PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 14166/02) 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, Ms Eser Ceylan (“the applicant”), on 19 October 2001.

The applicant was represented by Ms S. C. Erkat, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court.

On 14 December 2005 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Ankara.

On 12 December 2000 an unauthorised demonstration in Kızılay, Ankara against F‑Type prisons turned into a violent clash between some of the participants, a group of Turkish nationalists and the security forces. The demonstrators caused severe material damage to cars and a shop, and eight police officers were injured during the incident.

The applicant claims that she had been on her way to her sister's law office when she saw armoured police vehicles firing high pressure water jets and a group of people throwing stones at others in the vicinity. She had had to enter the ÖDP (Liberty and Solidarity Party) building in order to protect herself from the police and the demonstrators.

After a while, police officers, who had previously obtained a search warrant, entered the ÖDP building and arrested around fifty persons who were inside at the time, including the applicant. During the arrest, the applicant claims to have been insulted and beaten, in particular, hit with truncheons on the legs, and that one of the policemen sexually harassed her. The same police officer punched the applicant in her right eye after she had been placed in the police vehicle.

On the same day, the applicant, along with several other people, was examined by a forensic doctor, who noted the following with respect to the applicant: “A bruise of 2 cm. in diameter on the left parietal bone, widespread bruises under the right eye and on the zygoma, a laceration on the lower lip and 3 ‑ 4 cm. abrasions on the pretibial bones have been observed. The injuries render Eser Ceylan unfit for work for seven days.”

On 13 December 2000 the applicant was examined again by a forensic expert who noted that there were no traces of battery on the applicant's body other than those mentioned in the report of 12 December 2000.

On the same day the applicant was taken to the Ankara public prosecutor's office. Before the public prosecutor, the applicant complained about the sexual harassment and beatings to which she had been subjected during the arrest and requested that the police officers who committed these offences be punished.

On the same day, the applicant, along with seventy other persons, appeared before the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance. They were charged with taking part in an unauthorised demonstration. The applicant reiterated that she had been beaten and sexually harassed during her arrest. She gave a description of the events with details about the perpetrators. The court ordered the applicant's release.

On 15 December 2000 the judge of the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance sent a letter to the Ankara public prosecutor's office, stating that almost all of the defendants in the case had complained of ill-treatment by the security forces and requested that the necessary measures be taken.

Following receipt of the letter of the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance, the Ankara public prosecutor initiated an investigation into the circumstances of the events.

On 30 January 2001 the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute the police officers who had been on duty at the relevant time. In this connection, he maintained that the complainants had taken part in a demonstration against F-type prisons. Although before intervening and making arrests the police had given the demonstrators a warning and had ordered them to disperse, the demonstrators had resisted the police and thrown stones at them. Some of the demonstrators had then gone into the buildings of the ÖDP and the TSİP (Socialist Workers Party of Turkey) where they had been arrested. The public prosecutor considered that the force used by the security forces had not been excessive and that the injuries sustained by the complainants had been a result of the clash which broke out between the police and the demonstrators. He concluded that there was no concrete evidence other than the complainants' allegations of an “abstract nature” that the members of the security forces had ill‑treated and insulted the complainants during and after the arrest.

On 18 June 2001 the applicant filed an objection with the Ankara public prosecutor's office, to be referred to the closest assize court, against the decision of 30 January 2001.

On 6 July 2001 the Kırıkkale Assize Court dismissed the applicant's objection.

In the meantime the Ministry of the Interior lodged an action for compensation against the applicant and the other co-accused and requested the reimbursement of the amount of compensation paid to the injured police officers.

On 22 January 2004 the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance acquitted the applicant on account of lack of evidence. The court's reasoned decision refers to evidence such as eye-witness reports, video recordings of the Security Directorate, video recordings of TRT (Turkish Radio and Television) and other national television channels and other material evidence. According to the information available in the file, the compensation proceedings were apparently still pending on the date on which the present judgment was adopted.