5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in İzmir. 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.  The applicant and his brother sell building materials. The applicant claimed that on 8 January 2007, while he and his brother were driving in their van to their place of work in İzmir, a number of plain-clothes police officers on two motorbikes indicated to him that he should pull over. The police officers then told him that he had been driving erratically and asked him to get out of the vehicle. The applicant and his brother had got out of the van and asked to see the police officers’ identity cards. The police officers then became agitated and started hitting the applicant’s brother. When the applicant asked them to stop, they sprayed him with tear gas and he fell to the ground. Then one of the police officers put his fingers in the applicant’s nostrils and pulled him up and the applicant tried to push that police officer away. The applicant then heard one of the police officers cocking his pistol. Thinking that the plain-clothes police officers, who had refused to show him their identity cards, could in fact be robbers, the applicant got hold of a wooden stick from the back of his van to defend himself. At that moment, one of the police officers, C.U., fired three rounds towards the applicant. One of the bullets hit the applicant’s abdomen and he fell to the ground. The police officers then handcuffed the applicant and his brother. One of them grabbed the wooden stick and started hitting the applicant’s brother, while another officer hit and kicked the applicant. Although the applicant’s brother asked the officers to take the applicant to a hospital, they did not listen to him. Instead, the applicant and his brother were taken to a police station, where they were placed in custody. The applicant’s brother had shouted and asked the custody officers to take his brother to a hospital. 8.  The applicant was subsequently taken to the accident and emergency ward of a hospital, where he underwent surgery. The doctors observed a bullet entry hole, five centimetres above his navel, and a corresponding bullet exit hole on the lower lumbar, three centimetres above the sacrum. The doctors noted that, as it travelled through the applicant’s body, the bullet had damaged the applicant’s small and large intestines, and considered his injury to be life-threatening. It was also stated in a medical report that his injury would prevent him from working for a period of forty‑five days. A neurosurgeon who examined the applicant concluded that the applicant’s injuries amounted to a “permanent deterioration in the functioning of one of his organs or his nerves”. It was also established in December 2008 that as a result of having been shot, the applicant had developed “post-traumatic stress disorder” and “severe depression”. Three neurosurgeons who examined the applicant stated in their report of 11 December 2009 that they had observed atrophy (wasting away of the muscle) of the applicant’s thigh muscles and sensory loss on the front of the thighs. Finally, according to a report issued by a hospital in İzmir on 19 April 2010, as a result of the applicant’s injury, his ability to work had been reduced by 27% (see also paragraph 53 below). 9.  On 22 May 2008 a prosecutor filed an indictment with the İzmir Criminal Court of First Instance and charged Officer C.U. with the offence of intentionally causing a life-threatening injury. The same day the prosecutor also decided not to bring any proceedings against Officer C.U. and the remaining officers in respect of the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment and an objection lodged by the applicant against that decision was rejected on 31 October 2008. 10.  On 4 June 2008 the İzmir Criminal Court of First Instance considered the possibility that the offence attributed to Officer C.U. could be reclassified as “attempted murder”, and forwarded the case file to the İzmir Assize Court, which had jurisdiction to deal with such offences. 11.  In the course of the investigation and the trial, Officer C.U. maintained that he had not shot the applicant intentionally and that his pistol had accidentally fired when he and the applicant had had a scuffle. 12.  The Forensic Medicine Institute concluded that the applicant had not been shot at close range. 13.  On 15 March 2010 the First Chamber of the İzmir Assize Court found that Officer C.U. had fired in the air twice before firing in the direction of the applicant without aiming at a particular part of his body. Contrary to what was claimed by Officer C.U., there had been no scuffle between him and the applicant when Officer C.U. had fired his weapon. It also found that, although Officer C.U. had not attempted to kill the applicant, he had used disproportionate force and caused an injury which had threatened the applicant’s life. The Assize Court sentenced Officer C.U. to five months’ imprisonment but suspended the pronouncement of his conviction under Article 231 of the Criminal Code of Procedure (see “Relevant Domestic Law” below). 14.  The applicant lodged an objection against the Assize Court’s decision and argued, in particular, that the decision to suspend the pronouncement of the conviction would encourage other police officers to carry out similar acts against members of the public. 15.  The objection was rejected by the Second Chamber of the İzmir Assize Court on 7 June 2010. 16.  In the meantime, the applicant instituted proceedings against the Ministry of the Interior before the İzmir Administrative Court and claimed 11,000 Turkish liras (TRY) in respect of pecuniary damage and TRY 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In its decision of 17 June 2010 the İzmir Administrative Court found the Ministry responsible for the damage suffered by the applicant and awarded him TRY 712 (approximately 370 euros (EUR) at the time) in respect of pecuniary damage and TRY 50,000 (approximately EUR 26,000) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus statutory interest. The Ministry of the Interior appealed against the decision. 17.  On 21 April 2014 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the İzmir Administrative Court’s decision insofar as it concerned the pecuniary damage but quashed the part of the decision concerning the non-pecuniary damage because it considered that the applicant had also been partly responsible for the incident. 18.  The case file was returned to the İzmir Administrative Court which decided on 24 February 2016 to award the applicant TRY 20,000 (approximately EUR 6,200 at the time) plus statutory interest in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The appeal lodged by the applicant against this finding is currently pending.