5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Diyarbakır.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows.
7.  According to an incident report prepared by eight police officers on 28 May 2004, the authorities had obtained intelligence which suggested that at 3 p.m. on 28 May 2004 two members of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an armed illegal organisation) would go to Adana, a big city in southern Turkey, on a motorbike in order to carry out terror attacks in shopping malls, the police headquarters and the courthouse. According to the intelligence, the code names of the two persons were “Küçük Şiyar” and “Botan”, and before carrying out the attacks they would meet outside a mosque in Adana.
8.  Police officers, who had started taking security measures to stop and apprehend the two persons outside the mosque in question, received information at around 2.30 p.m. on 28 May 2004 that a red motorbike with two persons on it had been observed and was on its way towards the mosque. However, on their arrival outside the mosque the persons on the motorbike noticed the police presence in the area and drove on without stopping. The police officers gave chase in police cars and “Küçük Şiyar”, who was sitting on the back of the motorbike, drew his pistol and pointed it at a police car. The police car then hit the motorbike and the two persons fell to the ground. “Küçük Şiyar” stood up and fired at the police officers. The police officers returned fire and “Küçük Şiyar” fell to the ground. When the police officers realised that he was injured, they called an ambulance and sent him to hospital. The driver of the motorbike managed to flee the scene after falling from the motorbike.
9.  The second suspect, “Botan”, was arrested outside the mosque by a number of different police officers while he was waiting for “Küçük Şiyar”. He was subsequently identified as M.G.A.
10.  It appears from another report prepared by different police officers that at 3 p.m. on the same day a police chief and three police officers arrived at the scene of the incident after “Küçük Şiyar” had been shot but before he was taken to hospital. The four police officers noticed a pistol of 9 mm calibre with five bullets inside lying some 1.5 to 2 metres away from “Küçük Şiyar.” When the four police officers searched a bag they noticed on the motorbike they found a hand grenade. According to the report, the pistol, the hand grenade and the motorbike were then taken away by the four officers in order not to hinder the flow of traffic and to prevent panic among the public, as the incident had occurred on a busy street.
11.  “Küçük Şiyar” was admitted to the hospital at 3 p.m. The doctors noted a bullet entry wound on his back and considered his condition to be life-threatening. He was taken into the operating theatre. Police officers at the hospital carried out a search of the pockets of the clothes worn by “Küçük Şiyar” and found 900 United States dollars and a handwritten note containing the scribbled words “800 g. potassium chloride” and “susceptible to friction and impact”. Neither his name nor his code name was written in any of the hospital records as they were not known to the hospital personnel at the time.
12.  Crime-scene investigators arrived at the scene of the incident at 3.10 p.m. on the same day and conducted a search. According to a report prepared by the crime-scene investigators at 6.45 p.m. the same day, the motorbike was still at the scene of the incident on their arrival. During their search the crime-scene investigators found two 9 mm spent bullet cases and secured them as evidence. It was stated in the report that there were no other items of evidence such as “a bullet, blood[stains], [or] bullet marks”. It was also stated in the same report that swab samples had been taken from the hands of the injured person after his operation at the hospital.
13.  According to a police report, on the same evening the driver of the motorbike, who was subsequently identified as M.N.B., was arrested by police officers. Moreover, on the same evening a certain M.K., who was suspected of having provided logistical support to the two men, was also arrested. M.K., who was shown a photograph of “Küçük Şiyar” that had been taken at the hospital, identified him as a person who had stayed at his house together with M.N.B. on the evening of 27 May 2004.
14.  The pistol found next to “Küçük Şiyar” was examined by the forensic authorities and it was established that it had been used in another armed attack in Adana on 18 March 2004. The two spent bullet cases found at the scene (see paragraph 12 above) were also examined and it was established that they had been discharged from that pistol.
15.   On 30 May 2004 “Küçük Şiyar” died at the hospital. His body was transferred to the Forensic Medicine Institute in order that a post-mortem examination could be carried out.
16.  At 6.45 p.m. on 31 May 2004 M.N.B. was questioned at a police station. He told police officers that on 28 May 2004 “Küçük Şiyar” had asked him to give him a lift to Sabancı Mosque and that he had complied with that request. On their way to the mosque, “Küçük Şiyar” had asked him to take him to the courthouse instead, and shortly afterwards their motorbike had been hit by a car from behind and he had fled the scene.
17.  On 1 June 2004 the prosecutor sent a letter to the hospital and asked for “the clothes of the as yet unidentified person who [had] died at the hospital on 30 May 2004” to be sent to him so that they could be forwarded to the forensic authorities for examination. On the same day the hospital informed the prosecutor that the clothes had been given to the police officers at the hospital when the injured person had been taken into the operating theatre. On the same day the prosecutor wrote to the police headquarters, asking them to return those clothes to his office urgently. In their reply of 3 June 2004 the police informed the prosecutor that the clothes had not been “handed over to the police headquarters”.
18.  The police forensic laboratories prepared a report on 2 June 2004 pertaining to the examination of swab samples which had apparently been taken from the hands of M.N.B., M.K., M.G.A and a certain İ.T. and which had been sent to the laboratory “in an envelope”. It was established in the report that there were gunpowder residues on the swab samples taken from the hands of M.N.B. and İ.T. No gunpowder residues had been found on the swab samples taken from the hands of M.K. or M.G.A.
19.  On 3 June 2004 the applicant went to the hospital, where he was shown the body of “Küçük Şiyar” which he identified as that of his son, Şiyar Perinçek, born in 1979. The applicant stated that his son had been studying at a university in Ankara and that he and his family had not heard from him in six years. The applicant added that he had been informed by an anonymous telephone caller the previous day that his son had been killed in Adana. The body of his son was released to the applicant the same day.
20.  On the same day the police informed the prosecutor that the person who had initially been considered to be İ.T. and had been referred to as İ.T. in the Police Laboratory’s report of 2 June 2004 (see paragraph 18 above) was in fact the applicant’s son, Şiyar Perinçek.
21.  Also on the same day, the Adana Branch of the Human Rights Association, a non-governmental organisation, submitted a petition to the prosecutor’s office. It was alleged in the petition that the shooting incident had taken place outside its offices and been witnessed by a number of people. According to those eyewitnesses, an unmarked car following a motorbike had drawn up next to the motorbike and the car’s door had opened, causing the two passengers on the motorbike to fall to the ground. One of the persons had stood up and started to run away and a person who had come out of the unmarked vehicle had put his knee in the small of the back of the person on the ground and fired two bullets into his back. That person had then collected the two spent bullet cases discharged from his pistol and put them in his coat pocket. Afterwards, according to the Human Rights Association, instead of taking the injured person to hospital, they had hauled him into a car and taken him to a number of locations. The other person on the motorbike, M.N.B., had tried to flee the scene but had been apprehended by the police and taken to a police station, where he had been subjected to serious ill-treatment. The petitioners requested the prosecutor to carry out an in-depth investigation into their allegations and to ensure that a detailed post-mortem examination would be conducted on the body.
22.  On 16 June 2004 the prosecutor asked the Adana police headquarters to provide the names of the police officers who had been involved in the shooting incident on 28 May 2004 and to ensure their attendance in his office for questioning. The prosecutor also asked to be provided with copies of the forensic reports pertaining to the examinations conducted on the weapons used during the incident. The prosecutor was subsequently provided with the forensic reports summarised above (see paragraphs 14 and 18). The police also informed the prosecutor that the pistol used by the police officer in the shooting had not been forensically examined.
23.  On 6 July 2004 the prosecutor questioned T.S., one of the police officers who had been at the hospital when the applicant’s son had been taken there. T.S. told the prosecutor that, although he had secured as evidence the money and the other items found in the pockets of Şiyar Perinçek, he had not taken away his clothes.
24.  K.K., also a police officer, who was questioned the following day, told the prosecutor that Şiyar Perinçek’s clothes had been removed before Şiyar Perinçek had been taken into the operating theatre and that they had then been taken away by a plainclothes police officer, D.A.Y., in a black plastic bag. K.K. also gave the prosecutor a copy of the hospital ledgers, according to which the clothes had been handed over to a police officer. The prosecutor was subsequently informed on the same day that D.A.Y. had left for his annual leave for a month and could not therefore be questioned.
25.  On 7 July 2004 the police headquarters forwarded to the prosecutor the names of the eight officers who had taken part in the incident of 28 May 2004 and who had also prepared the incident report on the same day (see paragraphs 7‑8 above).
26.  On 9 July 2004 seven of the eight police officers mentioned in the preceding paragraph were questioned by the prosecutor as witnesses, while the eighth officer, D.Ö. – a police chief – was questioned as a suspect. D.Ö. told the prosecutor that the police had received intelligence on the day in question that two terrorists would carry out bomb attacks in Adana and that they had therefore taken the necessary precautionary measures around a mosque, where the two terrorists were to meet. When a motorbike with two persons on it fitting the description given to the police had arrived outside the mosque, the persons on the motorbike had noticed the police presence and driven on without stopping. D.Ö. and his seven colleagues in two unmarked police cars and a police motorbike had then given chase. As the person sitting on the back of the motorbike had drawn his pistol and aimed it at the officers riding on the police motorbike and in the other police car, D.Ö. had asked the driver of the vehicle in which he was travelling to approach the motorbike from its side and to hit it. The driver had complied and the two persons on the motorbike had fallen to the ground. D.Ö. had then got out of the car and told the two persons to surrender. The driver of the motorbike had managed to run away and the second person on the motorbike had fired two rounds towards D.Ö. D.Ö. had then fired towards him and at that moment one of the other police officers had jumped on the person and apprehended him. No other police officer had fired a weapon during the incident. Upon realising that the person had been injured, he and his colleagues had called an ambulance and transferred that person to hospital. D.Ö. denied the allegation that he had put his knee in the small of the back of the person on the ground and fired two bullets into his back (see paragraph 21 above), and told the prosecutor that if he had not shot the person, the person would have shot him. He had therefore acted within the statutory limits regulating the use of force and had not intended to kill the person.
27.  The remaining seven officers made similar statements and denied the allegation that M.N.B. had been arrested at the place of the incident or that he had been ill-treated.
28.  On 13 July 2004 the applicant joined the criminal investigation as an intervener.
29.  A security guard who had been on duty at the hospital on 28 May 2004 told the prosecutor on 14 July 2004 that the applicant’s son had been taken into the operating theatre with his clothes on and that shortly afterwards the personnel in the operating theatre had removed those clothes and given them to plainclothes police officers from the anti-terrorism department waiting at the hospital. Although the contents of the applicant’s son’s pockets had been listed in an official document (see paragraph 11 above) and then handed over to the police officers, the clothes had not been listed in the document.
30.  On 16 July 2004 the prosecutor filed an indictment with the Adana Assize Court (hereinafter “the trial court”) and charged the police chief, D.Ö. (see paragraph 26 above), with the offence of manslaughter on account of the killing of the applicant’s son. In the same indictment the prosecutor charged two other police chiefs with the offence of ill-treatment in respect of M.N.B.’s allegations (see paragraph 21 above). The applicant joined the criminal proceedings as an intervener.
31.  On 27 August 2004 Amnesty International urged the national judicial authorities to carry out an effective investigation and to establish the full circumstances of the incident. The United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions also requested the Turkish Government to be provided with information concerning the killing.
32.  During the hearing held on 21 December 2004 the applicant, with the assistance of the lawyers representing him, submitted his written observations to the trial court. The applicant argued that the version of the events concerning the shooting proffered by the defendant police officer did not represent the truth. He maintained that his son had been unarmed at the time of the shooting and alleged that the police officers had shot him at close range. He alleged that the police officers had been covering their tracks by destroying the evidence and that the clothes his son had been wearing at the time of his shooting had been taken away and lost by the police officers. The applicant also argued that, before the crime-scene officers had arrived at the scene of the incident, important evidence had been removed by another group of police officers (see paragraph 10 above). Moreover, although according to the report prepared by those police officers both pistols, the hand grenades and the motorbike had been taken away by them before the arrival of the crime-scene officers, according to the crime‑scene officers’ report the motorbike had still been at the scene on their arrival (see paragraph 12 above).
33.  The applicant also criticised the method by which swab samples had been taken from the hands of his son. He argued in that connection that swab samples taken from the hands of a number of persons had been put in the same envelope (see paragraph 18 above) as that containing his son’s swab samples, which had caused the various swab samples to contaminate each other. Moreover, the forensic report pertaining to the examination of the swab samples allegedly taken from the hands of his son had not mentioned his son’s name but the name of İ.T. It was not possible, therefore, to accept that the swab samples with gunpowder residue had been taken from the hands of his son. The applicant informed the trial court that İ.T. had been on trial for terrorism-related offences and that it would not have been logical for his son to carry a wanted person’s identity card. The applicant also informed the trial court that İ.T. had been killed by the security forces on 29 June 2004.
34.  The applicant argued that inconsistencies and irregularities such as the foregoing cast doubt on the accuracy and reliability of the investigation and showed that the police officers had manipulated the evidence. In this connection the applicant argued that it was highly suspicious that the bullet and the spent bullet case discharged from the defendant police chief’s pistol had not been recovered; in fact, there was no mention in any of the crime scene reports that the forensic authorities had even searched for that bullet or the spent bullet case. Similarly, the defendant police officer’s pistol had not been subjected to any forensic examinations after the incident.
35.  During the trial M.N.B. maintained that on the day in question he had been about to go to Adana city centre on his motorbike when the applicant’s son had asked him for a lift. While riding the motorbike towards the city, he had stopped at a set of traffic lights and at that moment a car had hit them and they had fallen to the ground. At the time he had thought that they were about to be robbed and had panicked. Then he had heard gunfire and seen Şiyar Perinçek falling to the ground. A number of men had then apprehended both him and Şiyar. M.N.B. denied that Şiyar Perinçek had been armed or that he had fired at the police officers or that he had been carrying a bag on the motorbike (see paragraph 10 above).
36.  On 3 December 2004 the report pertaining to the post-mortem examination conducted on the body of the applicant’s son on 30 May 2004 was forwarded to the trial court. According to the report, there was a bullet entry hole under his left armpit and a bullet exit hole in the right scapula. The doctors considered that death had been caused by the destruction of the internal organs and the ensuing medical complications. It was also stated in the post-mortem report that the applicant’s son had been shot through his clothes and that the distance from which he had been shot could not therefore be calculated, since the clothes worn by the deceased at the time of his shooting would have to be examined in order establish that distance.
37.  During one of the hearings K.K. – the police officer who had told the prosecutor on 7 July 2004 that Şiyar Perinçek’s clothes had been taken away from the hospital by his colleague, D.A.Y. (see paragraph 24 above) – was examined by the trial court. This time K.K. told the trial court that Şiyar Perinçek had gone into the operating theatre with his clothes on and that his clothes had never been handed over to a police officer afterwards. The lawyers representing the applicant argued, in response, that the information in K.K.’s statement of 7 July 2004 had been unambiguous and alleged that K.K. had changed his story to protect his fellow colleagues. They stated that they would lodge a formal complaint against K.K. and his colleagues for obstructing the course of justice.
38.  Subsequently the applicant’s lawyers informed the trial court that at their instigation an investigation had been opened into their allegations against the police officers and that a number of people working at the hospital at the time of the events had been questioned by a prosecutor. During the questioning the hospital personnel had told the prosecutor that Şiyar Perinçek’s clothes had been removed in the operating theatre and handed over to the police officers, who had been very anxious to take them away. The lawyers argued that the insistence of the police officers on taking the clothes away and their subsequently losing them proved that there had not been a shootout between Şiyar Perinçek and the police officers but that the police officers had shot Şiyar Perinçek at close range.
39.  The defendant police officer, D.Ö., submitted his final written defence arguments to the trial court and maintained that the lack of burn marks around the bullet entry hole showed that he had not shot Şiyar Perinçek at close range. Şiyar Perinçek had not heeded his warnings to surrender and had instead opened fire on him. Thus, by shooting back he had acted in self-defence.
40.  In his submissions to the trial court the prosecutor also argued that the defendant police officer had acted in self-defence.
41.  On 6 March 2007 the applicant submitted his final arguments to the trial court. He repeated his earlier arguments and complaints and alleged that his son had been shot at close range. He invited the trial court to examine the autopsy report in detail with a view to establishing the distance from which his son had been shot. He submitted that the clothes his son had been wearing had been taken away by police officers with a view to hiding the fact that they had shot his son at close range. He argued that in the absence of the clothes, the sizes of the bullet entry and exit holes could help to ascertain the distance from which his son had been shot. The applicant also informed the trial court that the police officers working at the hospital had since been indicted and put on trial for neglecting their duties by losing his son’s clothes.
42.  In its judgment of 6 March 2007 the trial court acquitted the defendant police officer, as it considered that the police officer had acted in self‑defence and had used proportionate force. The trial court concluded that the applicant’s son had been a member of a terrorist organisation and had come to Adana to carry out terrorist attacks. When the police officers had given chase to the motorbike, he had fired two rounds towards the police officers. The defendant police officer had then fired one round and injured the applicant’s son, and he had subsequently died in hospital. After the incident the police officers had found explosives in a bag on the motorbike. The pistol used by the applicant’s son and two spent cartridges had also been recovered at the site of the incident. The clothes worn by the applicant’s son at the time of the shooting had got lost during “the commotion at the hospital” and it had not therefore been possible to establish the distance from which he had been shot. However, as there had been no burns or gunpowder on and around the injury, it was apparent that he had not been shot at close range.
43.  The applicant appealed against the judgment and repeated his earlier arguments. He complained that his arguments concerning defects in the investigation had not been taken into account by the trial court. Given that there was a large amount of evidence in the file showing that the clothes had been taken away from the hospital by the police officers, the conclusion reached by the trial court, namely that the clothes had got lost during “the commotion at the hospital”, was clearly wrong. The applicant also criticised the trial court’s conclusion that the shooting had not been carried out at close range because there had been no burn marks around the injury, and argued that no such conclusion could be reached in the absence of the clothes.
44.  The appeal lodged by applicant against the judgment was rejected by the Court of Cassation on 5 March 2009. In its one-page decision the Court of Cassation stated that the applicant’s arguments that there had been failures in the investigation were not convincing. The decision was returned to the registry of the Adana Assize Court on 15 April 2009.
45.  In the meantime, the criminal proceedings which had been brought against three police officers and a private security guard for having neglected their duties by losing Şiyar Perinçek’s clothes ended in their acquittal on 7 February 2007. The applicant appealed against their acquittal on 8 February 2007. On 6 June 2011 the Court of Cassation declined to examine the appeal as the offence in question had become statute-barred, and discontinued the criminal proceedings.