PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 36144/09) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Meydin Athan (“the applicant”), on 19 June 2009.

The applicant was represented by Mr M. Vefa, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

On 21 June 2011 the application was communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Diyarbakır.

On 24 March 2006, in the course of a military operation, several terrorists were killed by the security forces in Bingöl. On 28 March 2006 a large group of people assembled at their funeral and protested against the security forces. The demonstrations continued and in the course of the events about 1,500 to 2,000 people resisted the police, attacking them with stones, blocking the traffic by burning tyres and damaging nearby shops and public buildings by throwing stones. Many demonstrators were arrested by the police. According to the documents in the case file, the applicant was among those who were arrested on the night of 30 March 2006.

At 3.30 a.m. on 31 March 2006 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Diyarbakır State Hospital. In his report, the doctor noted that there were ecchymoses on the applicant’s back, lumbar area and the side of his left knee.

At 10.12 p.m. on 1 April 2006 the applicant was examined by another doctor at the Diyarbakır State Hospital. The medical report indicated large ecchymoses on the applicant’s back and on the outer part of his left femur.

At 2.46 a.m. on 2 April 2006 the applicant was examined for a third time, by another doctor from the same hospital. According to the report, no new signs of physical violence were found on the applicant.

Following those medical examinations, the applicant was brought before the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor, where he denied the charges against him.

On the same day the applicant, along with ten other persons, was questioned by the Diyarbakır investigating judge. The medical report was read to the applicant. He stated that the injuries had not occurred during the incidents but had been inflicted by police officers while he had been in police custody. The judge remanded the applicant in custody.

On 2 May 2006 the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor issued an indictment charging the applicant with involvement in the activities of an illegal organisation.

On 25 May 2007 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant under Article 314 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to six years and three months’ imprisonment. In convicting the applicant, the assize court relied on video recordings and witness statements, and found it established that the applicant had participated in the funeral and the subsequent demonstrations. The court also had particular regard to the statement of a police officer, who had identified the applicant as the person who had wounded him by throwing stones. It was therefore concluded that the applicant had acted in support of an illegal organisation.

On 30 May 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.

In the meantime, on 18 September 2006, on the basis of the medical reports, the applicant filed a complaint with the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor alleging ill-treatment by police officers. He also alleged that the doctor who had not found any new traces of ill-treatment was guilty of professional misconduct.

On 27 October 2008 the public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute on the ground that the complainant’s statement had not been taken by the police. As he had never been questioned by the police, the public prosecutor considered that the ill-treatment allegations remained abstract. He also concluded that there were no grounds for instituting proceedings against the doctor concerned, as in the medical report she had mentioned that there were no new signs of physical violence since the previous reports and therefore she had had no intention of covering up any traces of ill-treatment.

On 26 February 2009 the Siverek Assize Court rejected an appeal lodged by the applicant.

On 19 June 2009 the decision was served on the applicant.