , as he was not allowed to know their contents .

During DATE of detention he was severely beaten , his hair was pulled and he was threatened with various kinds of torture . He was stripped naked and hosed down with cold water . He was deprived of sleep by blaring military and NORP music .

PERSON was hosed too . He heard the screams of Meral PERSON and ORG under torture . He had not met these people prior to his detention . He and PERSON whispered their names to each other .

On DATE of his release , DATE , he was taken with others to see a doctor who asked if any of them had any visible wounds . CARDINAL person , possibly PERSON , had a bruise which the doctor recorded . Any injuries to the applicant had cleared up .

Mr PERSON told ORG and the Investigating Judge about the ill - treatment to which he had allegedly been subjected . He repudiated the statements he had purportedly given . Neither recorded the torture allegations .

He was indicted before ORG for having connections with the ORG . He was falsely accused of such activities as transporting heroin for the ORG and taking money from PERSON to assist the financially ailing newspaper , “ PERSON ” , in GPE . Mr Güven subsequently withdrew the latter allegation . The proceedings were still pending .

During his detention Mr PERSON was detained in a corridor with CARDINAL other people ; CARDINAL or CARDINAL people would share CARDINAL blanket . Once a day he received CARDINAL of a stale loaf of bread and was taken to the toilet first thing in the morning . In case of urgency , people would be taken to the toilet . No washing facilities were provided .

Mr PERSON saw CARDINAL of his interrogators when his blindfold slipped whilst he was being hosed down with cold water . He saw them later when he was taken to the ORG 's office , but the escorting officer stifled any protest . He told the Prosecutor that he could identify CARDINAL of his torturers , but it was not taken up .

When he was released by the court , he and other lawyers were addressed by a regiment commander called PERSON , and warned to be careful as they would be followed .

PERSON

Mr GPE was born in DATE and at the material time was a practising lawyer in ORG . Most of his cases were before ORG .

On DATE at TIME armed men rang at his door . He opened up and they searched his apartment without introducing themselves . He was allowed to telephone a cousin , PERSON , who came over . Nothing was seized . His cousin countersigned the search report .

He was taken into custody , blindfolded , at the ORG provincial gendarmerie command where , but DATE , colleagues of his had also been detained . He was held in a corridor for DATE ( DATE according to official records ) . After DATE he was taken to another side of the corridor where there was a blanket on the floor . TIME he was interrogated . He was accused of doing more than just providing legal representation for ORG people . His interrogators tried intimidating him by saying he was not being detained in ORG but in ORG where it was known that the bodies of “ disappeared ” persons had been found .

He was constantly beaten when taken back and forth from interrogation , always after TIME , CARDINAL or CARDINAL times . He was kept blindfolded throughout DATE without any washing facilities . The corridor was crowded and he was unable to stretch out his legs . A piece of bread was given out in TIME , CARDINAL a loaf . In the beginning it was fresh , but after DATE it was stale and was obviously left - overs . They were given drinking water once a day and taken to the toilet twice a day . In case of urgency they would be allowed to go to the toilet . It was cold in DATE , with a fan which made the air even colder . Loud martial music was played continuously except for a TIME break during TIME .

PERSON and PERSON were held with him . They were taken to the toilet , from where he heard them screaming and shouting . They were beaten up and hosed with cold water . Mr PERSON returned soaking wet and the applicant tried to dry his hair for him .

He believed that PERSON and PERSON arrived after him and were in cells , as were PERSON and PERSON . PERSON and PERSON were detained also .

Mr GPE had met PERSON when visiting clients in the ORG E - type prison where the latter was the prisoners ' representative . He was confronted with someone purporting to be Mr Güven during an interrogation , but the applicant was not sure whether it was truly him due to the blindfold . This person made remarks about the applicant 's associate , PERSON , but said nothing about the applicant . The applicant had had no prior knowledge of PERSON purported ORG activities for which he was subsequently convicted and sentenced . They had just been school friends and had shared a legal practice together .

Later an interrogator told PERSON that PERSON had alleged that the applicant had acted as a ORG courier . Mr PERSON denied this .

He signed certain statements , including a second fabricated search report , after being beaten and threatened with death . He was punched , slapped and kicked , with blows to his whole body . However , he was never stripped naked or doused with cold water like some of the other lawyers .

Prior to being presented to ORG , PERSON was seen by a doctor , to whom he recounted the beatings . However , nothing was noted as he had no corroborating marks on his body .

Before ORG , he denied Mr Güven 's allegations and that any incriminating document had been seized at his home . No such document had been openly put to him during his interrogation .

Neither the Prosecutor , nor subsequently the Investigating Judge , commented on or recorded the applicant 's account of torture .

Before being released on DATE , he and his colleagues were addressed by a plain - clothed officer who warned them that they were still under surveillance . Eventually he was released TIME

DATE ORG filed an ex parte objection to the applicant 's release , as a result of which he was arrested on DATE and detained for a night at police headquarters . Then he was transferred to the Diyarbakır E - type prison . DATE he and other lawyers were transferred to PERSON prison . He saw a doctor there about a chill he had caught and internal problems .

Criminal proceedings were still pending against him .

Meral PERSON

PERSON was born in DATE and was a practising lawyer in GPE at the material time .

On DATE around CARDINAL or TIME , when ORG was closing down for DATE , the applicant and her husband were stopped by CARDINAL plain - clothed officials when they were leaving the court building . Her husband was told he was to be detained and interrogated and he gave her his personal belongings , whereupon she was told that she was also to be detained . PERSON and PERSON had been detained at the same time . They gave their personal belongings to another colleague , PERSON , who was with PERSON . They were blindfolded and there was talk of taking them to ORG where the bodies of murdered persons had been found lately .

They were driven around , then taken into a building , separated , and left waiting , standing with their blindfolded faces to the wall for TIME . PERSON was then taken to a small room where she was ordered to hand over all her personal belongings , after which she was put in a cell , where her blindfold was removed .

TIME she was taken out of the cell blindfolded to an interrogation room . She was made to sit on a stool and was pushed . Someone said , “ Admit that you are a courier - a courier for the organisation ” . She denied it and was slapped hard . She was threatened with electric shocks and being suspended . She was taken back to her cell to reflect on her situation .

The following night , around midnight , she was interrogated again . She denied that she was the branch manager of ORG , and stated that she was its secretary . She was told that she had ties with the ORG . She was asked about her work for the ORG , its links with the ORG , complaints made about GPE to LOC and human rights abuses put before ORG . She acknowledged that she had denounced human rights abuses to foreign visitors and had sought to take measures to prevent further abuses . She had prepared cases for presentation to ORG . She insisted , however , that she had no ties with any illegal organisation .

Such interrogations went on for DATE , including a more gentle interrogation when the interviewer talked with her about her work for the ORG , her opinions and the legal profession .

DATE before being brought to court , attempts were made to get her to sign documents , the contents of which were not known to her . When she refused she was taken somewhere else , ordered to strip and hosed down with cold water for TIME , fainting at CARDINAL point . She was threatened with being tortured in front of her husband . However , she did not sign anything .

PERSON knew PERSON as the brother of CARDINAL of her clients and a prisoners ' representative . When visiting clients at ORG prison he would be present . She was purportedly confronted with him while she was still blindfolded , but did not recognise his voice . She had been told that he had made accusations concerning her . She acknowledged in his presence that she had denounced human rights violations involving detained persons and had defended cases before ORG .

Through a peep - hole in her cell she saw PERSON and PERSON ( who had shouted out his identity on arrival in the corridor ) standing naked in the toilet , which was near her cell . They were hosed with cold water twice and she heard screams and shouts .

PERSON and PERSON were in the cell to her left , PERSON to her right . Across from her was PERSON who cried loudly “ Do n't do this ” . PERSON and PERSON were kept in the corridor , where they and others were kicked and insulted .

She was in a large , damp cell on her own with CARDINAL pieces of wood on the floor and a disgusting blanket . It was very cold . There was no heating or lightning . She was only allowed out for interrogation and the use of the toilet morning and TIME . In TIME she was given a piece of bread , sometimes fresh , sometimes stale and sometimes obviously left over from someone 's meal . There were no female officials or separate sanitary facilities for women .

On DATE she was put before a doctor , to whom she said she was sick . He refused to examine her or assess the cough she had , only being prepared to note visible injuries from ill - treatment .

On DATE she was brought before a Public Prosecutor , PERSON , and an Investigating Judge , PERSON , to whom she recounted her ordeal in detention , but neither showed any interest .

They failed to acknowledge her ill - health even though , unusually , she had to sit down in front of them rather than stand up . They ignored her claims that she could identify her torturers .

Before being released , she and other lawyers were addressed by a gendarme regiment commander called PERSON , who warned them that he knew that suspicious dealings were being carried out in the guise of human rights ' advocacy .

After her release , she was so ill that on DATE she went to a doctor , who diagnosed pneumonia and ordered her to stay in bed for DATE . He gave her a medical certificate to that effect . She did not tell the doctor what she had experienced in detention .

NORP Some time , perhaps in DATE , on TIME before the general election , PERSON was followed by ORG and CARDINAL gendarmes , CARDINAL of whom was from the ORG . She and her husband were then followed by other people . She contacted fellow lawyers and ORG , and talked to ORG , PERSON , who advised her not to walk alone in the street .

PERSON

PERSON was born in DATE and was a practising lawyer in GPE at the material time .

The applicant gave the same account as his wife concerning their being taken into detention at the ORG provincial gendarmerie command ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . He was separated from her in the detention centre and taken to a cell upstairs . In the cell his blindfold was removed . TIME later he was taken blindfolded to a room downstairs and asked questions about his position in ORG , of whose administration he was not a member . He only worked in the same building as the ORG , on the same floor .

At a second interrogation DATE he was accused of helping the ORG , acting as a courier between prisons , in some of which he had never set foot , as could be verified from prison visiting records . Similar accusations were made concerning certain provinces of whose whereabouts he was unsure . He denied any such involvement .

During the CARDINAL or QUANTITY interrogations , he was threatened that he would be tortured - suspension and electric shocks - in front of his wife , during which both of them would be naked . He was frequently slapped , kicked and pushed on his way to interrogation and punched a couple of times during interrogation . On DATE of his detention , he was taken to sign documents , the contents of which were unknown to him . He signed out of fear of what might happen to his wife . On his signature he wrote “ ORG ” , indicating his refusal .

There was a wooden board in his cell . It was dark and cold . He was taken to the toilet in TIME where there was drinking water . In TIME he was given a piece of bread . There was so little of it that he was constipated throughout his detention . He had a stinking CARDINAL - torn blanket which was too small to cover himself with , so he wrapped it around his feet .

DATE before the end of this detention period , loud music was played and he heard horrible screaming . He learned afterwards that probably people had been hosed with cold water .

He managed to make his wife aware of his presence in the building by coughing loudly , to which she replied with a similar cough .

He was purportedly confronted with ORG during his detention , although he did not see him because of the blindfold . PERSON and PERSON had represented his brother . Mr Güven was also a prisoners ' representative and was present during client interviews in the PERSON prison . PERSON had not accused him of anything at that point .

NORP Before being brought before ORG he was taken to a doctor who refused to examine the applicant 's lung complaint . He was only prepared to note visible marks or bruises , of which the applicant apparently had none .

He was video filmed when brought before ORG . This film was relayed on television .

He gave a statement to ORG and Investigating Judge and told them of his ill - treatment .

Before being released he and his colleagues were addressed by gendarme regiment commander , PERSON , who called them “ slime ” and warned that he would not forget them . The applicant arrived home TIME on the DATE .

After his release he consulted a doctor at ORG , who diagnosed pneumonia . He did not recall what became of the medical certificate which he was given .

NORP The following DATE , DATE , he was re - arrested following ORG ex parte objection to his release . He was remanded in custody at FAC prison for DATE before being transferred to GPE prison for DATE . At a hearing on DATE he was released . Proceedings were still pending before ORG .

He consulted the ORG prison doctor who prescribed medicine for him . He did not ask for a certificate .

Vedat Erten

Mr Erten was born in DATE and was a practising lawyer in GPE at the material time .

On DATE when leaving ORG TIME , he and a trainee lawyer were stopped by CARDINAL plain - clothed officials who asked for their identity cards . After confirming Mr ORG 's identity , he was obliged to go with them , giving his personal belongings to the trainee .

He was put in a car , blindfolded and taken to the ORG provincial gendarmerie command where he was kept for DATE ( DATE according to official records ) . He had been aware that colleagues of his had been detained in DATE . According to prosecution sources , this was because of accusations being made by a ORG confessor called PERSON . He realised he was being detained for the same reason , and was told as much by the detaining officers .

On entering the building he was asked if he was ORG and , when he confirmed that , he was slapped twice in the face , causing him to fall over . He was made to crouch down for TIME and then told to strip off his clothes . Mention was made of taking him to a helicopter which , from a previous experience as a student detained by the ORG in DATE , he had understood to refer to the form of torture known as “ NORP hanging ” . Ultimately his clothes were slung back at him and he was taken to some narrow place QUANTITY along where he was obliged to sit on a wet concrete floor , which smelt of toilets . He was ordered not to remove his blindfold . He heard the voices of some of his colleagues .

He was given CARDINAL of a loaf of bread a day , sometimes a bit more if he asked for it . Drinking water was available in the toilet area where he was taken twice a day . CARDINAL day no bread was distributed and he sensed that his colleagues must have been staging a protest . Loud music was played .

His interrogators ate food smelling of oil , onions and tomato purée . They threw their left - overs into a bin in the toilet , which the applicant took as a provocation to humiliate the detainees even more should they take food out of the bin in desperation . However , no prisoner touched the bin . Once when Mr Erten complained of the way the prisoners were being treated , he was kicked in the face , belly and chest . Thereafter he would be kicked whenever an official passed by .

After DATE in custody , he was taken for interrogation . He sat on a stool and was allowed to remove his blindfold but was blinded by a very bright lamp shining directly into his face , which made it impossible to see anyone or anything else in the room .

He was ordered to “ tell ” and when he replied that he had nothing to say , he was beaten up . He was accused of acting as a ORG prison courier , which he denied . He was again beaten with the light off . He was forced to confess that he had taken several diaries , pens and cigarettes between prisons .

In the narrow place where he was held , he could hear PERSON appalling screams , and his and PERSON chattering teeth after they had been hosed with cold water . He heard Meral PERSON sobbing . He heard someone threatening PERSON with death if she did not tell all , after which she cried , “ They 'll kill me . They 're out to get me . If I do n't die , I 'll be killed outside . ” PERSON was slapped when he tried commiserating with PERSON , whose clothes were wet . Mr Erten was also slapped for chasing a fly from his face when the guard thought he was tampering with his blindfold .

DATE before being brought to ORG he was made to sign documents , the contents of which were unknown to him , for fear of being beaten up again . He heard other colleagues screaming and shouting , “ Do n't kill me . That 's enough ” , both before and after this document session .

He was taken to a doctor who refused to examine the applicant fully , just noting that the applicant had MONEY on his face . The doctor did not therefore see the marks which were left after he had been beaten on the belly , back and the nape of his neck .

DATE , TIME , he was taken to ORG , who told him that he was accused of being a ORG courier both between prisons and between ORG members at large and prisoners . He was also accused for the first time of carrying on his person a document concerning the function of a ORG co - ordinator in the region .

Mr Erten claimed that he had been illegally framed and that the documents allegedly found on his person were inadmissible fabrications . A record of a purported confrontation with PERSON was read out to him , but the applicant could not confirm that Mr Güven was indeed the person who had been presented to him during an interrogation , and who had , in a forced , hoarse voice , accused the applicant of an offence . He had met PERSON when the latter was a prisoners ' representative accompanying the applicant 's clients at ORG prison .

Mr Erten told ORG , and subsequently the Investigating Judge , that he had been tortured and that the statements had been signed under duress . He told the Judge that he had resisted pressure from ORG to act as a courier . The Judge released him . However he was kept blindfolded and returned with his colleagues to the interrogation centre . He was convinced they were going to be killed . Instead they were addressed by an officer who uttered warnings . He was released on DATE .

ORG lodged an ex parte objection to Mr ORG 's release . Consequently , he was taken back to court DATE and remanded in custody at FAC prison . He was again presented to the court on DATE and released . He told the court that he had been tortured and that the statements which he had signed were false . He denied the charges made against him .

PERSON

Mr PERSON was born in DATE and was a practising lawyer in GPE at the material time .

On coming out of ORG on DATE , he and PERSON were stopped by members of the security forces who they guessed were from the ORG . On disclosing their identities they were put in a car where they waited while a similar procedure was performed in respect of PERSON and PERSON . They were taken to the ORG provincial gendarmerie command , blindfolded . The applicant and PERSON were put in cells on the upper floor , where he was held for DATE ( DATE according to official records ) .

He had anticipated his arrest as several of his colleagues had been detained DATE . On TIME he was taken for interrogation . In general he was made aware that the ORG confessor , PERSON , had alleged that he was in league with ORG prisoners , had acted as a courier for them , and had smuggled unlawful materials into prisons , e.g. a flick knife . The applicant denied the allegations .

The applicant 's brother had been detained in the same prison as Mr Güven . PERSON also attended all interviews with clients . The applicant 's brother said he had been under pressure to join the ORG and Mr Güven had told the applicant that his brother had not kept his promises .

The applicant was confronted , blindfolded , with PERSON . He signed certain statements , the contents of which he did not know , because of the psychological pressure brought to bear on him . During interrogation no mention was made of NORP human rights associations . He had assisted ORG prepare papers for clients . He was unaware of what the NORP reference could mean . He himself had never filed a petition for a client with ORG .

PERSON

Mr GPE was born in DATE and was a practising lawyer in GPE at the material time .

He gave a similar account of his detention on DATE as PERSON ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In the ORG provincial gendarmerie command he was made to crouch down , face to the wall , in a corridor . After TIME or CARDINAL he was put in a cell . He did not know if he had been detained by the ORG or the anti - terror department of the police . He was not told of the reasons for his detention even when he asked for explanations .

He was not taken for interrogation for DATE . When he was interrogated , he was questioned about the cases he had defended before ORG and asked if he had been paid . The implication was that there was a link between his cases and the ORG . He was accused of assisting ORG detainees by acting as a courier and not charging fees for his work . He was told that the ORG confessor , PERSON , had made certain allegations about him and other local lawyers . Mr Güven had been the prisoners ' representative and attended the consultations he had had with his clients at FAC prison .

He was confronted with someone purporting to be PERSON , but did not recognise him due to the blindfold . Mr Güven implied that the applicant 's legal work made him a possible ORG sympathiser but no specific allegation was formulated . r Güven acknowledged that he had not given the applicant any notes to pass on as a courier .

He signed various statements . Being under physical and psychological duress , he was unaware of the contents of the statements except for a report which was headed “ ERNK Receipt ” , being evidence of financial assistance to the ORG , which document he had never possessed .

A medical certificate dated DATE recorded that he bore marks of blows and violence on his body . He saw the doctor before being brought before ORG and released . Once formally released , he and his colleagues were subjected to a warning speech by a gendarme .

The applicant discovered later that his name had never been mentioned in any of Mr Güven 's earlier statements to the police . Afterwards he thought that he must have been detained because of his membership of ORG and his assistance in preparing cases to ORG .

He stayed out of ORG for DATE as there was an in absentia arrest warrant issued against him .

Gazanfer Abbasioğlu

On or around DATE , coming out of ORG , he and several colleagues were subjected to an identity check . Several lawyers had previously been taken into custody and , DATE , others were detained , but not the applicant .

On DATE he was at a colleague 's office when plain - clothed policemen and gendarme officers entered and checked his identity . He was told he was being taken into custody . He was taken by gendarmes to see a doctor . He was then taken somewhere , blindfolded , where he realised there were some of his colleagues . He was not given any reason for his detention until TIME , when he was accused of being a member of and assisting the ORG . He denied the allegations .

He had known earlier that ORG had become a confessor ; it was then that the arrests had started . He had met PERSON as a prisoners ' representative who was present when the applicant interviewed a client accused of political offences . Whilst blindfolded , he was confronted with PERSON during his first interrogation . He recognised his voice . He was accused of being a member of and assisting the ORG , and of constantly defending ORG cases .

NORP On release and after examining his case file , he realised more detailed false allegations had been made , such as that of being a courier .

The applicant signed certain documents under duress in order to avoid being tortured as PERSON , Meral PERSON , PERSON and ORG had been . He did not know the contents of those documents at that point as he had been blindfolded .

After being technically released by the Judge , he and his colleagues were subjected to a warning speech by the gendarme regional commander , PERSON . The applicant understood the speech as a threat . It was only then that he was actually released .

PERSON

Mr PERSON was born in DATE and was a practising lawyer in GPE at the material time .

Mr PERSON was leaving ORG at lunchtime on DATE with a colleague when he was stopped by CARDINAL people in plain - clothes who checked their identity . They said they were from the gendarmerie intelligence unit . After confirming the applicant 's identity , he was told that he was to be taken into custody .

He was put in a vehicle and his scarf was tied over his eyes . He was driven for TIME , got out of the car and was told to wait by a wall . Later he was taken into a building and made to crouch down in a corridor where he heard the whispers of some of his colleagues , such as ORG and PERSON . They sat on a blanket on the concrete floor for DATE ( DATE in custody according to official records ) .

He was not told why he had been detained although he knew that there were colleagues already in custody who , as rumour had it , had been incriminated by the ORG confessor , PERSON . He had met PERSON Güven as a prisoners ' representative in ORG prison . He had accompanied the clients whom the applicant had interviewed . The applicant did not suspect that Mr Güven had made allegations against him as he had no connections with him whatsoever , either professional or otherwise .

DATE he was taken for interrogation and accused of being a courier for the ORG between prisons , and assisting and harbouring the ORG . Someone calling himself PERSON was apparently present and urged the applicant to confess like him . The applicant said to this person , whom he presumed to be PERSON , that he knew very well that the applicant had not carried notes between prisons .

DATE there was a terrible noise , with martial music blaring , and he heard people being ordered to sign documents or be killed . He was similarly threatened with torture - electric shocks - and felt obliged to sign documents , the contents of which were unknown to him . He had heard PERSON , PERSON and PERSON being subjected to cold water ill - treatment .

Abdülhakim Güven

Mr Güven was born in DATE and had no specific profession other than trading . At the material time he was remanded in custody in ORG prison , charged with membership of the ORG . In DATE he had left the ORG over a disagreement and became a confessor , giving information to the ORG about the ORG , starting with certain lawyers whom he had known before his imprisonment ( which started in DATE ) . The ORG had made him the representative of its organisation in prison and he was in charge and supervised all members ' contacts with the outside world , including their defence lawyers . This was part of the education given to ORG associates .

Mr Güven had little recollection of the events and allegations he had made concerning the applicants , but confirmed many leading questions from the Delegates and the parties , which resulted in the following account :

Mr Güven confirmed a statement he had given in DATE ( paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which revealed that he had met a ORG member , code name GPE , at the house of PERSON , and that he had given Mr Elçi messages for certain ORG members outside the prison . Mr Elçi sometimes brought back the replies . He had known Mr Elçi since they were teenagers .

As regards PERSON , all he could remember was that PERSON had had contacts with the ORG in the area .

Mr Güven confirmed his allegation that in DATE PERSON had brought cyanide poison into the prison in order to harm ORG opponents who were putting pressure on members ' families . Mr PERSON had handed over the poison to Mr Güven directly . He had no comment on the statement of another ORG confessor , ORG , who had earlier identified someone else as having brought the poison into the prison ( paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Without recalling details , PERSON said that PERSON had contacted a ORG association in Bursa prison . He stated that PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , ORG and ORG had all acted as couriers between prisons and with outsiders .

He confirmed his allegation that PERSON had given him a knife in prison , which PERSON had asked PERSON to procure . He had no comment on the earlier statement made by ORG that he had obtained the knife from someone else ( paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Mr Güven did not recall what had happened to the knife or the cyanide poison . Perhaps the knife had been confiscated in a later search before any harm was done .

Mr Güven said that he had had CARDINAL or CARDINAL contacts with PERSON who , as far as he could remember , had helped in the exchange of notes once or twice . PERSON and PERSON had acted as couriers .

Mr Güven was unable to specify the content of any particular note or document which any applicant had passed on , given the voluminous material involved and the passing of DATE . He remembered that PERSON had been an GPE lawyer who had visited a client at FAC prison , and PERSON had received notes from the ORG and Gaziantep prisons via Mr PERSON . He had no special information about the services which PERSON and PERSON had rendered the ORG . He could not recall exactly when he had met PERSON . According to information he had obtained from his friends , PERSON considered that he could trust PERSON and PERSON .

Mr Güven had made statements to ORG about all the lawyers and had repeated them before ORG , perhaps in DATE . However , he had not answered the summons to attend the applicants ' ORG hearings out of concern for his personal safety , having made an enemy of the ORG .

Mr Güven said that there may not be records of any visits to himself or other ORG members in prison by the applicants because those lawyers could have given any remand prisoner 's name and entered the prison , thereby seeing PERSON or his associates .

He confirmed his confrontation with certain lawyers during their interrogations . Most of them were co - operative . Only PERSON and Meral PERSON objected to certain statements . Neither party was blindfolded during the confrontation . CARDINAL officers were always present . His signature on the confrontation report only confirmed the accuracy of what he alone had said .

Mr Güven denied a statement in which he had purportedly confessed to carrying weapons which were subsequently used to kill CARDINAL police officers prior to his apprehension in DATE . He later conceded that he may just have forgotten the details . He acknowledged his involvement in a plan to kill a prison officer while he was still a ORG associate remanded in custody . He also acknowledged that some of his statements about being tortured during interrogation to make him sign incriminating statements had been lies .

Prior to becoming a confessor , he had expected to serve DATE in prison ( a DATE sentence with early release ) , rather than receiving the death sentence or life imprisonment for his role in the death of the police officers . He denied that , in order to avoid dangerous repercussions from the ORG when he became a confessor , he had given the names of persons who had had no connection whatsoever with the ORG . In no way did the advantages of the Remorse Law lead him to accuse the applicants . However , after the life sentence was imposed on him , his confessor statements permitted his release from custody . Since then he had been a target for the ORG , although he acknowledged that he had been able to move around freely in GPE . He had changed his identity and was initially provided with a little financial assistance by the gendarmerie , from Commander PERSON . He knew that , if he gave false testimony as a confessor , DATE term of imprisonment could be added to his original sentence .

Mr Güven denied being encouraged by any officials to denounce the applicants , or ORG , or to become a confessor . He left the ORG because their original aims , in which he had believed , had been undermined , and they were inflicting damage on the NORP people .

Mr Güven said that the lawyers ' confessions had been recorded on videotape . His confrontations with them had lasted DATE from CARDINAL or TIME until night - time , DATE after the lawyers had been apprehended . His own legal representative , GPE , had suggested the applicants ' names to him as being people who were “ patriots and could join the struggle ” . It was ORG established policy that its members should systematically refute any incriminating statements they had made before a ORG or Investigating Judge .

He knew of a PERSON who had been a ORG member but , once in prison , she had been isolated because she was suspected of being a ORG agent .

PERSON

PERSON was born in DATE and she had been detained on remand since DATE ( DATE ) for ORG offences , in particular the unlawful possession and transport of weapons . The criminal proceedings against her were still pending .

PERSON had consulted the applicant , PERSON , for legal advice in DATE prior to her detention , and they had become friends . Under torture , PERSON had been obliged to become a confessor and had signed statements , the contents of which were not fully known to her . She discovered later that in such a statement , dated DATE , she had denounced PERSON , and other local lawyers whom she had never met , as being ORG couriers . However PERSON had not been her representative for these pending criminal proceedings and PERSON had had no contact with PERSON or any other of the cited lawyers during her detention . There was no way , therefore , in which they could have delivered documents for her .

Before ORG on DATE , PERSON refuted the contents of her original statement ( paragraph QUANTITY below ) .

PERSON alleged that just before being brought before ORG she saw somebody , with a name like PERSON , on a higher floor of the court building who indirectly threatened her with unpleasant repercussions if she did not give testimony to the Delegates in the ORG 's favour . He was apparently some expert sergeant .

PERSON Eğilmez

Dr PERSON was born in DATE . At the material time he was a forensic expert at ORG . Detainees were referred to him for a medical examination before or after they were taken into custody .

On DATE Dr Eğilmez carried out an oral and external physical examination of the applicants . It was early in the morning . The security forces stayed outside and he examined them in groups of CARDINAL or CARDINAL .

From the external examination he saw that CARDINAL of the applicants had a simple lesion on his knee which he recorded . Although individuals had complained of ill - treatment , the doctor was not convinced of any systematic ill - treatment . CARDINAL or QUANTITY people had said they had breathing difficulties . He began examining CARDINAL or CARDINAL of them with a stethoscope , whereupon the others decided not to be examined and withdrew their complaints .

They were all examined stripped to the waist . They were asked whether they had any marks on their bodies and they were told that , if there were , he would make a detailed examination . Apart from the bruised knee mentioned above , no one complained of any visible marks , although they all said they had been beaten . He saw MONEY himself . It was rare that he was presented with such a case and , when he was , he recorded it . DATE he re - examined ORG and ORG who complained that they had been struck on their buttocks , but Dr PERSON found MONEY .

He acknowledged certifying DATE , on DATE , CARDINAL bruises on the lower knee of ORG . It had escaped his attention in the CARDINAL earlier examinations because it was not shown to him . Sometimes ladies are reluctant to reveal parts of their bodies .

Hüsniye Ölmez had been examined on DATE in the company of Meral PERSON . There were MONEY on the latter . Another doctor had certified that PERSON was suffering from pneumonia , which she had not mentioned to Dr PERSON on DATE . At that stage one would have expected her to show a fever , coughing and phlegm . However , she made no complaint .

Pneumonia is not a traumatic lesion . It can be contracted after catching cold and is often preceded by bronchitis . It would take DATE to develop and would induce fever . An x - ray would be needed to establish the condition and hospital treatment would also normally be required .

Dr PERSON could not remember how the applicants looked - whether the men were clean - shaven , unwashed or the like . He did remember , however , that they did not look tired , worn out or feverish .

As a forensic doctor his task was to record findings , not to take a patient 's medical history or make a clinical examination . This is why he did not note people 's general complaints and why he would only record visible marks .

ORG If a man had had his testicles squeezed and had complained to him of that fact , Dr PERSON would have expected to see sensitivity in the genital area , reddening and swelling . None of the male lawyers complained of this , and he would not have examined genitalia unless asked to do so by a complainant .

The first question addressed in such examinations was whether there were any signs of blows , force or violence . However , if the individual was found to be suffering from an illness , such as a fever or heart condition , he would have noted the need for follow - up treatment in his report .

Around the relevant time he prepared CARDINAL reports , of which PERCENT were custody examinations .

The examinations he conducted in the present case were recorded in a single report .

Dr Mahmut Demirel

Dr PERSON was born in DATE and was a general medical practitioner at the material time . He did not recall having certified on CARDINAL DATE that PERSON had had pneumonia . He had known her previously when she was a childhood neighbour .

Pneumonia would disclose symptoms of fever , malaise and lateral pain from coughing . It did not have to be preceded by bronchitis , but might be . A stethoscope examination could distinguish between the CARDINAL . How someone reacted to the illness depended on his / her physical condition . Such a person would be able to stand up with assistance .

It may be caught by being exposed to cold . The diagnosis may be confirmed by an x - ray . Bed rest and antibiotics may be sufficient treatment . It is an acute illness which may not show any symptoms DATE .

Eşref GPE

Mr GPE was born in DATE . At the material time he was a senior gendarme colonel , responsible for law and order in the province of ORG .

There was an interrogation and detention centre under his command within the city boundary . This unit was headed by Lieutenant Colonel PERSON , the director of operations . The person in charge of interrogations was a non - commissioned officer ( “ ORG ” ) , PERSON .

NORP The detention centre had been inspected by ORG for the Prevention of Torture ( the “ CPT ” ) DATE and had been found to be up to standard after improvements had been made . It was not overcrowded . If it was full , detainees would be kept in their original place of detention awaiting transfer .

Mr GPE remembered the detention of the applicants as it was an unusual incident . ORG had made certain allegations against them concerning events in prisons , and the role of these lawyers was raised , albeit not proved .

Mr Güven , being a top - ranking ORG member , had given much reliable information , not just about the lawyers . He had repented and was entitled , like every citizen , to take advantage of the law of the country . Mr GPE had given orders for him to receive a small sum of money , MONEY , for his personal needs . Mr Güven did not enrich himself by his confession ; he only received bare subsistence from the ORG .

The gendarmerie had its own intelligence too . Following a rural operation and a skirmish , a ORG shelter was captured which contained archives , including a list of CARDINAL people to be killed . His own name was at the top of that list . It was said to have been smuggled out of prison in a fountain pen carried by a lawyer . Lawyers were serving as couriers for the ORG , but did not confess to this in order to protect themselves from a ruthless ORG reaction .

As the person responsible for law and order in that region , he had been the person most responsible for the decision to detain the applicants . However , before the decision could be implemented it was necessary to notify ORG , as his superior , the Regional Governor and ORG . The actual decision to detain had to be taken by ORG . There was only a single decision taken to detain all the applicants , although they could not all necessarily be taken into custody at the same time .

The detention centre at the time could hold CARDINAL people ( later reduced to CARDINAL on the recommendation of the ORG ) . He denied that CARDINAL people would have been held there , as might have been suggested by the number of names in the custody ledger . CARDINAL person was held in each cell , according to the rules , so that they could not communicate with each other and co - ordinate their stories . When there were too many arrivals to accommodate all the detainees in the detention centre , other places of custody - at the central gendarme station , the provincial gendarmerie regiment or the police headquarters - would be used , but this would be recorded in the custody ledger .

He denied the possibility that people had slept in a corridor . His staff were instructed to treat detainees warmly and humanely . There was no hostility towards the applicants . Inhuman treatment was impossible .

Each cell had a collapsible camp bed , with a wooden floor . A blanket was given to each detainee . The cells were not dark although , on the ORG 's recommendations , lighting and ventilation were later improved . At the end of the stairs there was a toilet and bathroom . There was a hot water heater in there now ; he could not remember if it had been installed at the time . When a detainee needed to use the toilet , he would be escorted there . There was heating in the corridor which was sufficient . There were no women guards or separate facilities for women .

Three meals a day were served : a bread breakfast , a light lunch at TIME consisting mostly of bread , and in TIME detainees were served the same meals as the soldiers , with not CARDINAL dishes . Water was freely available .

Mr GPE was not a specialist in interrogation and did not attend such sessions . He was kept informed of their progress by PERSON ORG .

A specialised interrogation officer was alone with the detainee and another typed the record . Video recordings were made too , which included the CARDINAL applicants . The tapes had been handed to ORG . He had watched the tape of the applicants twice and was struck by the naturalness of their facial expressions . The lawyers ' statements had not been obtained by force , as was shown by the fact that a few of them refused to sign the various documents . Nothing happened to those people who refused .

After their release he met the applicants and they had a friendly private chat , over some tea . They told him that they had experienced certain difficulties , that they had not committed any crime and that it was impossible for them to have done so . However , they did not allege any ill - treatment . If they had done so , he would have replaced the interrogators and taken legal measures against them , as was his duty . However , nobody who was detained during his DATE in that job was ever injured or killed . The ORG once arrived at TIME but found nothing untoward and heard no complaints , otherwise they would have reported it .

When most of the applicants were released on DATE they were brought back to the detention centre to collect their personal belongings and Mr GPE addressed them collectively . They had not been blindfolded once released . He congratulated them that the matter was over and said , inter alia , that they should be more careful and that everyone 's existence depended on that of the State . He exhorted them to be good in their future conduct , because they could see that people who committed crimes would be brought to places like the detention centre . Tea was served . The applicants said they had been wronged and slandered . After TIME they left , shaking hands with him and they were taken to the town centre , as they had requested . A minibus was put at their disposal with a military escort . He did not see them again .

Mr GPE accepted that some of the applicants may have found him threatening , but others found him to be friendly . He had had the power to do whatever he wanted with them at that time - torture , ill - treatment , brute force , etc . ; instead he had offered them tea and transport .

However , such allegations were only made by people who worked against GPE - as had been legally established . Nevertheless , he extended a friendly hand to them . The judicial authorities had a separate duty to perform from his .

He denied having threatened any of the applicants and was embarrassed by any such allegation .

PERSON

Mr PERSON was born in DATE and at the material time he was the law and order director of the ORG provincial gendarmerie command . He supervised , inter alia , the interrogation unit .

The detention centre in ORG could hold CARDINAL people in individual cells with peepholes for surveillance . The floors had wooden grids and collapsible beds . Blankets were provided . There was lighting and heating in the corridors which filtered into the cells . People were taken to the toilet according to their needs and there was a bathroom . Interrogations were held in a special room . Breakfast and lunch were offered , possibly below the standard soldier rations , but a full evening meal was provided .

The custody records were accurate ; the CARDINAL people mentioned in the record would not all have been held at the centre . They would have been in the attached units ( of which there were around CARDINAL ) . Interrogations were performed by individual , trained specialists accompanied by a typist . In important cases , interrogations were recorded . The detainee was not blindfolded .

Mr ORG had never met any of the applicants . Reports were made to him and he had never heard any allegations of ill - treatment . He had not been involved in the decision to detain them , nor had he seen them on their release . They would not have been blindfolded on their way from the court to the detention centre after their release in order to fetch their personal belongings .

Mr Bozoğlu was unable to say whether the law required that an interrogator put his name to a statement rather than just his service code number , as had occurred in the present case .

PERSON

PERSON was born in DATE and was the gendarme captain and commander of the district centre of ORG at the material time . He had been under the direct orders of Mr GPE .

Based on information from a confessor , PERSON , the gendarmerie obtained the ORG 's permission to detain the CARDINAL lawyers . The regiment commander , ORG at ORG and the Provincial Governor were aware of that authorisation . When people were taken into custody , ORG was contacted to determine the length of the detention period . Nobody could be taken into custody without the ORG 's knowledge and approval . His verbal instructions on the matter were equivalent to an order , but the instructions would be later recorded in written form . It was the decision of ORG to detain the applicants in the present case . A record would have been kept indicating the name of the person who had informed the ORG and had requested his authority to detain . The gendarmerie could take people into custody on their own initiative as long as the judicial authorities were informed and approved the decision . Written authority could exceptionally be given after a person had been detained , but in such a case the authority would be back - dated to DATE when the person had been taken into custody .

Mr Güven 's accounts confirmed other information in the gendarmerie 's possession , the most important of which had been publications , documents and materials which were deemed unlawful and had been found in prisons during searches .

PERSON did not participate in the interrogation , but followed the results . The chief of interrogations at that time was PERSON . There was a special interrogation room measuring QUANTITY or more in the ORG provincial gendarmerie command . CARDINAL person interrogated . If a statement were to be taken , there was sometimes a typist , although the statement was recorded elsewhere . In the meantime , notes were taken by the interrogator himself which were not archived . People were never blindfolded during interrogation , but were under spotlights which prevented the interrogators ' identification . The detainee sat on a stool in a comfortable environment .

Adjacent to the interrogation room was a listening room , connected electronically , so that questions could be relayed from the ( unseen ) chief interrogator to the interrogator , to be put to the detainee .

NORP The results of the applicants ' interrogations were reported verbally to PERSON , but he no longer remembered what was said . The interrogations were carried out strictly according to the law , despite allegations to the contrary in the media and by the ORG .

Some of the lawyers refused to sign certain documents , such as the confrontation reports with ORG who had recognised all the applicants and made certain allegations . People were free not to sign such documents .

The jurisdiction of the police and gendarmerie could sometimes overlap and they could operate within each other 's jurisdiction provided that there was proper notification . The external security of places of detention was the gendarmerie 's responsibility . Accordingly , even though most of the applicants were arrested within the municipal boundaries of ORG , under police jurisdiction , it was for the gendarmerie to effect their detention and interrogation .

PERSON acknowledged that the applicant PERSON was detained with others on DATE . He could only assume that there must have been good reason for that even though Mr GPE 's name did not feature in the previous statements of PERSON , and the applicants had not at that stage been interrogated , so his name would not have arisen during questioning . PERSON denied the suggestion that Mr GPE had been detained at random .

The applicants immediately accepted the allegations against them , but it took DATE to verify and investigate the case in depth , and to consult the judicial authorities . It was out of the question that the applicants had had to wait DATE unnecessarily before being brought before the Prosecutor to make statements .

CARDINAL people were kept in cells at FAC . The others would have been kept at the provincial central gendarmerie command and would have been brought to FAC for interrogation .

The cells had wooden planks in the form of a grill to prevent contact with the concrete floor . There was a camp bed and CARDINAL or CARDINAL blankets depending on the cold . Portable electric heaters were in the corridor . It was not necessary to provide separate facilities for women .

The interrogator 's identity could easily have been found by the judicial authorities if that had been necessary , even though his identity may not have been disclosed in any of the applicants ' statements . This was to protect the interrogators ' security and was lawful . There would be clear records still in existence of who had interrogated whom .

Burhanettin Kayak

Mr Kayak was born in DATE and was a gendarme special sergeant at the Cizre district gendarmerie command at the material time .

On DATE he had received instructions to detain PERSON , who was to make a statement before ORG . A police team was sent to detain Mr Elçi and he was handed over to the provincial gendarmerie command DATE for transfer to ORG . He had no other information about Mr Elçi .

Mr PERSON was not involved in the actual arrest or subsequent searches of Mr Elçi or his LOC . All seized documents were handed over with Mr Elçi to the ORG team and he had no involvement in the return of such documents .

Mr Elçi was kept in the custody room which was QUANTITY in size and had a camp bed .

PERSON

Mr Yedekçi was born in DATE and at the material time he was chief of the interrogation unit at the ORG provincial gendarmerie command .

There was a team of CARDINAL interrogators by whom interrogations were conducted under his control . From the listening room connected with a closed circuit television system and a microphone , he could intervene with the interrogators to direct questioning . He was always accompanied by someone in the listening room , but the interrogator was alone with the detainee . The interrogator would make notes of the interrogation , on the basis of which questions would be put again in an interview room and a statement typed up .

The interrogator would sit at a table with the detainee sitting opposite him , on whom spotlights were trained . The closed circuit television system permitted relevant video recordings to be made , which in the present case were handed to the prosecutor 's office of ORG . A hidden microphone hung above the person being interrogated .

A prisoner called ORG , the political representative in prison , was interviewed over DATE and made a statement about ORG activities . The statement ( CARDINAL pages ) was handed to ORG at ORG who then gave instructions to apprehend and interrogate certain people .

Some of the applicants immediately accepted having acted unlawfully . Others refused to sign statements .

Mr Yedekçi had not participated in the confrontation sessions between the applicants and Mr Güven which had taken place in the interview room . This room was not connected to the closed circuit television system and , therefore , the confrontations were not recorded on video . Mr PERSON had signed the confrontation documents in the present case .

None of the applicants were blindfolded during interrogations . Nor did any of them allege having been exposed to ill - treatment or threats during interrogation .

The interrogator would conduct the interview session when a statement would be typed up following the individual 's responses . There was normal lighting in that room and blindfolds were not used . The interrogator had no fear of being identified . That was his job .

PERSON conducted the applicants ' interrogation . The statement procedure did not necessarily occur on DATE as the interrogation , but was based on the interrogator 's notes .

Mr Yedekçi did not recall the exact reason why PERSON was detained on DATE , DATE as Mr Güven 's incriminating statement , even though Mr GPE 's name had not featured in that statement .

People were usually told when they were apprehended why they were being detained and it had to be recorded in the apprehension report . Although there was no specific mention in any of the applicants ' apprehension reports , they must have been informed orally .

NORP If people were unaware of the reason for their detention , his staff would tell them .

The detention area had CARDINAL floors , with CARDINAL cells , later reduced to CARDINAL after the ORG 's intervention . Each cell had metal doors with slits in the upper part . There was a wooden plank on the floor and a military camp bed . Detainees received the same food as the soldiers , and their needs were catered for . There was fuel central heating which had replaced burning stoves .

PERSON

Mr PERSON was born in DATE and at the material time was ORG ( no . CARDINAL ) at ORG .

In GPE it was ORG at ORG who gave orders to detain people . Investigations could be instigated on the basis of verbal instructions ; the law did not require a written order .

Mr. PERSON stated that he had had nothing to do with the apprehension of the present applicants . They were apprehended on the instructions of ORG , PERSON , in accordance with LAW . Such instructions could have been given orally . Mr. PERSON did not know if ORG would have kept a note of such oral instructions .

The applicants were brought before him on DATE . He explained the charges against them and asked to hear their defence . He read out their statements as recorded by the gendarmes , listened to their defence and recorded fresh statements .

They denied the charges and complained of ill - treatment , all of which was recorded . If there were corroborative evidence of ill - treatment in a file , he would take action .

He had been a Prosecutor for DATE by then and knew what an ill - treated person would look like . So he considered that the applicants ' mere allegations were insufficient to be taken seriously . The bruise found on someone 's knee did not indicate torture . PERCENT of detainees connected with terrorist offences claimed to have been tortured . It was a mere defence tactic . He never came across a case which required further action from him because of alleged ill - treatment . Anyway , it was not his duty to investigate allegations of torture , being a ORG , and the applicants , all lawyers , could have filed complaints in the normal courts .

Mr PERSON had drawn up the indictment in the applicants ' case based on ORG considerable evidence , and the incriminating documents about the ORG found in the offices of CARDINAL of the lawyers .

The search of PERSON office revealed a note addressed to “ Comrade PERSON ” , bearing the stamp “ ERNK ” ( the political wing of the ORG ) and sent to him by the ORG . A note addressed “ to the office of the co - ordinator of ORG being the ORG 's name for ORG ) was found in ORG possession . It was a note written to ORG members in the mountains and who were active in the area . A note with the stamp “ ERNK ” was found on PERSON . A note addressed to “ Comrade PERSON ” with an “ ERNK ” stamp on it was found in GPE Hayri PERSON 's office . A note addressed to “ Comrades PERSON and GPE ” were found in the possession of PERSON and PERSON . These notes were written by ORG members .

A report in ORG possession was addressed to “ Mr President ” . A document was found in PERSON possession signed by ORG of GPE ” , regarding the work and activities of the ORG 's congress . CARDINAL receipts from the “ ERNK ” to be passed on to lawyers handling ORG cases were found in the possession of PERSON . Mr PERSON considered that the applicants ' denial of the authenticity of these documents was another mere defence tactic .

The reference to NORP institutions in the indictment concerning Mr Elçi , Mr GPE and PERSON and PERSON , related to the ORG campaign to discredit GPE in the eyes of foreign Governments and to weaken it , in order to further their separatist objectives . In no way were these references to ORG , to whom individuals were entitled to complain , and the ORG had not put any obstacles in the applicants ' way .

Mr PERSON was involved in the initial court proceedings , during which the applicants denied the charges against them and were released . Perhaps the fact that the cases were still pending [ in DATE ] was caused by the complexity of the case , involving a large number of suspects and numerous prison establishments .

LAW . CARDINAL on the establishment and judicial practice of ORG gave ORG Prosecutors powers to investigate the offences within that court 's jurisdiction under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW . This overrode the special jurisdictional protection given to the prosecution of lawyers for ordinary criminal offences under LAW and CARDINAL of Law No . DATE on Advocates . This was also made explicit in DATE ( a ) , ( b ) and ( c ) of Law No . CARDINAL :

“ Those who commit and who are accessories to the above mentioned crimes , regardless of their title and the nature of their official duty , must be prosecuted by ORG ” .

In other words the procedures in the present case were carried out in accordance with ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Law No . CARDINAL and Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .

PERSON

Mr PERSON was born in DATE and at the material time he was working at FAC . His principal task was to take the completed criminal files of detainees to ORG . He had had nothing to do with the applicants ' detention or interrogation . He had just taken their files to court .

He knew of the CARDINAL lawyers but had only met PERSON and PERSON at the time , neither of whom had been blindfolded .

If a colleague forgot to sign a document , he would sign it for him . He had signed CARDINAL such document in the case of PERSON , although he had not formulated its contents . He thought that the person who typed the statement had been ORG ; PERSON had been the interrogator . As far as he could remember , the witness had had PERSON notes and he had put the latter 's questions to Mr PERSON and had the replies typed up . PERSON was present when Mr PERSON signed his statement . He had chatted at length with PERSON and PERSON many times and Mr PERSON had lamented the fact that he and his wife had been used by “ them ” and duped .

Mr PERSON then said that he had not been present when Mr PERSON signed his statement . He had no opinion on whether it was desirable or not to keep a suspect unaware of the identity of the interrogator . The suspect was not , however , blindfolded .

Mr PERSON acknowledged that a signature seemingly like his was on a statement purportedly made by PERSON but not signed by her , but he did not remember exactly .

Murat Kiricki

Mr GPE was born in DATE and was an ORG for interrogation and investigation in the ORG gendarmerie . He had had a DATE 's training for that job .

He had interrogated the CARDINAL lawyers . He thought that the detention of so many lawyers was normal although he could not recall a similar incident . He had been guided during the interrogations via the closed circuit television system by his superior officer , PERSON .

First the lawyers asked why they had been detained , even though they must have been given the reasons earlier . They were informed that they were there to answer ORG allegations , and the interrogation started with the allegation that they had acted as couriers between prisons . Mr PERSON did not recall what had been the applicants ' initial reaction to the allegations .

The interrogation was then interrupted and resumed later ( lapse of time unspecified ) , when they confessed to the courier charges . The change of attitude was probably due to reformulated questions which had been drawn up after the first interrogation had been analysed by his superiors .

The lawyers were confronted with PERSON , who spoke first and to whom the detainees responded . They knew Mr Güven but disagreed about certain matters amongst themselves . However , there were no significant contradictions .

Mr PERSON refused to comment on whether he should have further questioned those lawyers who refused to sign their statements . Then he explained that those had been DATE ; the applicants ' detention periods were coming to an end ; there was little time left ; he had taken statements from them ; he accepted any refusal not to sign and , anyway , ORG was to take another statement .

Interrogations took place in the morning , after breakfast . The detainee would then have lunch and dinner . He would be taken to the toilet as needed and given water when it was requested . Interrogations varied in length from CARDINAL to TIME and could have been DATE .

In the interrogation room spotlights were trained on the detainee so he could not see the interrogator , who sat at a desk . The closed circuit video system was on the back wall .

The inability to see the interrogator was a security precaution and had a psychological effect on the detainee . He took notes of the interrogation . Later the detainee would be taken to an interview room where his statement would be taken by a transcriber in his presence . Blindfolds were not forbidden , but were not used . He was not in fear of his safety in the interview room when he could be seen by the detainee .

Mr ORG could not recall why PERSON name appeared on PERSON PERSON 's statements . PERSON was CARDINAL of the CARDINAL or CARDINAL people who made up the interrogation team .

He had not signed the record of PERSON statement and could not recall the reason for that . He had interrogated her . A colleague must have signed it when he saw that PERSON signature was missing .

During interrogations , he communicated with the persons in the adjacent room with microphones and a closed circuit system .

Hüseyin Gazi Ateş

Mr Ateş was born in DATE and at the material time was working as a typist at the investigation and interrogation branch headquarters . He had typed the statements of the CARDINAL lawyers in the presence of the interrogator and each suspect . He typed what the suspect had said . He could not understand the question whether it was the interrogator who read out his notes , which the suspect would just confirm . He had never experienced a situation where the suspect disagreed with the interrogator about what the former had said on a previous occasion .

Mr Ateş would sign what he had typed ; later the interrogator would sign the statement and take it to the suspect .

There had been another typist at the time called PERSON who could have signed the statement of PERSON .

Ercüment Dönmez

Mr Dönmez was born in DATE and at the material time worked in the interrogation section of the anti - terror department at FAC headquarters .

A warrant order was received by fax from the ORG gendarmerie to apprehend PERSON . It was stated that Mr Elçi had links with the ORG and was involved in that organisation 's activities , particularly as a courier . This information was conveyed to Mr Elçi when he was apprehended .

On DATE he went with a team of CARDINAL or so people , accompanied by the team responsible for external security , to Mr PERSON 's business LOC . The people in that team included PERSON and perhaps PERSON .

During the search of Mr PERSON 's office , which lasted TIME , many documents were seized which , for security reasons , could not be catalogued in detail on the spot . A first report was signed straight away indicating what had been seized . A subsequent confiscation report indicating the same documents would have been drawn up . The body search report was also drawn up at headquarters although it had been conducted when Mr Elçi was apprehended in TIME .

The more detailed catalogue of the materials was made up at police headquarters and indicated that CARDINAL case files had been seized .

The documents and Mr Elçi were handed over to the gendarmerie . Mr Dönmez could not explain why there was a faxed confiscation report in ORG file and not an original . Mr Dönmez knew nothing about the return of documents to Mr Elçi .

The return of documents would be recorded in writing and signed by the owner . Documents containing no incriminating evidence would be returned in this way by the judicial authorities . CARDINAL of the seized files concerned the application to ORG PERSON .

A large number of journals or newspapers were seized for examination as to their possible incriminating nature . He did not know the results of that examination .

NORP The list of documents in the confiscation report was drawn up in Mr Elçi 's presence in the office of the head of department , PERSON . Mr ORG did not recall a document with an “ ERNK ” stamp on it . Mr Elçi was not held in the detention room as he was a well - known lawyer . He did not see Mr Elçi after he had been handed over to the gendarmes .

PERSON

Mr PERSON was born in DATE and at the material time was the head of the LOC anti - terror department of the Şırnak police headquarters .

Mr Elçi was apprehended and his office searched following a fax from the ORG gendarmerie command headquarters in connection with alleged offences arising from the statement of ORG . However Mr PERSON did not recollect clearly whether PERSON name had been cited in that fax . It appears that Mr PERSON was told this . According to new human rights rules , when someone was apprehended he was told of the offence of which he was accused . ORG may have been informed verbally as a matter of urgency .

Objects and documents that might have involved an offence would have been seized . If the location were unsuitable , the record would have been drawn up at headquarters , with the detainee 's consent .

It was a sensitive matter to search a lawyer 's office . Mr PERSON did not know about confidential lawyer / client matters but , anyway , he did not examine the seized documents . He could not recall the signatures on various documents , but their identity could be established by the directorate general . All the documents and objects seized in Mr GPE 's office and home , including his CARDINAL case files , were handed over to the NORP district gendarmerie command . Mr PERSON did not know anything about their return .

The document bearing the “ ERNK ” stamp was found in Mr PERSON 's diary which he had on his person . Mr PERSON 's signature appeared on the faxed confiscation report which mentioned this document . As a rule , documents were handed over with the individual , but perhaps this CARDINAL was overlooked at the time . The original would have been sent to court , if requested . If not , it would have been archived at the district police headquarters in the individual 's file . Mr PERSON had no explanation for the existence of CARDINAL confiscation reports , CARDINAL more detailed , but both with TIME CARDINALh.CARDINAL , DATE , on them .

NORP The officers making the final delivery report must have forgotten to recover the significant “ ERNK ” document . Mr PERSON did not have an explanation for the discrepancy of CARDINAL case files seized in CARDINAL report and CARDINAL case files in another . Nor he could explain why the delivery report referred to the Commission case file of PERSON but not the confiscation report that he had signed .

Mr PERSON had no knowledge of the systematic use of code - names by the ORG whereas the “ ERNK ” document referred directly to “ Comrade PERSON ” . Nor did he know why Mr Elçi would be carrying such a document on his person when the wave of arrests concerning lawyers had begun DATE . He denied having fabricated the document .

Mr Elçi stayed in Mr PERSON 's office , drinking tea , while at the NORP police station , and would have been handed over around midday that same day , DATE , to the Cizre gendarmerie , as soon as the procedures had been completed .

Mr PERSON denied that Mr Elçi had been put in a police cell and ill - treated . He did not know about any administrative investigation into this matter . He had been the subject of another investigation concerning a signature .

PERSON

Mr PERSON was born in DATE and was a team leader in the ORG gendarmerie at the material time . He had apprehended PERSON , ORG and PERSON .

Mr Tur was apprehended at his home on TIME DATE , following an order from the provincial gendarmerie command in connection with the alleged NORP activities of the CARDINAL applicants . PERSON did not see the written order himself .

NORP Accompanied by PERSON , PERSON entered PERSON house . A third member of the team , PERSON , waited outside in a vehicle . PERSON was told that , according to the provincial gendarmerie command , he was active in the ORG ; hence his apprehension had been requested . His house was searched , but nothing incriminating was found . He was taken to a doctor at ORG and then delivered to the gendarmerie .

Nevzat Kaya was apprehended at his office on DATE . The office was searched but nothing incriminating was found . He was also taken to hospital before being handed over to the gendarmerie .

Mr PERSON had no clear recollection of Mr GPE 's apprehension on DATE , other than the fact that the search had not revealed any incriminating evidence .

None of the detainees was blindfolded .

PERSON

Mr PERSON was born in DATE and at the material time was a police officer in ORG .

He was involved in the apprehension of PERSON on DATE around TIME Officials from the provincial gendarmerie command had called at police headquarters and requested that PERSON PERSON be apprehended and handed over to them .

Mr PERSON went with CARDINAL or CARDINAL other officers to PERSON house , PERSON PERSON refused to open the door until the authenticity of the procedure had been confirmed . He required an acquaintance of his , Chief PERSON , to call by and identify Mr PERSON and his colleagues as police officers .

Mr PERSON arrived TIME , during which time documents could have been destroyed , although no evidence of that was found .

Mr PERSON told Mr PERSON that he was being investigated for suspected ORG connections and that he was to be taken into custody and handed over to the ORG gendarmes .

Mr PERSON then allowed the team to enter and search his house . A record of seized documents was drawn up . He had no clear recollection of certain incriminating documents such as that bearing an “ ERNK ” stamp or another entitled ORG of GPE ” . All he remembered was gathering and recording documents and books with a political content , without examining them .

Mr PERSON was not blindfolded at any stage .

PERSON

Mr PERSON was born in DATE and at the material time was the head of a team at the GPE Anti - Terror Department .

He was involved in the apprehension of PERSON and PERSON .

ORG A fax message was received from the ORG gendarmerie that these lawyers were wanted for assisting the ORG by acting as couriers for prisoners .

On DATE Mr PERSON was accosted at ORG . He was told of the charges against him . He was taken to ORG where he was body searched . A team went to his house to conduct a search . A detention note was sent to ORG for a period of time to be authorised for his detention pending the arrival of the ORG gendarmes . DATE were authorised but , before the expiry of that period , he was handed over to the ORG gendarmes who apparently took him to ORG .

Nothing was seized during the body or house searches .

Mr PERSON knew Mr PERSON and apprehended him at ORG just before a hearing . Mr PERSON recalled nothing about PERSON .

He met Mr PERSON some time after these events at ORG where they did not have any time to talk . All Mr PERSON said was that he had been detained in connection with some ORG confessor .

The parties submitted various documents to the ORG and the ORG . The ORG also presented CARDINAL video cassettes . The ORG has had particular regard to the following material :

The relevant parts of the CARDINAL statements of ORG ( a ORG confessor ) to the gendarmerie

a ) statement of DATE

Lawyers acted as couriers between the ORG and prisoners . They set up firms , as required by that organisation , e.g. the partnership of GPE with ORG , and PERSON with ORG . ORG was making similar efforts . PERSON acted as a courier .

b ) statement of CARDINAL DATE

Mr Güven stated that he had met a ORG guerrilla ( code name GPE ) at PERSON house . Mr PERSON was a courier between prisons and the Hakari – Şırnak and PERSON areas .

At the ORG 's request , PERSON brought a flick knife into prison , and PERSON brought cyanide with the help of his client , the brother of PERSON . Mr GPE was part of a team of lawyers who brought ORG publications and books into prison .

GPE , Meral PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON and PERSON ( to a lesser extent ) also acted as couriers between the ORG E - type prison , as well as the GPE , Batman , PERSON and PERSON ( women only ) prisons . They carried , inter alia , notes , instructions and educational materials .

Mr Tur had various ORG duties , including acting as a courier and transmitting the ORG 's decisions to the prison and prisoners ' statements recorded for the organisation . He was also part of the team bringing in ORG publications and books . He had the trust of the organisation and had official links with it .

Mr and PERSON were ORG contacts for GPE and its NORP organisation , passing on information from prisons .

Mr PERSON was in touch with the ORG 's centres in prison . PERSON transmitted notes with the help of other ORG couriers . He was also part of the team of lawyers bringing in ORG publications and books . He passed on messages to CARDINAL previous detainees in the ORG militia , called PERSON and GPE . He was the latter 's legal representative . They were caught in possession of ORG money amounting to CARDINAL CARDINAL .

c ) First supplementary statement

Mr Güven mentioned contact with a ORG member called PERSON . The latter was in charge of the incidents in Cizre during DATE .

Hüsniye Ölmez was asked on behalf of the ORG to find a buyer for furniture left in the apartment of a detained ORG member , ORG , who had been jailed . She did not manage to do so .

PERSON acted as a courier for the ORG , transmitting notes . For example , once he passed information to a person called GPE ( code name PERSON ) who was wanted by the security forces , and he also took notes to the militia members called PERSON and GPE .

d ) Second supplementary statement

Mr Güven alleged the involvement of ORG in the disposal of the furniture of a NORP detainee , with the initials PERSON

Statement of ORG before ORG on DATE

Mr Güven stated that he had become a ORG sympathiser after being influenced by ORG propaganda provided by a certain PERSON . He later met a ORG member ( code name - PERSON ) at the house of PERSON , and thereafter began working for the organisation as a courier , propaganda and activity organiser , recruiter and fund raiser . After his capture , he became the ORG 's political representative in FAC of FAC , where plans were made to kill prison warders . There were also plans concerning turned confessors . To this end , PERSON delivered cyanide to him and GPE Demırhan brought him a flick knife . However , these items were found in the confessors ' dormitory before they could be used .

PERSON had conveyed messages to PERSON by way of notes placed in an address book . PERSON also took notes to Mr Güven 's friends . PERSON , PERSON , ORG , ORG and PERSON frequently carried organisational notes and educational materials to other prisons and the rural section of the organisation . PERSON did so less often . PERSON maintained relations between the prison and the rural section , conveying journals and conference reports . PERSON and PERSON and Mr PERSON maintained the co - ordination between the NORP and GPE organisations and between GPE and the prisons . PERSON acted as a courier and maintained contacts between the ORG and Gaziantep prisons .

Various applicants complained of the excessive pressure being placed on members to become confessors by Prosecutor Tanju at ORG . PERSON and ORG stressed the matter more than others . They insinuated that he should be killed .

Mr Güven also mentioned plans to kill the provincial gendarmerie command 's most senior officer .

Evidence of Abdülhakim Güven before ORG on DATE

At a ORG hearing on DATE , ORG appeared and the statement he had made to the gendarmerie was read out to him . He confirmed its correctness . [ Defence counsel for the applicants repudiated his statements as being a self - serving attempt to gain an acquittal and release . ]

Mr Güven stated that he was the general representative of the ORG in prison and used to attend the interviews which defence lawyers had with their clients . These lawyers thus mostly saw ORG members .

He denied that he had been tried as being a member of the ORG . An investigation against him was made , apparently concerning some written material , but a decision not to proceed was taken .

Once the prison ORG members identified a lawyer as being “ patriotic ” , a decision was taken to contact him , as had been the case with PERSON .

[ Defence counsel denounced these declarations as fictitious . ]

Statements ( all subsequently repudiated by the applicants ) taken by officers of the ORG provincial gendarmerie command

a ) PERSON

( ORG statement which Mr PERSON was recorded as having refused to sign )

Mr Elçi was recorded as stating that since DATE he had had a circle of friends who had relations with the ORG . Names of ORG members were cited . He maintained ORG activities in the urban area . He had become a ORG sympathiser in Cizre in DATE . He was apprehended in DATE and detained at the Diyarbakır E - type prison in DATE where he received ORG ideological and theoretical training . As a student he organised forums , boycotts , protests and propaganda slogans .

Mr Elçi introduced PERSON to PERSON , whom he had known for a long time and who liaised with Mr PERSON 's brother . A ORG member ( PERSON ) was in charge of the town of Silopi , Cizre , and frequently went to Mr PERSON 's house . He had acted as a courier for Mr Güven once the latter was in prison , taking notes and the like , hidden in address books and diaries . He had helped a member , code name Firat , to transport sacks full of guns . Mr PERSON was said to have acknowledged his possession of an “ ERNK ” document and connections with PERSON , the leader of the ORG . He kept and disseminated propaganda publications .

b ) İmam Şahin

( Statement dated DATE and signed )

Mr PERSON was recorded as stating that he had sympathised with the ORG , being influenced by its propaganda . He carried out various tasks assigned to him , such as liaising between members held in different prisons and helping members settle in GPE . He had connections with certain high - ranking members ( whom he named ) . His wife assisted the organisation by conveying correspondence and co - ordinating various activities in different prisons . He was the lawyer for the PERSON newspaper .

Mr PERSON took part in the campaign to close FAC , having repeatedly been asked by “ them ” to put pressure on ORG authorities . He and his wife , PERSON and certain ORG lawyers analysed the situation . They pursued members ' cases and passed on any ORG security information they obtained to the ORG .

He had direct contact with the NORP ORG organisation . He cited certain incidents and members ' names . He brought together other GPE lawyers who were deemed “ patriots ” . He selected potential members of ORG , which many lawyers joined , following the efforts of himself , his wife and PERSON .

Amongst his duties , he was to collect , fabricate and spread propaganda about , for example , ill - treatment in police custody , allegations of extorted statements , the unlawful operation of courts , and unlawful arrests and detention ; and about the fact that the ORG was an organisation acting in self defence , not for terrorism , that villages were burned down and plundered and that ORG death “ squads ” were in operation , etc . The intention was to defame the ORG , and all kinds of lies were faxed to LOC on the instructions of the ORG . His wife was involved in this work , as were PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , ORG and PERSON , ORG , ORG , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .

Mr PERSON was also recorded having admitted that he acted as a courier out of the LOC , ORG and GPE prisons .

c ) PERSON

( Statement dated DATE and signed )

Arzu NORP was recorded as stating that CARDINAL of her ORG duties was to belittle GPE in the international arena . This was done by fabricating applications to ORG , in which false allegations were made of torture being used against people , even lawyers .

On CARDINAL occasion she believed she had transported documents and hand grenades for the ORG from GPE to GPE . CARDINAL people picked them up from her house . They stayed DATE and then were taken away by PERSON . CARDINAL of these people was a woman called GPE . Other lawyers working for the ORG were GPE . GPE , GPE , GPE , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , GPE and PERSON , and PERSON .

d ) ORG

( Statement dated DATE and signed )

Mr Kaya was recorded as stating that he had met members of the ORG for the first time in DATE . A young man came to his office saying that he was a ORG member and the “ ERNK ” leader in ORG . PERSON was asked to help by acting as a NORP defence lawyer for a small fee . Mr Kaya was anyway charging low fees at that time . DATE he took a sealed envelope from this person to a client of his who was detained on remand at FAC . He acted as a courier between members , such as ORG , in different prisons . On CARDINAL occasion he brought many Tshirts , pyjamas , jackets and shirts for the ORG prisoners , together with pamphlets . He sent a fax on behalf of a representative called PERSON from ORG to ORG . He also smuggled audio - cassettes for this person . Almost all the lawyers were engaged in such activities , including all the applicants in the present case , whom he cited .

e ) PERSON

( Statement dated DATE and signed )

Mr Tur was recorded as saying that he had been imprisoned in DATE when he underwent a high - level training course , after having made a “ statement of self - criticism ” . Before his imprisonment , he had had contacts with ORG leaders in LOC and the mountains , and had acted as a courier to such prisoners as ORG , using cigarette packets , address books , diaries and the like . He had harboured a dying ORG member at a relative 's house and , with the help of PERSON , delivered the body to a specific place in DATE or DATE . Mr PERSON cited various lawyers involved in similar activities , including all the applicants . Moreover PERSON together with someone else were said to have smuggled cyanide into the ORG E - type prison .

f ) PERSON

( Statement dated DATE and signed )

Mr PERSON was recorded as stating that he had first met ORG members when visiting his father 's village . He had considered them “ liberators ” , having sympathised with them since he was a schoolboy . He was taken to meet other members and advised that , as a NORP , he should struggle against the “ fascist NORP State ” in the urban areas , defending NORP detainees for a small fee . Mr PERSON had mentioned that all the ORG lawyers working in ORG , including the applicants , were voluntarily working for the ORG .

He informed these people that the commander of the ORG provincial gendarme command was anti - NORP , exerting extreme pressure on ORG supporters in the region , and that he should be assassinated .

Thereafter he acted as a courier between prisons , constantly meeting ORG and other political representatives . He defended detained ORG militiamen for a small fee , spread propaganda and persuaded and threatened recalcitrant militiamen to return to the mountains on release .

The defence lawyers ensured ORG coordination between prisons , smuggled out press - releases for the LOC newspaper , smuggled in poison , a knife , messages and prohibited publications , intimidated Public Prosecutors to ensure the aims of the ORG detainees , and disseminated false propaganda in LOC . He worked closely with PERSON on all of this . He was paid CARDINAL MONEY in travel expenses each time he carried a message between prisons . He himself had smuggled cyanide to ORG . He photocopied ORG files of ORG confessors and other captured members , giving the files to a specified ORG member , code named GPE . Other such incidents were described .

He had obtained books and articles praising the ORG in order to learn more about the organisation , and took them into prison for training people there . He used to write reports on incidents in the region which he faxed to LAW associations in LOC with a view to blackening and discrediting GPE in its treatment of NORP .

g ) Niyazi Çem

( Statement dated DATE , which Mr PERSON was recorded as having refused to sign )

Mr PERSON was recorded as stating that he sympathised with the NORP because of his NORP origins and had used his professional skills to assist it - acting as a courier and defence lawyer . He was engaged in disseminating propaganda to discredit ORG abroad . He conveyed oral instructions to ORG regarding the interruption of a review called “ Free people ” . He was given MONEY , as his activities for the ORG prevented him doing more legal work , and once transported QUANTITY of heroin from GPE to GPE . For DATE he also harboured an ailing ORG woman in his house and procured medicine for her .

Mr PERSON was tipped off not to return to PERSON as ORG had become a confessor and might have been about to denounce him .

h ) PERSON

( Statement dated DATE and signed )

Mr GPE was recorded as stating that he had sympathised with the ORG since DATE and had become more and more influenced by them when he acted as their defence lawyer and through his friend PERSON . He met PERSON who said he would provide him with cases , in return for which he had to act as a courier , as did other lawyers . He received occasional sums of MONEY in travel expenses for carrying messages between prisons . He helped PERSON transport the body of a dead ORG member .

He had received an “ ERNK ” note about his courier activities TIME on his way home from the ORG court . He had forgotten to take it out of his pocket , so it was found on him when he was apprehended .

i ) Meral PERSON

( ORG statement , which PERSON claimed she had not signed , but her refusal was not recorded on the document )

PERSON was recorded as stating that she had known ORG members for DATE , having become a sympathiser when she was a law student , it being an organisation engaged in an armed struggle with ORG for NORP freedom and independence .

After marrying PERSON and setting up a law practice with him , they gradually became involved as ORG couriers between prisons . Lawyers who did not support the ORG could not plead cases before ORG . She spread propaganda belittling ORG . She and ORG tried to expose ORG to public scrutiny and she worked for ORG . She acted in solidarity with other applicants .

The ORG had told her that she would receive ORG funding to open an office . She had a close friendship with ORG . She denounced to the ORG a particular prosecutor who intimidated and hindered her and ORG in their defence work , and had threatened them with arrest . There was talk of eliminating him . Discussions were held about defence tactics , as some accused ORG members were too passive before ORG , and the training of remand prisoners was raised .

PERSON copied the court case files of confessors and showed them to the organisation . She and her husband converted ORG money into ORG . They took oral and written messages to the women 's section of ORG . They delivered other messages to PERSON . On CARDINAL occasion she received MONEY for travel expenses . She had had a ORG brochure in her bag when she was apprehended , which she had intended to photocopy and give to her friends .

j ) PERSON

( Statement dated DATE which , although signed , had been marked by PERSON with the letters “ ORG ” , to signify his refusal )

Mr Beştaş was recorded as stating that he had become a ORG sympathiser at school due to the second - class status of NORP and the ORG goal of NORP freedom and independence . He cited several applicants who , together with him , defended ORG members on the instructions of the organisation . If one did not support the ORG , CARDINAL had ORG work . He acted as a ORG courier to and from prisons and gave several specific examples . Militiamen visited him at home to receive information about the cases of detained members . At ORG request , he conveyed a message hidden in an address book and a pen to ORG members and he brought messages back to Mr Güven . He changed MONEY into GPE , given to him regularly once DATE , which he handed over to a high - ranking ORG member . He accused many of the applicants of being ORG couriers too . On DATE of his apprehension he was carrying an “ ERNK ” sealed message which he had forgotten to take out of his pocket .

k ) Vedat Erten

( Statement dated DATE and signed )

Mr Erten was recorded as stating that he had become a ORG sympathiser through the influence of propaganda disseminated when he was a student . It was a “ fashionable ” opinion to hold . He cited many of the applicants as having close relations with the ORG , advocating its policies and defending its interests . They all acted as prison couriers , meeting people like PERSON . Mr ORG was paid for his travel expenses . He gave specific examples of messages he had carried . As he had no work , he asked the ORG representatives to refer cases to him . When he was not paid , he received a minimum MONEY fee per client from the organisation .

l ) PERSON

( Statement dated DATE and signed )

Mr PERSON was recorded as stating that he had commenced sympathising with the ORG at school where its publications were circulated . Once in legal practice , he visited clients in prison and met people like PERSON , who criticised him for providing insufficient support to the ORG . They threatened him with no work if he continued in this manner . As PERSON PERSON was extremely poor and the ORG was fighting for NORP independence , he accepted all their assignments . Mr Güven used him as a courier and paid him MONEY for travel expenses . He carried hidden notes in a diary and a pen . He cited a few examples . He smuggled a flick knife into prison and gave it to Mr Güven . Many of the applicants were also involved in courier work . They sent faxes to NORP human rights associations and denounced incidents as if they had been perpetrated by security forces , with the intention of blackening the reputation of ORG . He recalled a ORG forum where certain lawyers had received political , theoretical and military training for DATE . He felt no remorse for his ORG activities .

m ) PERSON

( Statement dated DATE and signed )

Mr GPE was recorded as stating that he had been impressed at school with ORG exploits in DATE . When the army took power in DATE , the ORG 's activities were interrupted but as of DATE they resurfaced . He supported the ORG , taking part in demonstrations and the like . He frequently visited ORG which was spreading ORG propaganda and receiving ORG visitors . He worked closely with another lawyer , ORG , who had ORG connections . He accompanied PERSON Aslantaş to see clients in prison and was introduced to ORG . They took a message for him to the Gaziantep prison . They used an address book and a pen . They were to procure ORG publications for ORG which were to be sent through himself , PERSON or PERSON . Mention was also made of PERSON assistance . Messages were carried back from PERSON to Mr Güven . Mr Aslantaş and Mr GPE were given MONEY for travel expenses . He said that nearly all the ORG lawyers were engaged in ORG activities , and cited most of the applicants .

He had been given CARDINAL “ ERNK ” receipts to transmit to lawyers from outside the area who had made ORG contributions . These were allegedly found on his person when he was apprehended .