README.md

---
tags:
- sentence-transformers
- sentence-similarity
- feature-extraction
- generated_from_trainer
- dataset_size:12180
- loss:MultipleNegativesRankingLoss
base_model: nlpaueb/legal-bert-base-uncased
widget:
- source_sentence: '9.  On 12 December 1995 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court (oблacний
    суд) convicted the applicant of the murder of four persons, sentenced him to death
    and ordered the confiscation of his personal property. 10.  On 22 February 1996
    the Supreme Court (Верхoвний суд) upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
    The applicant was transferred by the authorities responsible for the isolation
    block of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior
    (Адміністрація слідчого ізолятору Управління міністерства внутрішніх справ) to
    one of the cells intended for persons awaiting execution of the death sentence.
    11.  A moratorium on executions was declared by the President of Ukraine on 11
    March 1997. In judgment no. 11pп/99 of 29 December 1999, the Constitutional Court
    of Ukraine held that the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning the death
    penalty were contrary to the Ukrainian Constitution. As a result, death sentences
    were commuted to life imprisonment by Law no. 1483-III of 22 February 2000. 12.  On
    2 June 2000 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court commuted the applicant’s death
    sentence to life imprisonment. 13.  The facts of the case concerning the conditions
    of the applicant’s detention in Ivano-Frankivsk Prison and the events during his
    time there are disputed. 14.  The facts as presented by the applicant are set
    out in paragraphs 17 to 23 below. The facts as presented by the Government are
    set out in paragraphs 24 to 30. 15.  A description of the material submitted to
    the Commission and to the Court will be found in paragraphs 31 to 58 below. 16.  The
    Commission, in order to establish the facts in the light of the dispute over the
    conditions of the applicant’s detention and the events which occurred in Ivano-Frankivsk
    Prison, conducted its own investigation pursuant to former Article 28 § 1 (a)
    of the Convention. To this end, the Commission examined a series of documents
    submitted by the applicant and the Government in support of their respective assertions
    and appointed three delegates to take evidence from witnesses at a hearing conducted
    at the Ministry of Justice in Kyiv on 23 and 26 November 1998, and in Ivano-Frankivsk
    on 24 and 25 November 1998. The Commission’s assessment of the evidence and its
    findings of fact are summarised in paragraphs 59 to 75 below. 17.  On 12 December
    1995 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of the murder
    of four persons, sentenced him to death and ordered the confiscation of his personal
    property. After the first-instance judgment, he was placed in a separate cell.
    He was not allowed to write to his family, nor could he be visited by his lawyer.
    He applied several times for permission to meet his lawyer. 18.  On 22 February
    1996 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. On a decision
    of the authorities responsible for the isolation block of the Ministry of the
    Interior, the applicant was transferred to a cell intended for prisoners awaiting
    execution of the death sentence. On 30 March 1996 the applicant’s lawyer applied
    to see the applicant in order to give him the Supreme Court’s decision in the
    case. The prison governor did not grant him permission to do so. 19.   Conditions
    of detention of persons sentenced to death were governed by the Pre-Trial Detention
    Act 1993 (“the Act”) and by an instruction of 20 April 1998 (“the Instruction”),
    whose content remained top secret. Under the terms of the Instruction, exercise
    in the open air, watching television, buying newspapers and receiving food parcels
    from relatives were prohibited. The Instruction therefore prevented the applicant
    from enjoying the rights guaranteed by the Act. 20.  In a reply by the deputy
    head of the Ivano-Frankivsk Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior to a complaint
    by the applicant’s father concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention,
    reference was made to the Instruction. Moreover, according to information received
    by the applicant’s father from the deputy governor of the prison, it appeared
    that the Act did not apply to him. Had the Act been applicable to the applicant,
    he would have been entitled under sections 9(1) and 13 to take daily exercise
    in the open air, to receive parcels twice a month and to watch television. However,
    this was strictly prohibited between 1995 and 1998. Up to September 1997 the applicant
    was also prohibited from sending and receiving letters. It was only then that
    the deputy governor of the prison orally informed the applicant’s mother that
    he could send and receive letters. Moreover, his father was refused permission
    to visit him on 29 May 1995 and 10 June and 31 July 1996 without any explanation
    from the prison authorities. From July 1996 onwards, instead of monthly visits
    which would last up to two hours, the applicant’s father had been allowed to visit
    the applicant only once every three months for not more than one hour. 21.  As
    regards visits from a priest, the applicant’s father and members of the clergy
    repeatedly but unsuccessfully applied to the prison authorities and those responsible
    for the isolation block of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Directorate of the Ministry
    of the Interior for the applicant to be allowed to receive a visit from a priest.
    22.  The applicant finally stated that he had complained several times about the
    conditions in which he was being held. He had also unsuccessfully applied to the
    prison authorities for permission to lodge an application with the European Commission
    of Human Rights. 23.  In a letter to the Commission of 6 March 1998, the applicant’s
    father stated that on 4 March 1998 he had seen his son, who had told him about
    a check-up carried out by a commission from the Ministry of the Interior in mid-February
    1998. After the commission had left, the applicant had been transferred to a cell
    that was worse equipped and dirty. The window in the cell had been fully shuttered.
    The bucket for flushing the toilet had been taken away and the toilet could not
    therefore be cleaned properly, which had caused an unbearable smell. Moreover,
    the applicant had been given only 25 cl of hot water to prepare tea and milk.
    All his dishes had been removed. His Bible had been taken away. He had not been
    allowed to read periodicals and his notebook and calendar had been confiscated.
    24.  The Government stated that the legal status and conditions of detention of
    persons sentenced to death were governed by the Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure.
    Pursuant to section 8 of the Act, a person sentenced to death was kept in custody
    away from other prisoners. The cell to which the applicant had been transferred
    after his sentence had become final complied with the sanitary and hygiene rules
    laid down in section 11 of the Act: the cell measured 9 sq. m and had a bed, a
    table, a radio, sufficient natural and electric light, heating, running water
    and a toilet. 25.  The applicant was provided with three meals a day, standard
    clothing and footwear as well as other articles of everyday use. Medical assistance,
    treatment, prophylactic and anti-epidemic measures were arranged and implemented
    in accordance with the legislation on health protection. 26.  According to section
    12 of the Act, prior to the sentence being carried out, prisoners sentenced to
    death were, as a rule, allowed visits from relatives and other persons not more
    than once a month, by written permission of the court within whose jurisdiction
    the case fell. The length of a visit was two hours maximum. After a case had been
    dealt with by an appellate court, visits by lawyers and legal assistants could
    be allowed by the head of the Central Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior,
    the head of the Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior or his deputy
    responsible for the isolation block. According to section 12 of the Act, visits
    by defence counsel were allowed without any limits as to their number and length.
    27.  On 13 December 1995, after the first-instance judgment, the applicant’s parents
    and lawyer received permission to visit him. The parents visited the applicant
    on 15 December 1995 and in January 1996. The applicant’s lawyer visited him on
    21 December 1995 and on 7 January 1996. During the period from 22 February 1996
    to 29 December 1997, the parents applied to the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Directorate
    of the Ministry of the Interior for permission to visit the applicant on 24 February,
    4 March, 5 April, 4 May, 2 July, 1 October, 18 November and 25 December 1996,
    and on 3 and 20 June and 19 September 1997. They were granted permission for visits
    on 24 February, 5 March, 5 April, 4 May, 2 July, 4 October and 4 December 1996,
    and on 4 March, 4 June, 4 September and 4 December 1997. 28.  The applicant’s
    lawyer applied for permission to visit the applicant on 25 April, 11 November,
    and 18 and 19 December 1996. Permission was granted for a first visit on 7 May
    1996 and on the other occasions as requested. 29.  Persons sentenced to death
    were allowed to send an unlimited number of letters. During the period 1995-98
    the applicant sent thirty-one letters: twenty-four letters related to his criminal
    case and seven letters were to his relatives. The applicant applied for the first
    time to the Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior for permission
    to send letters to his relatives on 17 September 1997. Thereafter he sent letters
    to his parents on 19 and 26 November and 31 December 1997, and on 5, 16, 20 and
    30 January, 3 February, 11 March, 6 April, 15 May, 17 June, 6 July, 10 August,
    15 September, 22 October, 13 November and 11 December 1998. He received letters
    from his parents on 18 and 29 September, 19 October, 20 November and 24 December
    1997, and on 16 and 26 January, 6, 10 and 23 February, 14 and 16 March, 17 April,
    14 May, 1 and 8 June, 1 and 30 July, 20 August, 29 September, 10, 22 and 27 October,
    4, 20, 26 and 30 November and 4, 17 and 21 December 1998. 30.  The Government
    further submitted that the Prosecutor-General had conducted a thorough investigation
    into the applicant’s and his parents’ complaints concerning the application of
    illegal methods of investigation in the applicant’s case, namely torture and brutal
    and inhuman treatment. The allegations had not been proved and had been found
    unsubstantiated. In fact, complaints by the applicant, his parents, his representative
    and his defence counsel were received on 11 March, 8 April, 13, 14 and 29 May,
    24 July, 11 September and 25 October 1996, and on 5 and 17 March, 19 May and 25
    July 1997, and answered on 20 and 23 March, 23 and 24 April, 23 May, 27 June,
    1 August, 30 September and 14 November 1996, and on 28 and 31 March and 20 May
    1997. On 31 July 1997 the exchange of letters and the proceedings concerning the
    complaints filed by the applicant and his parents were terminated pursuant to
    section 12 of the Act. 31.  In a letter of 26 May 1998 the prison governor replied
    to a complaint lodged by the applicant’s father on 10 May 1998 informing him that
    persons sentenced to death were allowed to send twelve letters a year. He also
    stated that the applicant was aware of his rights and obligations. 32.  In a letter
    of 10 August 1998 the Ivano-Frankivsk regional prosecutor informed the applicant’s
    father that visits and correspondence of persons sentenced to death were governed
    by the Instruction and not by the Act to which the applicant’s father had referred
    in his complaint. 33.  In a written complaint of 4 September 1998 addressed to
    the regional prosecutor the applicant’s parents stated, inter alia, that they
    had not seen the applicant for three months, that since 5 July 1998 they had not
    received any letters from him, that on 2 September 1998 they had become aware
    that the applicant had been beaten and humiliated, that Mr Ivashko, the deputy
    governor of the prison, had intervened during their visit on 2 September 1998
    when the applicant had spoken about his conditions of detention, and that, for
    a period of one year and six months, the applicant had been denied the possibility
    of a visit from a priest, despite his requests. 34.  In a letter of 10 September
    1998 the regional prosecutor informed the applicant’s father that the applicant’s
    visits and correspondence were governed by the national legislation and that the
    prison administration had acted within the limits of this legislation. 35.  On
    10 September 1998 the Ivano-Frankivsk deputy regional prosecutor sent a report
    to the Prosecutor-General. The report concerned the findings of the investigation
    carried out following the complaint by the applicant’s father about allegedly
    unlawful acts by the prison authorities in respect of the applicant’s correspondence
    and visits. The report concluded that the investigation had not established any
    violation of the applicant’s rights by the prison authorities. 36.  On 11 September
    1998 the applicant’s father sent a complaint to Mr Shtanko, the head of the State
    Department for the Execution of Sentences, to which the latter replied on 12 October
    1998. The allegations he raised were similar to those in his complaint to the
    regional prosecutor of 4 September 1998. Mr Shtanko replied that the applicant
    had been placed in solitary confinement because he had broken the rules. Furthermore,
    an investigation had not established that any physical force had been used against
    the applicant or that the prison authorities had humiliated him or restricted
    his rights, as was confirmed by the applicant himself. The applicant’s father
    was also informed that visits, including visits by a priest, could be allowed
    by the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior. 37.  On
    23 October 1998 the applicant’s parents submitted a request to the regional prosecutor,
    the Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior and the prison governor
    that a commission of independent doctors be set up in order to examine the applicant’s
    state of health. They alleged that the inmates of the prison had been tortured,
    which resulted in a suicide attempt by one of them or an attempt on his life.
    On 3 November 1998 the applicant’s parents were informed by the prison governor
    that their request had been refused on the grounds that there had been no sign
    of torture or of the use of any other physical violence against the applicant
    and that his state of health was satisfactory. 38.  On 23 and 24 October 1998
    the applicant’s parents sent a letter to Mrs Leni Fischer, then President of the
    Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. They complained of torture inflicted
    on the applicant and one of his fellow inmates, Mr Kuznetsov, which had resulted
    in a suicide attempt by the latter, and alleged that they had been taken to hospital
    and that Mr Kuznetsov had been paralysed. The parents further complained that
    they had been prevented from seeing the applicant. 39.  In a letter of 26 October
    1998 the applicant’s parents informed the Commission that “in establishment BI
    304/199 in Ivano-Frankivsk there [had] been an attempt to execute the unjustly
    condemned M. Kuznetsov and B. Poltoratskiy illegally, and [that] the Government
    [had] tried to conceal the fact”. 40.  A handwritten medical report issued on
    28 October 1998 was signed by the applicant. The report stated that the applicant
    did not show any signs of having been beaten and that his state of health was
    satisfactory. 41.  In a handwritten statement of 28 October 1998 the applicant
    said that he had been treated properly by the prison authorities, that no physical
    violence had been employed, that all disciplinary measures imposed on him had
    been justified and that his parents’ complaints had not been substantiated. 42.  The
    Regional Directorate for the Execution of Sentences of the Ministry of the Interior
    issued a report on 29 October 1998 in response to the applicant’s father’s complaint
    about alleged torture and his request for a commission of independent doctors
    to examine the applicant’s state of health. The report stated that on 28 October
    1998 the applicant had been examined by the prison doctors who had found no signs
    of physical injury. It also stated that the applicant denied that he had been
    tortured. 43.  In a letter of 30 October 1998 the deputy head of the Regional
    Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior informed the applicant’s mother that
    her complaint concerning torture to which the applicant had allegedly been subjected
    had been examined and found to be unsubstantiated. A medical examination of the
    applicant had not shown any signs of torture. Accordingly, there was no reason
    to set up a medical commission to investigate the allegations. 44.  A letter of
    2 November 1998 from the deputy regional prosecutor to the Prosecutor-General
    reported on the findings of the investigation carried out in connection with the
    applicant’s father’s complaint about restrictions on the applicant’s correspondence
    and visits, the interference by the prison authorities during the applicant’s
    parents’ visit on 2 September 1998 and the physical torture inflicted on the applicant.
    The letter said that, as regards the restriction on the applicant’s correspondence
    and visits, the father had wrongly relied on the Act, which did not apply to that
    category of prisoners, that the interference by a prison official had been justified,
    and that on 25 September 1998 the applicant had undergone a thorough medical examination
    which had not established any physical injuries. Finally, it explained that the
    applicant had been placed in solitary confinement on 26 August 1998 because he
    had broken the prison rules by refusing to let himself be examined by a prison
    warder upon his return from a daily walk outside the cell. 45.  In a letter of
    20 November 1998 the deputy regional prosecutor replied to the applicant’s mother’s
    complaint about the physical torture allegedly inflicted on the applicant and
    to her request for a medical examination of the applicant. He stated that on 28
    October 1998 the applicant had undergone a medical examination which had established
    that the allegations were unsubstantiated. The medical report had been confirmed
    and signed by the applicant. 46.  In a letter of 23 November 1998 the regional
    prosecutor informed the applicant’s father that his allegations about illegal
    acts on the part of the prison authorities had been found to be unsubstantiated.
    47.  In a letter of 30 November 1998 the deputy head of the Regional Directorate
    of the Ministry of the Interior informed the applicant’s representative, Mr Voskoboynikov,
    that he could not be granted permission to visit the applicant as the latter had
    already had a visit from his relatives that month. 48.  In a letter of 8 December
    1998 from the State Department for the Execution of Sentences the applicant’s
    father was informed that a thorough investigation had proved that his complaint
    about an illegal attempt to execute his son was unsubstantiated and that his son’s
    state of health was satisfactory. 49.  On 22 December 1998 the applicant requested
    permission from the head of the Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior
    to see a priest. His request was granted and he saw a priest on 26 December 1998.
    50.  In a letter of 15 February 1999 the prison governor informed the applicant’s
    father that his complaint of 22 January 1999 had been examined. He stated that
    persons sentenced to death were allowed to receive two parcels a year but no food
    parcels. 51.  In a decision of 5 March 1999 the Senior Prosecutor rejected a criminal
    complaint by the applicant’s parents against the deputy regional prosecutor. He
    refused to institute criminal proceedings against the latter on the ground that
    there was no evidence of his having committed an offence. He stated, inter alia,
    that the Act did not apply to the conditions of detention of death-row prisoners.
    These were governed by the Instruction, which was covered by the rules on State
    secrecy. 52.  According to the prison records, the applicant’s parents applied
    to visit the applicant on 19 September 1997, and on 4 March, 8 April, 19 June,
    22 July, 2 November and 1 December 1998. Permission was given on 7 October 1997,
    and on 4 March, 22 April, 20 August, 17 November and 11 December 1998 for visits
    which took place on 4 December 1997 and 4 March, 12 June, 2 September and 26 November
    1998 and on 4 January 1999. The request of 19 June 1998 was not granted. 53.  According
    to the prison records, the applicant sent letters to his parents on 17 September,
    19 and 26 November, and 31 December 1997, and on 5, 16, 20 and 30 January, 3 February,
    11 March, 6 April, 15 May, 17 June, 6 July, 10 August, 15 September, 22 October,
    13 November and 11 December 1998. He received letters from them and other persons
    on 18 and 29 September, 19 October, 20 November and 24 December 1997, and on 16
    and 26 January (two letters), 6, 10, 17 and 23 February, 6, 14 and 16 March, 6,
    17, 20, 27 and 29 April, 14 May, 1, 8 and 30 June, 1, 20 and 30 July, 20 August
    (two letters), 29 September, 10, 22 (two letters) and 27 October, 4, 13, 20, 26
    and 30 November, 4, 17 and 21 December 1998. 54.  In an undated document Mr Y.M.
    Pavlyuk, the deputy head of the isolation block, declared that during the period
    between 11 September 1997 and 18 December 1998, neither the applicant nor his
    parents had asked for permission for the applicant to see a priest. He further
    declared that during the said period no member of the clergy had asked for such
    permission. He signed the declaration. 55.  According to the applicant’s medical
    card, the applicant was X-rayed and blood-tested on 23 April 1998. On 25 September,
    1 and 28 October, 9, 19 and 27 November, 3, 10, 17 and 24 December 1998 the applicant
    was seen by a prison psychiatrist. 56.  In a written request of 2 May 2000 to
    the head of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Department for the Execution of Sentences
    of the Ministry of the Interior, Mr Boyko, the applicant’s father, in his capacity
    as his legal representative, asked for a confidential meeting with the applicant
    in order to discuss issues concerning his application pending before the European
    Court of Human Rights. On 23 May 2000, following a further request lodged on 15
    May 2000, he was granted permission for a normal visit on 5 June 2000. 57.  On
    16 May 2000 the applicant’s father complained to the Deputy Minister of the Interior
    that his request of 2 May 2000 for a confidential meeting had remained unanswered.
    58.  In a letter of 14 July 2000 the deputy head of the State Department for the
    Execution of Sentences, Mr V.A. Lyovochkin, replied that Mr Boyko had given the
    applicant’s father permission to visit the applicant on 5 June 2000 and that the
    visit had taken place as scheduled. He added that in accordance with Article 40
    of the Correctional Labour Code, a lawyer could be given permission for a confidential
    meeting with his client on presentation of his licence and identity card. 59.  Since
    the facts of the case were disputed, the Commission conducted an investigation,
    with the assistance of the parties, and took oral evidence from the following
    witnesses: the applicant; the applicant’s parents; Mr Bronislav S. Stichinskiy,
    Deputy Minister of Justice; Mr Drishchenko, Deputy Prosecutor-General; Mr Ivan
    V. Shtanko, Deputy Minister of the Interior; Mr Petro A. Yaremkiv, the governor
    of Ivano-Frankivsk Prison; Mr Bogdan V. Kachur, prison doctor; Mr Stanislav V.
    Prokhnitskiy, medical assistant; Mr Yuriy M. Pindus, assistant to the prison governor,
    who was on duty on 3 September 1998; Mr Fedir O. Savchuk, assistant to the prison
    governor, who was on duty during the night of 2 to 3 September 1998; Mr Igor P.
    Ivashko, the deputy governor of the prison; Mr Yaroslav M. Pavlyuk, the deputy
    head of the isolation block; Mr Valentin M. Nabiulin, the head of the Department
    for Supervision of Isolation Blocks and Prisons of the Directorate for the Execution
    of Sentences; Mr Oleksand V. Kmyta, the deputy head of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional
    Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior; and Mr Anatoliy O. Boyko, the head
    of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Department for the Execution of Sentences of the
    Ministry of the Interior.

    The Commission’s findings may be summarised as follows. 60.  The applicant gave
    evidence before the delegates that he had been beaten on 2 September 1998 after
    the visit from his parents on the same day. During that visit, he had said to
    his parents that he had been beaten and called a beast. The applicant’s parents
    stated before the delegates that they had been told by their son on 2 September
    1998 that he had been beaten and humiliated. The Commission observed, however,
    that the applicant denied before the delegates that he had been beaten before
    2 September 1998. It considered, therefore, that it had not been established that
    the applicant had been beaten before 2 September 1998. 61.  As to the events on
    2 September 1998, the applicant stated before the delegates that, after the visit
    from his parents on that date, he had been taken to the “cinema room” where four
    persons, including Mr Pavlyuk, the deputy head of the isolation block on duty,
    were waiting for him with clubs. He had been asked three times to tell everything,
    but had refused and had been struck on his legs, hips, back and chest. He had
    returned to his cell and had written until the morning on four sheets of paper
    which had been included in a file. 62.  The applicant further stated that he had
    been beaten on 10, 14 and 22 September 1998. One day, during a technical search
    of his cell, he had been taken out and ordered to get undressed so that his clothes
    could be checked. When he was naked, he had been beaten. He had been ordered to
    lie down on the floor with his face to the ground and his hands behind his head.
    He mentioned the name of K.Y. Hrevnin to the delegates. 63.  The Commission considered
    that the applicant’s account contained a number of details and elements which
    it would not have expected to find in a fabricated story. It noted, however, that
    there was no record of any occurrence connected to the ill-treatment described
    by the applicant. The Commission accepted that the applicant may have been afraid
    to complain or to write to anyone, as he said. However, it accepted this argument
    with difficulty, having regard to the fact that he had not been scared when he
    had told his parents on 2 September 1998 that he had been beaten. Moreover, the
    prison psychiatrist saw him on 25 September 1998 and had not recorded any problems
    regarding his state of health or any injuries. The Commission added that the medical
    report of 28 October 1998, which the applicant had signed, concluded that he did
    not show any signs of having been beaten and that his state of health was satisfactory.
    64.  The Commission further noted that the applicant had signed a written statement
    on 28 October 1998 to the effect that he had been treated properly by the prison
    authorities, that no physical violence had been used against him, that all disciplinary
    measures imposed on him had been justified and that his parents’ complaints had
    not been substantiated. It took into account the fact that, before the delegates,
    the applicant had denied the contents of his statement, and pointed out that the
    practice of the prison authorities to require an inmate to confirm in writing
    that he had been treated properly by prison officers gave rise to suspicion. 65.  As
    to the applicant’s parents’ submission before the delegates that, after the alleged
    beatings and torture on 2 September 1998, he had been transferred to Chukopovskiy
    Psycho-Neurological Hospital early in the morning of 3 September 1998 and had
    been placed in the intensive care unit where he had been given a blood transfusion,
    the Commission observed that, although the applicant had maintained that he had
    been beaten after his parents’ visit on 2 September 1998, he had denied that he
    had been transferred to hospital. This was corroborated by the statements of the
    prison doctor, the medical assistant, the governor’s assistant on duty at the
    time and the deputy governor, all of whom had been heard by the delegates. In
    addition, there was no documentary evidence proving that the applicant had been
    taken to hospital on the aforesaid date. The Commission did not consider the parents’
    evidence on this point convincing or reliable. 66.  The Commission found that
    there was no medical or other material evidence establishing that the applicant
    had sustained injury as a result of ill-treatment by prison officers in Ivano-Frankivsk
    Prison, as he had alleged. It had regard to the fact that the applicant had denied
    that he had been beaten before 2 September 1998 and had been transferred to hospital
    after that date, and that the absence of any use of force by prison officers on
    2, 10, 14 and 22 September 1998 had been supported by the oral statements of the
    witnesses heard by its delegates. The Commission therefore found it impossible
    to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the applicant had been subjected to
    ill-treatment in prison as he had alleged. 67.  The applicant’s parents sent a
    complaint to the regional prosecutor on 4 September 1998, claiming, inter alia,
    that they had become aware that the applicant had been beaten and humiliated by
    prison officers. They made similar allegations to the head of the State Department
    for the Execution of Sentences on 11 September 1998. On 12 October 1998 the latter
    informed the applicant’s father that the investigation had not established that
    any physical force had been used against his son or that the prison authorities
    had humiliated him or restricted his rights. He also stated that this finding
    had been confirmed in writing by the applicant himself. 68.  On 23 October 1998
    the applicant’s parents requested the regional prosecutor, the Regional Directorate
    of the Ministry of the Interior and the prison governor to set up an independent
    medical commission in order to examine the applicant’s state of health. They alleged
    that the prison’s inmates had been tortured, resulting in a suicide attempt by
    one of them, Mr Kuznetsov, or in an attempt on his life. On 30 October 1998 the
    applicant’s mother was informed by the deputy head of the Regional Directorate
    of the Ministry of the Interior that her complaint concerning the alleged torture
    of the applicant had been examined and found to be unsubstantiated and a medical
    examination of the applicant had not revealed any signs of torture. There was,
    accordingly, no reason to set up a medical commission to investigate her allegations.
    On 3 November 1998 the prison governor informed the applicant’s parents that their
    request had been refused on the grounds that there was no sign of torture or the
    use of any other form of physical violence against the applicant and that his
    state of health was satisfactory. In a letter of 20 November 1998 to the applicant’s
    parents, the deputy regional prosecutor confirmed that on 28 October 1998 the
    applicant had undergone a medical examination which had established that the parents’
    allegations were unsubstantiated. Moreover, on 2 November 1998 the deputy regional
    prosecutor sent a letter to the Prosecutor-General which reported on the results
    of the investigation carried out in connection with, inter alia, the allegations
    that the applicant had been physically tortured. The letter confirmed that on
    25 September 1998 the applicant had undergone a thorough medical examination which
    had not revealed any physical injury. 69.  The Commission noted that on 8 December
    1998 the applicant’s father had received a letter from the State Department for
    the Execution of Sentences stating that a thorough investigation had proved that
    his complaint about an attempt to execute his son was unsubstantiated and that
    the latter’s state of health was satisfactory. The domestic investigation had
    then ended on 5 March 1999 with a decision by the Senior Prosecutor on the applicant’s
    parents’ criminal complaint against the regional prosecutor. The Senior Prosecutor
    had refused to institute criminal proceedings on the ground that no criminal offence
    had been established. 70.  The Commission found that there were no contemporaneous
    records giving details of any investigation which the domestic authorities had
    carried out into the applicant’s parents’ allegations of the events in September
    1998. It had not seen a single document proving that an investigation had been
    carried out by any domestic authorities other than those directly involved in
    the facts of which the applicant’s parents complained. Moreover, the medical report
    of 28 October 1998 had been drafted almost two months after the applicant’s alleged
    ill-treatment and the applicant had not been seen by the prison doctor or prison
    psychiatrist between 23 April and 25 September 1998. 71.  The Commission found
    that the eight death-row inmates at Ivano-Frankivsk Prison, including the applicant,
    were being kept in single cells without the opportunity to communicate with other
    inmates. The applicant’s cell measured 2 x 5 x 3 m. There was an open toilet,
    a washbasin with a cold-water tap, two beds, a table and a little bench, both
    fixed to the floor, central heating and a window with bars. The applicant had
    some books, newspapers, a chess set, a stock of soap and toilet paper, some fruit
    and other food. During the delegates’ visit on 24 and 25 November 1998, the cell
    had been overheated, particularly in comparison with other rooms in the prison.
    The light was on twenty-four hours a day and the central radio was switched off
    at night. The inmates were frequently observed by prison warders through a spy
    hole in the door of the cell, which deprived them of any kind of privacy. The
    cell was freshly painted, from which the inference might be drawn that conditions
    had been worse prior to the delegates’ visit. The Commission accepted the applicant’s
    evidence that between 24 February and 24 March 1998 there had been no tap or washbasin
    in his cell, but only a small pipe on the wall near the toilet, that the water
    supply could only be turned on from the corridor, that the walls were covered
    with faeces and that the bucket for flushing the toilet had been taken away. The
    Commission found the applicant’s evidence – which was not contested by the Government
    – persuasive. 72.  The Commission also accepted the applicant’s evidence that,
    until May 1998, the window in his cell had been shuttered and that he had not
    been allowed to take daily outdoor walks. 73.  Concerning the applicant’s parents’
    requests to visit him, the Commission found that, apart from the parents’ request
    of 19 June 1998, all had been granted. The parents had applied to visit their
    son on 19 September 1997 and on 4 March, 8 April, 22 July, 2 November and 1 December
    1998. Permission had been given on 7 October 1997 and on 4 March, 22 April, 20
    August, 17 November and 11 December 1998 for visits which had taken place on 4
    December 1997 and 4 March, 12 June, 2 September and 26 November 1998 and 4 January
    1999. The Commission noted that the parents’ requests to visit the applicant had
    mostly been granted for a date two or three months after the request had been
    made. Moreover, two warders had been present during the visits, who were authorised
    to interrupt the conversation if they considered that the parents or the applicant
    had said anything “untrue”. 74.  Regarding the applicant’s correspondence, the
    Commission noted that the applicant had applied for the first time to the Regional
    Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior for permission to send a letter to
    his relatives on 17 September 1997. Thereafter he had sent letters to his parents
    on 19 and 26 November 1997, 31 December 1997, and on 5, 16, 20 and 30 January,
    3 February, 11 March, 6 April, 15 May, 17 June, 6 July, 10 August, 15 September,
    22 October, 13 November and 11 December 1998. He had received letters from his
    parents on 18 and 29 September, 19 October, 20 November and 24 December 1997,
    and on 16 and 26 January, 6, 10 and 23 February, 14 and 16 March, 17 April, 14
    May, 1 and 8 June, 1 and 30 July, 20 August, 29 September, 10, 22 and 27 October,
    4, 20, 26 and 30 November and 4, 17 and 21 December 1998. 75.  The Commission
    could not establish with sufficient clarity whether the applicant or his parents
    had asked for permission for a priest to come to see the applicant. It nevertheless
    found that while the applicant had seen a priest on 26 December 1998 following
    his request of 22 December 1998, there had been no regular visits to inmates by
    any chaplain.'
  sentences:
  - Protection of property Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful
    enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except
    in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by
    the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not,
    however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems
    necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest
    or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties. 32 33
  - 'Prohibition of torture No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
    degrading treatment or punishment. Have agreed as follows:'
  - Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This
    right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information
    and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
    This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting,
    television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it
    carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
    conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary
    in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity
    or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection
    of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others,
    for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining
    the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
- source_sentence: 5.  The applicant was born in 1919 and lives in Bogoria, Poland.
    6.  On 5 July 1974 the applicant’s husband filed with the Staszów District Court
    (sąd rejonowy) an action in which he sought a declaration that he and other relatives
    inherited the property of his late father. 7.  On 30 November 1977 the court issued
    the relevant decision. Some of the participants in the proceedings lodged an appeal
    against it. 8.  On 14 April 1978 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (sąd wojewódzki)
    amended that decision in part and dismissed the remainder of the appeal. 9.  On
    21 December 1981 the applicant filed with the Staszów District Court a petition
    in which she requested the division of the inherited property. 10.  On 27 August
    1992 the court issued a partial decision. The applicant appealed it. 11.  On 24
    June 1993 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court quashed that decision and remitted the
    case for re-examination. 12.  On 15 June 1994 the applicant challenged participation
    in the proceedings of all the judges from the Staszów District Court. 13.  On
    7 October 1994 the Regional Court dismissed that challenge. She appealed against
    that decision. 14.  On 14 November 1994 the President of the Regional Court, in
    reply to the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings,
    wrote a letter informing her that the case was very complex and that she contributed
    to the delay by her numerous petitions. 15.  On 24 February 1995 the Rzeszów Court
    of Appeal (sąd apelacyjny) amended the Regional Court’s decision of 7 October
    1994 in that it excluded four judges from participation in the proceedings. 16.  On
    29 May 1995 the District Court held a hearing. It stayed the proceedings, because
    three participants had died. The court ordered the applicant to provide information
    concerning their legal successors. 17.  On 11 December 1995 the court refused
    the applicant’s request to have the proceedings resumed. It noted that she had
    failed to provide the addresses of the heirs of one of the participants in the
    proceedings and submitted only that they lived in the United States. 18.  On 12
    July 1996 the District Court refused the applicant’s subsequent request in this
    respect. It relied, inter alia, on the fact that she had failed to specify whether
    the persons concerned had Polish or American nationality, which made it impossible
    for the court to serve summonses on them. The applicant appealed that decision.
    19.  On 7 November 1996 the Regional Court quashed the appealed decision and ordered
    its re-examination by the District Court. 20.  On 7 April 1998 the District Court
    resumed the proceedings. On the same date it decided to appoint a guardian ad
    litem for absent participants in the proceedings and announce that fact in a newspaper.
    21.  On 22 September 1998 the President of the District Court informed the applicant
    that the newspaper which the court had requested to publish the announcement had
    not replied. The President resolved to undertake necessary steps in order to ensure
    a more expeditious examination of the case. 22.  On 22 June 1999 the Regional
    Court excluded a judge from participation in the proceedings and transferred the
    case to the Opatów District Court. 23.  On 29 September 1999 four judges from
    the latter court requested to be excluded from participation in the proceedings
    due to their personal relations with one of the participants. 24.  On 28 July
    2000 the applicant was ordered to submit certain pleadings and provide information
    about the nationality of the participants residing in the United States. In reply,
    she submitted that she did not know whether they had a Polish nationality. 25.  In
    August 2000 the District Court summoned the applicant to make an advance payment
    to cover the costs of translating letters rogatory and sending them to the United
    States. In reply, the applicant stated that the participants residing there spoke
    fluent Polish and thus translation was not necessary. 26.  On 28 September 2000
    the court stayed the proceedings, relying on the applicant’s failure to comply
    with its order. 27.  On 26 February 2001 the applicant requested that the proceedings
    be resumed and submitted a letter from the Polish consulate in Chicago, from which
    it transpired that the persons concerned had not renounced their Polish nationality.
    28.  On 16 March 2001 the court refused that request. The applicant appealed.
    29.  On 17 July 2001 the Rzeszów Regional Court transferred the appeal against
    that decision to the Kielce Regional Court. 30.  On 24 October 2001 the latter
    court rejected the appeal. 31.  On 25 January 2002 the Opatów District Court once
    again refused to resume the proceedings. 32.  On 8 February 2002 the applicant
    appealed against that decision. 33.  The proceedings are still pending.
  sentences:
  - 'Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations
    or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public
    hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established
    by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be
    excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order
    or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles
    or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent
    strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where
    publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a
    criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
    9 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
    (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail,
    of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time
    and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person
    or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means
    to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice
    so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain
    the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions
    as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if
    he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.'
  - Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect
    for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall
    be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except
    such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society
    in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being
    of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of
    health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
  - Right to marry Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to
    found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this
    right.
- source_sentence: '32.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Sollentuna (Sweden).
    The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
    33.  The applicant''s brother Mehmet Salim Acar (son of Mehmet and Hüsna, born
    in Bismil in 1963), a farmer living in Ambar, a village in the Bismil district
    in south-east Turkey, disappeared on 20 August 1994. The facts surrounding the
    disappearance of the applicant''s brother are in dispute between the parties.
    34.  The facts as submitted by the applicant are set out in Section 1 below. The
    facts as submitted by the Government are contained in Section 2. A summary of
    the documents produced is set out in Part B. 35.  On 20 August 1994, while Mehmet
    Salim Acar was working in a cotton field near Ambar, a white or grey Renault car
    without any registration plates stopped. Two armed men in plain clothes – claiming
    to be police officers – got out of the car and asked Mehmet Salim to accompany
    them in order to help them find a field. When Mehmet Salim refused to get into
    the car, the two men threatened him with their weapons. They then took his identity
    card, tied his hands, blindfolded him, punched him in the head and stomach, forced
    him into their car and drove off. 36.  The scene was witnessed by Mehmet Salim''s
    son İhsan Acar and İlhan Ezer, another farmer. After the car had driven off, İhsan
    ran home and told his mother Halise Acar what had happened, and she in turn informed
    the village headman. Abide Acar, Mehmet Salim''s daughter, had seen her father
    sitting in the back of a “grey-coloured” car passing through the village while
    she and a neighbour were washing clothes in a stream. Another villager had allegedly
    seen Mehmet Salim being taken to the riverbank, where five other people had been
    waiting in another car. Mehmet Salim''s hands and feet were tied, he was blindfolded
    and his mouth was taped. The two cars had reportedly driven off in the direction
    of Bismil. Nothing has been heard from Mehmet Salim since. 37.  Mehmet Salim''s
    family filed a series of petitions and complaints about his disappearance to the
    authorities, including the Deputy Governor and the Bismil gendarmerie, in order
    to find out where and why he was being detained. 38.  On or around 27 August 1994,
    Mehmet Salim''s sister Meliha Dal personally handed a petition about her brother''s
    disappearance to the Deputy Governor of Diyarbakır. After reading the petition
    and, in her presence, speaking on the telephone with Ahmet Korkmaz, a non-commissioned
    officer (NCO) of the gendarmerie, the Deputy Governor told her that Mehmet Salim
    was in the hands of the State and that there was nothing that she could do for
    the time being. 39.  When leaving the Deputy Governor''s office, Meliha Dal was
    approached by a police officer, Mehmet Şen, who volunteered to make enquiries
    about her brother with a friend in the “torture place” of the Bismil gendarmerie
    station. This police officer rang Meliha Dal three days later and told her that
    he had seen Mehmet Salim at the Bismil gendarmerie command and that he could take
    him some clothes and cigarettes. After Meliha Dal had fetched some clothes, the
    police officer told her that he would take them to her brother in one or two days''
    time. On 31 August 1994 the police officer called Meliha Dal again and told her
    that her brother had been taken away from the Bismil gendarmerie command but that
    he did not know where he had been taken to. 40.  On 29 August 1994 Hüsna Acar,
    Mehmet Salim''s mother, filed a petition with the Bismil public prosecutor requesting
    an investigation into her son''s disappearance. On 2 September 1994 the public
    prosecutor took statements from Hüsna, Halise and İhsan Acar, and the farmer İlhan
    Ezer. 41.  On 19 October 1994 Hüsna Acar asked the Bismil Chief Public Prosecutor
    for information about the progress of the investigation, but she received no reply.
    42.  In letters of 29 November 1994 and 19 January 1995, the applicant asked the
    public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır National Security Court to investigate the
    whereabouts of his brother Mehmet Salim. These letters went unanswered. 43.  On
    15 March 1995 the Bismil public prosecutor wrote to the Bismil gendarmerie commander,
    seeking a reply to his enquiry about the case. He wrote again on 17 May 1995 to
    enquire whether or not the detention of Mehmet Salim Acar might have been politically
    motivated. 44.  On 20 July 1995 the applicant asked the Bismil Chief Public Prosecutor
    for information about the case of Mehmet Salim Acar and accused gendarmerie officers
    İzzetin and Ahmet and village guard Harun Aca of being responsible for his brother''s
    abduction. 45.  On 26 and 27 July 1995 the applicant sent letters to the Minister
    for Human Rights and the Minister of Justice, seeking information about his brother''s
    whereabouts and condition. On 24 August 1995 the Minister for Human Rights informed
    the applicant that his petition had been transmitted to the office of the Diyarbakır
    Governor. In his reply of 30 August 1995, the applicant requested the Minister
    for Human Rights to ensure his brother''s safety and to take urgent action. 46.  On
    8 September 1995 gendarmes took further statements from Hüsna, Halise and İhsan
    Acar. 47.  On 22 September 1995 the applicant spoke on the telephone with gendarmerie
    captain İrfan Odabaş, of the Bismil gendarmerie command, who told him that Mehmet
    Salim Acar''s whereabouts were unknown and asked him whether the abductors had
    made any ransom demand. The applicant replied that no such demand had been made
    but that he would pay in return for his brother''s release. 48.  On 27 September
    1995 the applicant was contacted by an unknown person who asked for 1,100,000,000
    Turkish liras in return for his brother''s release. The applicant accepted immediately.
    He was told that his brother would be interrogated at the Bismil gendarmerie command
    and that he would be able to meet him within a week. 49.  On 5 October 1995 Mehmet
    Salim''s family were contacted by a person called Murat, who informed them that
    Mehmet Salim had been detained in Bolu and subsequently at a military base. He
    was alive and was working as an agent for the authorities. In order to have him
    released, the family would have to comply with the conditions of the Diyarbakır
    Regiment Commander, namely to keep secret the names of those who had abducted
    him, as well as the place where and the persons by whom he had been detained.
    The family refused to accept these conditions. On 10 October 1995 Murat contacted
    the family again and asked them to reconsider their position, otherwise Mehmet
    Salim would not be released. 50.  On 25 October 1995 Meliha Dal made a statement
    to the Bismil gendarmerie command to the effect that, in her opinion, the gendarmerie
    officers İzzet Cural and Ahmet Korkmaz and the former PKK (Workers'' Party of
    Kurdistan) member Harun Aca, who had become a village guard, were responsible
    for her brother''s abduction. 51.  On 30 October 1995 the home of Meliha Dal was
    raided by officers of the anti-terrorism branch of the Diyarbakır police, who
    threatened her with death and attempted to abduct her 12-year-old son. 52.  In
    November 1995 the applicant was informed by the Diyarbakır general gendarmerie
    command that his brother had not been apprehended by the gendarmerie but had been
    abducted by two unidentified civilians claiming to be policemen. 53.  The applicant
    also filed a petition about his brother''s disappearance with the Investigation
    Commission for Human Rights of the Turkish Grand National Assembly. On 1 December
    1995, in reply to a request for information, the office of the Diyarbakır Governor
    informed the Investigation Commission for Human Rights that the case had been
    investigated, that the two gendarmerie officers whose names had been given by
    the applicant and his sister had not apprehended Mehmet Salim, that he had been
    abducted by two unidentified individuals and that the investigation of the case
    by the Bismil public prosecutor was ongoing. This information was transmitted
    to the applicant by the Human Rights Commission on 18 December 1995. 54.  On 10
    June 1996 Hüsna Acar asked the Bismil public prosecutor for information about
    the progress of the investigation. 55.  On 17 June 1996 the Bismil public prosecutor
    issued a decision of non-jurisdiction (görevsizlik kararı) and transmitted the
    investigation opened in respect of gendarmerie officers İzzet Cural and Ahmet
    Babayiğit and village guard Harun Aca to the Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative
    Council for further proceedings under the Law on the prosecution of civil servants
    (Memurin Muhakematı Kanunu). 56.  On 25 November 1996 Meliha Dal requested the
    Diyarbakır Governor to open an investigation into Mehmet Salim''s disappearance.
    On 10 December 1996 the applicant wrote a letter to the President of Turkey and
    filed a further petition with the Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council.
    On 11 December 1996 Hüsna Acar wrote a letter to the President of Turkey and to
    the Minister of the Interior, asking them to investigate the disappearance of
    her son Mehmet Salim. Both petitions were transmitted to the office of the Batman
    Governor. 57.  On 17 January 1997 the Diyarbakır Governor informed Meliha Dal
    in reply to her petition of 25 November 1996 that an investigation into the matter
    had been carried out by the Bismil Chief Public Prosecutor and that those responsible
    for the abduction of her brother remained unidentified. 58.  In a decision of
    23 January 1997, the Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council decided not
    to take proceedings against the two gendarmerie officers and the village guard
    on the ground that there was insufficient evidence. This decision was confirmed
    by the Supreme Administrative Court (Danıştay) on 14 January 2000. 59.  On 2 February
    2000 at 11 p.m., Meliha Dal and Hüsna and Halise Acar watched a news broadcast
    on the NTV television channel. The newsreader announced that four persons had
    been apprehended in Diyarbakır, one of whom was named Mehmet Salim Acar. Pictures
    of the apprehended men were shown and all three of them recognised Mehmet Salim
    Acar. The three women continued to watch the news all night and saw him again
    on the following day during the 8 a.m. television news broadcast. 60.  On 4 February
    2000 Meliha Dal and Hüsna and Halise Acar informed the Bismil public prosecutor
    in person of what they had seen. The public prosecutor telephoned the office of
    the Diyarbakır public prosecutor and told the women afterwards that three persons
    by the name of Mehmet Salim Acar had been apprehended, but that, apart from the
    name, the particulars of the three men did not match those of their relative.
    61.  Two days later, the Bismil public prosecutor informed Meliha Dal that her
    brother had in fact been apprehended, that he was being held in prison in Muş,
    and that he would be released after making a statement. 62.  On 16 February 2000
    Meliha Dal told the Diyarbakır public prosecutor that she had seen her brother
    on television and asked the public prosecutor for information about his fate.
    The public prosecutor referred her to the Şehitlik police station, from where
    she was referred to the police headquarters for verification of the police computer
    records. There she was told that she would be informed about her brother and was
    asked to leave. She subsequently received no further information from the police
    headquarters. 63.  On 18 February 2000 Meliha Dal made a similar request to the
    office of the Diyarbakır Governor, and was again referred to the Şehitlik police
    station, which directed her to the anti-terrorism branch, where a police officer
    took a statement from her and recorded her particulars. After about an hour, Meliha
    Dal was told that her brother had not agreed to see his family. When she refused
    to accept this answer and insisted on seeing him, she was asked to leave. She
    was informed three days later that her brother was not in fact at the anti-terrorism
    branch. She was subsequently told to go to the prison in Muş. When she and İhsan
    Acar went to the prison, they were shown a person who was not Mehmet Salim Acar.
    64.  On 23 March 2000 three officers from the anti-terrorism branch came to Halise
    Acar''s home and asked her for a copy of her family''s entry in the population
    register. She was told that they were looking for Mehmet Salim Acar throughout
    Turkey and that it was not established that he was dead. 65.  According to a decision
    of non-jurisdiction issued on 2 May 2000 by the Muş Chief Public Prosecutor, the
    person placed in pre-trial detention in Muş was a Mehmet Salih Acar whose year
    of birth and parents did not match the particulars of the applicant''s brother.
    66.  On 11 May 2000 Meliha Dal filed a petition with the Diyarbakır public prosecutor
    seeking an investigation into the sighting of her brother Mehmet Salim Acar during
    the television news broadcast. 67.  On 30 May 2000 the Diyarbakır Chief Public
    Prosecutor issued a decision not to open an investigation (tapiksizlik kararı)
    on the basis of the petition of 11 May 2000. 68.  Later in 2000 Meliha Dal spoke
    with a prison officer at Muş Prison. The officer confirmed that he had seen Mehmet
    Salim Acar when he and five or six others had been apprehended and taken to Muş
    Prison. According to Meliha Dal, the officer''s description of Mehmet Salim corresponded
    to her brother''s appearance. 69.  On 29 August 1994 the applicant''s mother filed
    a petition with the Bismil public prosecutor''s office requesting an investigation
    into the whereabouts of her son Mehmet Salim Acar, who had been kidnapped by two
    men. 70.  The public prosecutor opened an investigation, in the course of which
    statements were taken from Hüsna and Halise Acar and from the two eyewitnesses
    to the events, İhsan Acar and İlhan Ezer. İhsan Acar stated that two Turkish-speaking
    men wearing hats and glasses had asked his father to show his identity card and
    that he was then put in a grey car without licence plates. İlhan Ezer declared
    that a grey Renault TX-model car without licence plates had approached them, that
    one of the two men in the car, speaking with a western Anatolian accent and wearing
    glasses, had forced them to show their identity cards, saying they were police
    officers. The men did not give back Mehmet Salim''s identity card, saying that
    they would bring him back after he had shown them someone''s land. 71.  On 19
    October 1994 Hüsna Acar filed another petition with the Bismil public prosecutor.
    72.  On 15 March 1995 the Bismil public prosecutor requested the Bismil gendarmerie
    command to investigate whether or not Mehmet Salim Acar had been kidnapped. In
    a letter of 17 May 1995, the Bismil public prosecutor asked the Bismil gendarmerie
    commander for information about the case. 73.  In a letter of 20 July 1995 to
    the Bismil public prosecutor, the applicant claimed that village guard Harun Aca,
    gendarmerie captain İzzettin and gendarmerie officer Ahmet had been involved in
    the kidnapping of his brother. On the basis of this letter, the public prosecutor
    decided to hear those allegedly involved and summoned all gendarmerie officers
    named Ahmet who worked at the Bismil gendarmerie command at the material time
    to be heard. 74.  On 8 September 1995 gendarmes took statements from Hüsna, Halise
    and İhsan Acar and from İlhan Ezer. On the basis of the applicant''s allegation
    that Mehmet Salim Acar had been taken away by two officers of the Bismil gendarmerie
    and a local village guard, İlhan Ezer was asked whether the persons who had abducted
    Mehmet Salim Acar had worked at the Bismil gendarmerie command, which he denied.
    He further stated that Mehmet Salim Acar''s behaviour had also not indicated that
    he knew these men. 75.  On 25 October 1995 İlhan Ezer made a statement to the
    Bismil notary public, in which he stated that he had seen the persons who had
    abducted Mehmet Salim Acar and that they were not Captain İzzet Cural and Sergeant
    Ahmet as alleged. 76.  On 6 November 1995 the Bismil public prosecutor took a
    statement from the gendarmerie officer Ahmet Uyar, who stated that he had just
    taken up his duties at the time of the incident and that he did not know anything
    about it. He further stated that there were two other gendarmerie officers named
    Ahmet, namely Ahmet Korkmaz, who had been killed by the PKK, and Ahmet Babayiğit,
    who had been transferred to a region with a different climate on medical grounds.
    77.  On 23 November 1995 Harun Aca made a statement to both the gendarmerie and
    the Bismil public prosecutor, on which occasion he submitted a document proving
    that he had not been in Bismil between 19 July and 6 September 1994, when he had
    been participating in a security forces operation in Mardin. 78.  On 17 June 1996
    the Bismil public prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and referred
    the case to the Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council. The Administrative
    Council appointed Captain İrfan Odabaş as inspector for the investigation into
    the applicant''s allegations that his brother had been taken into detention by
    gendarmerie captain İzzet Cural and NCO Ahmet Babayiğit under the guidance of
    temporary village guard Harun Aca. 79.  On 9 December 1996 İlhan Ezer made another
    statement to the gendarmerie in which he declared that he knew Captain İzzet and
    NCO Ahmet very well and that they were definitely not the men who had abducted
    Mehmet Salim Acar. 80.  On 25 December 1996 the gendarmerie took a statement from
    NCO Ahmet Babayiğit, who stated that he had not witnessed the incident and that
    he did not know anything about it. 81.  On 1 January 1997 the gendarmerie took
    a statement from Captain İzzet Cural, who denied that Mehmet Salim Acar had been
    apprehended and detained. 82.  On 23 January 1997 the Provincial Administrative
    Council issued a decision of non-prosecution, finding that there was insufficient
    evidence to take proceedings against İzzet Cural, Ahmet Babayiğit or Harun Aca.
    83.  Mehmet Salim Acar has been included on the list of persons who are being
    searched for by the gendarmerie throughout Turkey, and the search for him continues.
    84.  The person who was apprehended and shown during a television news broadcast
    in February 2000 was not the applicant''s brother. Several persons being held
    in detention have the same name as the applicant''s brother. However, their dates
    and places of birth and particulars are different from his. 85.  The parties have
    produced various documents concerning the investigation into the abduction of
    Mehmet Salim Acar[2]. 86.  On 29 August 1994 Hüsna Acar filed a petition with
    the public prosecutor''s office in Bismil requesting an investigation into the
    disappearance of her son Mehmet Salih Acar, who had been abducted ten days before
    by two unknown persons – armed with Kalashnikov rifles and wearing civilian clothes
    – in a taxi. In her petition Hüsna Acar further stated that her family had already
    made enquiries with the gendarmerie and the police, who had told them that they
    knew nothing about it. Hüsna Acar requested the public prosecutor to issue the
    necessary instructions in order to find her son as soon as possible. 87.  On 19
    October 1994 Hüsna Acar filed a second petition with the Bismil public prosecutor,
    in which she requested an investigation into the disappearance of her son. She
    asked the public prosecutor in particular to verify whether her son had been apprehended
    and was being held by the security forces. 88.  By a letter of 20 July 1995, the
    applicant requested the Bismil public prosecutor to grant his family permission
    to visit his brother Mehmet Salim Acar who, according to the applicant, had been
    apprehended in August 1994 by the Bismil gendarmerie commander. The applicant
    stated that gendarmerie captain İzzettin, NCO Ahmet and Harun Aca, an inhabitant
    of Ambar, were responsible for his brother''s life. 89.  By a letter of 26 July
    1995, the applicant complained to the Ministry of Human Rights that in August
    1994 his brother Mehmet Salim Acar had been apprehended by Captain İzzettin, NCO
    Ahmet and counter-guerrilla agent Harun Aca, and that since then his brother was
    being held at the Bismil gendarmerie command. The applicant further stated that
    his family had not received a positive reply from the Bismil public prosecutor
    and the Diyarbakır National Security Court, to which they had applied, and that
    they were disconcerted not to have been granted permission to contact Mehmet Salim
    even though they had evidence that he was being detained. 90.  The applicant submitted
    a similar petition to the Ministry of Justice on 27 July 1995. 91.  In a further
    letter of 30 August 1995 to the Ministry of Human Rights, the applicant stated
    that, in addition to his letter of 26 July 1995, he had learned from an official,
    who wished to remain anonymous, that his brother Mehmet Salim Acar had been taken
    into detention by Captain İzzet Cura on the basis of information supplied by the
    “confessor”[3] Harun Aca. Having interrogated him, Captain İzzet had concluded
    that Mehmet Salim was innocent and that Harun Aca''s information had been incorrect.
    However, as Captain İzzet feared sanctions for having detained Mehmet Salim incommunicado
    and for too long, for having denied him the necessary medical care and for having
    failed to respect his defence rights, he had kept Mehmet Salim in detention. Considering
    that his brother risked being killed by Captain İzzet in order to conceal the
    matter, the applicant requested the Ministry of Human Rights to intervene as a
    matter of urgency. 92.  In an undated petition, Hüsna Acar requested the Investigation
    Commission for Human Rights of the Turkish Grand National Assembly to examine
    the case of her son Salih Acar, claiming that he had been taken into detention
    by Captain İzzet of the Ambar gendarmerie on 6 July 1994 and that nothing had
    been heard from him since. Hüsna Acar sent similar petitions, also undated, to
    the Ankara Human Rights Centre, the Diyarbakır Governor and the General Gendarmerie
    Command in Ankara. 93.  On 10 November 1995 the President of the Investigation
    Commission for Human Rights of the Turkish Grand National Assembly informed the
    applicant that the petition concerning Salim Acar had been registered on 3 November
    1995 under no. 4467/2872, that the matter would be investigated and that he would
    be informed of the results of the investigation. 94.  By a letter of 10 June 1996
    to the Bismil public prosecutor, Hüsna Acar requested to be provided with information
    about the steps taken in the investigation into the abduction on 29 August 1994
    of her son Mehmet Salim Acar by Captain İzzet Cural and Sergeant Ahmet Kormaz.
    She further claimed that, on the day her son had been abducted, two other persons
    – whose names she did not mention – had been abducted in the same car, that one
    of them had been released and that her son had initially been taken to Bismil,
    then to Cınar and subsequently to Diyarbakır. 95.  On 5 August 1996 Hüsna Acar
    requested the Ministry of the Interior to take the necessary steps to find out
    whether her son Mehmet Salim Acar, who had been abducted in 1994 in a white taxi
    by two persons whose identities she did not know, was dead or alive. 96.  On 23
    August 1996 Hüsna Acar and Halise Acar filed a criminal complaint of abduction
    and disappearance with the Bismil public prosecutor. They claimed that, three
    days before his disappearance, Mehmet Salim Acar had quarrelled with Mehmet Açan,
    who was also living in Ambar, about a pump. Mehmet Açan had told Mehmet Salim
    that he would definitely “disappear” within three days at the most. Three days
    later, Mehmet Salim was taken away by Captain İzzettin, Mehmet Açan and Harun
    Açan. Hüsna and Halise Acar requested the public prosecutor to carry out an investigation
    and to hand the three perpetrators over to the courts. 97.  On 25 November 1996
    Meliha Dal lodged a complaint with the Diyarbakır Governor, claiming that her
    brother Mehmet Salim Acar had had a quarrel with the brothers Mehmet and Harun
    Açan. On that occasion, Harun Açan had threatened her brother with death. Three
    days later, her brother had been taken away by Captain İzzettin and Mehmet and
    Harun Açan. Meliha Dal further stated that the petitions filed by Halise and Hüsna
    Acar with the Bismil public prosecutor and the Ministry of the Interior had not
    led to any results and that the Bismil Governor and the Bismil gendarmerie authorities
    had not even contacted Halise and/or Hüsna Acar to discuss the matter. Meliha
    Dal requested the Governor to question Captain İzzettin and the brothers Mehmet
    and Harun Açan, as she believed that her brother might have been killed by them.
    98.  On 10 December 1996 the applicant sent a letter to the president of the Diyarbakır
    Provincial Administrative Council claiming, inter alia, that his brother Mehmet
    Salim Acar had been taken into detention by Captain İzzet Cural and Sergeant Ahmet
    Korkmaz on the basis of incorrect information provided by Harun Aca (see paragraph
    142 below).

    On the same day, the applicant sent a similar letter to the President of Turkey,
    requesting him to investigate what had happened to his brother. 99.  On 11 December
    1996 Hüsna Acar filed a petition with the Ministry of the Interior, claiming that
    the Ambar villager Şakir Gün had extorted money and jewellery from her family
    in exchange for the release of her son Mehmet Salim. Considering that Şakir Gün
    was thus aware of her son''s whereabouts and involved in his abduction, Hüsna
    Acar requested the Ministry of the Interior to intervene and investigate the matter.

    On the same date Hüsna Acar sent an identical petition to the President of Turkey.
    100.  The submitted copy of the custody records of the Bismil gendarmerie for
    the period between 8 July and 13 November 1994 does not contain an entry in the
    name of Mehmet Salih Acar or Mehmet Salim Acar.

    (b)  Preliminary investigation by the Bismil public prosecutor 101.  On 29 August
    1994, in an instruction written by hand at the bottom of the petition filed on
    that day by Hüsna Acar (see paragraph 86 above), the Bismil public prosecutor
    ordered the taking of a detailed statement from Hüsna Acar and the making of enquiries
    with the gendarmerie and the security forces. On 31 August 1994 he instructed
    the Bismil gendarmerie to ensure that Hüsna Acar came to his office to make a
    statement. 102.  On 2 September 1994 Hüsna Acar made a statement to the Bismil
    public prosecutor. She confirmed that she had filed a petition and stated that,
    about ten days before 29 August 1994, her son Mehmet Salih Acar had been taken
    away in a taxi by two men, who were wearing civilian clothes and armed with Kalashnikov
    rifles. Nothing had been heard from him since. Her grandson İhsan Acar had witnessed
    the incident. It appeared that the men had spoken Turkish and that they had driven
    off in the direction of Bismil. 103.  On the same day, Halise Acar also made a
    statement to the Bismil public prosecutor. She stated that her husband had disappeared
    ten or fifteen days earlier when he was in a cotton field with their son İhsan
    Acar. Two armed men had forced him to get into a taxi, which had driven off in
    the direction of Bismil. Nothing had been heard from him since. She further declared
    that she had been told that her husband had been with İlhan Ezer when he was taken
    away and that the taxi was a dark grey Renault without licence plates. 104.  Also
    on 2 September 1994, İhsan Acar (born in 1983) was heard by the Bismil public
    prosecutor. He stated:

    “On the day of the incident, my father and I were working in the field. When we
    went to sit under a tree to have lunch, İlhan Ezer, who was working in the field,
    joined us. There was a twenty-metre distance between my father and me. At this
    point, a grey-coloured taxi with no number plates came and stopped near my father.
    The persons in the car spoke with my father. I saw them take the identity cards
    of my father and of the person called İlhan and then return İlhan''s identity
    card, and I saw my father get into the taxi. This taxi immediately headed towards
    the village of Ambar. Later, I went home and informed my mother. As I was far
    away, I was unable to recognise these people, but I heard that they were speaking
    Turkish. These people were wearing hats and glasses. That is all I know and what
    I have witnessed.” 105.  İlhan Ezer, who was also heard by the Bismil public prosecutor
    on 2 September 1994, declared:

    “On the day of the incident, while Mehmet Salih Acar and I were having lunch in
    the field below the village of Ambar, a Renault TX-model grey taxi without number
    plates approached us. The persons in the car asked us to hand over our identity
    cards. When we refused, they forced us by saying that they were the police and
    that we were therefore obliged to hand over our identity cards. The persons who
    asked for our cards had a western accent. Both of them were about 25 or 26 years
    old. One of them was wearing glasses. They did not give back Mehmet Salih''s identity
    card. They said: ''Mehmet Salih will show us someone''s field and then we will
    send him back.'' That is all I know and what I have witnessed in relation to the
    incident.” 106.  On 13 September 1994 the Bismil public prosecutor informed the
    Bismil gendarmerie command that, about ten days before 29 August 1994, Mehmet
    Salih Acar had been abducted by two unknown persons – aged 25 or 26, speaking
    with a western Anatolian accent and one of them wearing glasses – who had come
    in a gunmetal Renault TX-model taxi without licence plates. The public prosecutor
    instructed the gendarmerie to carry out an investigation into the persons who
    had abducted Mehmet Salih Acar and, when found, to bring them to his office. 107.  On
    25 January 1995 the Bismil public prosecutor sent a reminder to the Bismil gendarmerie
    command, urging the gendarmerie to speed up compliance with his instruction of
    13 September 1994. 108.  By a letter of 7 February 1995, the Bismil gendarmerie
    district commander Captain İzzet Cural informed the Bismil public prosecutor that
    the requested investigation had been completed. Captain Cural appended to his
    letter a record dated 31 January 1995, signed by the gendarmerie officers İlhan
    Yücel, Ahmet Uyar and Yılmaz Pala of the Bismil central gendarmerie command, stating
    that enquiries had been made, but that it had not been possible to identify the
    persons who had abducted Mehmet Salih Acar. 109.  On 15 March 1995 the Bismil
    public prosecutor instructed the Bismil gendarmerie command to conduct a thorough
    investigation into the alleged abduction of Mehmet Salih Acar and, if this had
    in fact taken place, to tell him who was responsible and whether it had been politically
    motivated. He sent a reminder of this instruction to the Bismil gendarmerie command
    on 17 May 1995. 110.  By a letter of 22 June 1995, the Bismil gendarmerie district
    commander Captain İzzet Cural informed the Bismil public prosecutor that the investigation
    requested on 25 January 1995 had been completed. Captain Cural appended to his
    letter a record dated 20 June 1995, signed by the gendarmerie officers İlhan Yücel,
    Ismail Özden and Ahmet Uyar of the Bismil central gendarmerie command, stating
    that it had not been possible to locate or identify the persons who had abducted
    Mehmet Salih Acar. 111.  On 14 August 1995, acting on the petition filed on 27
    July 1995 by the applicant (see paragraph 90 above), the Ministry of Justice requested
    the Bismil public prosecutor, as a matter of urgency, to provide information about
    Mehmet Salim Acar, who had allegedly been taken into detention at the Bismil gendarmerie
    command in August 1994 and who had not been allowed to see his relatives since,
    and about the legal steps taken in his case. 112.  By a letter of 21 August 1995,
    the Bismil central gendarmerie station commander Sergeant İlhan Yücel informed
    the Bismil district gendarmerie command that it was not known whether the abduction
    of Mehmet Salih Acar had, in some way or other, been politically motivated, that
    it was not known who had abducted him and that no news from him had been received
    since his abduction. Sergeant Yücel appended to his letter a record dated 14 August
    1995, signed by himself, the gendarmerie officer Mustafa Candar and the Ambar
    muhtar[4] Mehmet İhsan Tuncay, with the same contents as the letter. 113.  Also
    on 21 August 1995 and in reply to the request of 14 August 1995, the Bismil public
    prosecutor informed the Ministry of Justice that it was asserted that Mehmet Salih
    Acar had been abducted about ten days before 2 September 1994 by two armed and
    unidentified persons, who had forced him to get into a taxi while he was working
    in the fields with his son İhsan Acar. The responsible authorities had been contacted
    in order to proceed with the search for him. However, the persons who had abducted
    Mehmet Salih Acar had not, to date, been identified and the investigation of the
    case was ongoing. 114.  On 18 September 1995 the Bismil public prosecutor instructed
    the Bismil gendarmerie command to ensure that Harun Acar from the village of Ambar
    reported to his office in connection with the investigation into the disappearance
    of Mehmet Salim Acar. On 21 September 1995 the Bismil gendarmerie district command
    instructed the Bismil central gendarmerie command to find Harun Acar''s address.
    115.  On 29 September 1995 Sergeant İlhan Yücel, the Bismil central gendarmerie
    commander, informed the Bismil gendarmerie district command that Harun Acar did
    not live in Ambar, that he was currently serving in an anti-terrorism unit and
    that his current address could be obtained from the Derik and Mazıdağı gendarmerie
    district commands. Sergeant Yücel appended to his letter an undated report, signed
    by the gendarmerie officers Mustafa Candal and Özay Yalbul, and the Ambar muhtar,
    Mehmet İhsan Tuncay, stating that Harun Acar had left no address when he was released
    from Diyarbakır E-type Prison but that he could be found by asking the Derik or
    Mazıdağı gendarmerie command. This information was transmitted to the Bismil public
    prosecutor on 10 October 1995. 116.  On 12 October 1995 the Ministry of Justice
    requested the Bismil public prosecutor to provide information about the steps
    taken in the investigation into the disappearance of Mehmet Salih Acar, which
    formed the subject matter of a complaint filed by the applicant with the European
    Commission of Human Rights, in which he alleged that his brother had been taken
    into custody in Bismil on 20 August 1994 and that he was being tortured. The Bismil
    public prosecutor was asked in particular to inform the Ministry if an investigation
    into the matter had been opened and, if so, whether it had been opened automatically
    or in response to a request in respect of Mehmet Salih Acar. 117.  On 16 October
    1995 the Bismil public prosecutor sent a reminder to the Bismil gendarmerie command
    of his instruction of 18 September 1995. On the same day he instructed the Bismil
    gendarmerie command to ensure that Halise Acar and all gendarmes who had served
    at the Bismil gendarmerie command at the material time and who were named “Ahmet”
    reported to his office in order to make statements. Finally, he instructed the
    Bismil gendarmerie command to provide him with the current address of Captain
    İzzettin Cural, who had left Bismil after being posted elsewhere. 118.  On the
    same day the Bismil public prosecutor informed the Ministry of Justice that an
    investigation into the disappearance of Mehmet Salih Acar had been opened, in
    which statements had been taken from the complainants Halise and Hüsna Acar and
    from the witnesses İhsan Acar and İlhan Ezer, and that steps had been taken to
    obtain a statement from Captain İzzettin, NCO Ahmet and Harun Aça, and an additional
    statement from Halise Acar. He further informed the Ministry that, as it was possible
    that Mehmet Salih Acar had been kidnapped, letters had been written to the central
    police and gendarmerie authorities requesting that Mehmet Salih Acar be found.
    119.  On 20 October 1995 the Bismil public prosecutor requested the public prosecutors
    in Derik and Mazıdağı to summon and take a statement from Harun Aça in relation
    to the disappearance of Mehmet Salih Acar. 120.  On 3 November 1995 the Bismil
    gendarmerie district command informed the Bismil public prosecutor of the current
    address of Captain İzzet Cural. 121.  On 6 November 1995 the Bismil gendarmerie
    district command informed the Bismil public prosecutor that, in response to his
    request of 16 October 1995, Sergeant Ahmet Uyar had been sent to his office. In
    a statement of the same day to the Bismil public prosecutor, Ahmet Uyar declared,
    in his capacity as a person suspected of an offence, that he had no information
    about the incident and that he had not witnessed it. He had taken up his duties
    at the Bismil district gendarmerie eight days before the incident took place.
    The person who had served before him was Sergeant Ahmet Korkmaz, who had been
    killed by the PKK. Ahmet Babayiğit had also served before him, but had had a road
    accident and was currently on sick leave. Ahmet Uyar denied having been involved
    in the incident and stated that he did not know the person mentioned by the public
    prosecutor. 122.  On 10 November 1995 the Mazıdağı gendarmerie district command
    informed the Mazıdağı public prosecutor that Harun Aça did not serve at that command.
    123.  On 16 November 1995 the Bismil gendarmerie district command informed the
    Bismil public prosecutor of the current address of Harun Aça, who had been found
    to serve at the Derik gendarmerie district command. 124.  On 23 November 1995
    Harun Aca made a statement at the Bismil gendarmerie central command, in which
    he declared that he had left Ambar in 1988. He had later joined the PKK until
    he had surrendered himself voluntarily on 4 April 1994 to the Derik gendarmerie
    district command. Owing to his participation in military anti-terrorist operations
    as a guide, it was impossible for him to return to Ambar. He had only done so
    on very rare occasions and for reasons of security had then always stayed on the
    premises of the Bismil gendarmerie district command. His parents, his spouse and
    family lived in Ambar. They did not have a hostile relationship with the other
    families living there, but owing to his personal position his family had become
    a PKK target. He confirmed that Mehmet Salim Acar and his family also lived in
    Ambar, but he had not seen them since 1988 and no longer had any contact with
    them. For security reasons, he would only enter and leave Ambar during the day
    and in secret, and was particularly careful not to be seen by anyone. He denied
    having given any information about Mehmet Salih Acar to gendarmerie captain İzzet
    Cural or to NCO Ahmet, as he had had no mission to Bismil and did not know what
    was going on there. The PKK had incurred many losses in the provinces of Mardin
    and Şırnak on the basis of information provided by him and he was convinced that
    the PKK had organised the abduction as a result of those losses. He further denied
    having apprehended anyone with the assistance of gendarmes serving in the Bismil
    district. In any event, he had no such powers. His function was limited to giving
    information to the security forces, which he could not provide in respect of the
    Bismil district or even the Diyarbakır province as he did not have any. 125.  Also
    on 23 November 1995 Harun Aca, in his capacity as a person suspected of an offence,
    made a similar statement to the Bismil public prosecutor. In addition, Harun Aca
    declared that he had a document proving that he had participated in an operation
    conducted in the Kelmehmet mountains near Mardin between 19 July and 6 September
    1994, and submitted, inter alia, a letter of commendation from the command of
    the Mardin gendarmerie commando battalion at Kızıltepe certifying that he had
    participated in an operation conducted between 19 July and 20 August 1994 in the
    Şırnak and Mount Cudi area. He again denied that he had provided any information
    to Captain İzzet or NCO Ahmet and maintained that he knew nothing about the disappearance
    of Mehmet Salim Acar, whom he had not seen since 1988. 126.  On 30 November 1995
    the Bismil public prosecutor requested the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor to summon
    and take a statement from Captain İzzet Cural in relation to the applicant''s
    claim that his brother Mehmet Salih Acar had been abducted in August 1994 by Captain
    İzzettin and NCO Ahmet of the Bismil gendarmerie on the basis of information provided
    by Harun Aça. 127.  On 19 December 1995 the Bismil public prosecutor requested
    the Bismil gendarmerie command to provide him with the current address of Sergeant
    Ahmet Babayiğit for the purposes of obtaining a statement from him. On 25 December
    1995 Captain İrfan Odabaş, the Bismil gendarmerie district commander, provided
    the Bismil public prosecutor with Ahmet Babayiğit''s current address. 128.  On
    27 December 1995 Captain İzzet Cural, in his capacity as a person suspected of
    an offence, made a statement to the Ankara public prosecutor Osman Aşrafoğlu in
    which he declared that, in response to a report that Mehmet Salih Acar had been
    abducted, an investigation by the gendarmerie had been carried out which had not
    resulted in finding the abducted person or in identifying the perpetrators. He
    further stated that he did not know where Mehmet Salih Acar currently was. 129.  On
    8 January 1996 the Bismil public prosecutor took a further statement from Halise
    Acar, who maintained the account contained in her previous statement and complaint.
    She added that, three days before his disappearance, her husband had had a quarrel
    with Mehmet Aça about a water pump. Mehmet Aça was the brother of Harun Aça, a
    former PKK member who had later joined the security forces, for whom he was still
    working. That is why she believed that her husband had been taken away by the
    security forces acting on instructions given by Harun Aça. 130.  On 9 January
    1996 the Bismil public prosecutor requested the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor
    to summon and take a statement from Ahmet Babayiğit in relation to the applicant''s
    claim that his brother Mehmet Salih Acar had been abducted in August 1994 by Captain
    İzzettin and NCO Ahmet of the Bismil gendarmerie on the basis of information provided
    by Harun Aça. 131.  On 26 January 1996 Captain İrfan Odabaş, the Bismil gendarmerie
    district commander, informed the Bismil public prosecutor, in reply to his request
    of 16 October 1995, that no officers or NCOs called Ahmet were currently serving
    under his command. Captain Odabaş further informed the Bismil public prosecutor
    that the expert gendarmerie sergeant Ahmet Uyar had been ordered to report to
    the public prosecutor''s office as he was present, that the expert sergeant Ahmet
    Babayiğit was currently on sick leave and that Ahmet Korkmaz had been killed on
    31 October 1994 in an armed clash in Bismil. 132.  On 5 February 1996, at the
    request of the Bismil public prosecutor, Ahmet Babayiğit made a statement at Dikmen
    police station to the police constable Mehmet Cabbar. He declared that he knew
    nothing about the alleged abduction of Mehmet Salih Acar by Captain İzzettin and
    NCO Ahmet of the Bismil gendarmerie apparently acting on instructions given by
    Harun Aça. He did not remember any incident of that nature. He further stated
    that he did not at present remember the persons named Captain İzzettin and NCO
    Ahmet. 133.  In a certified document, dated 25 February 1996 and signed by the
    Mardin gendarmerie commando battalion commander Major Hurşit İmren, it is stated
    that Harun Aça, who had been serving as a village guard under the orders of the
    Derik gendarmerie district command since 27 May 1994, had participated in operations
    carried out from 19 July to 6 September 1994 by the Mardin gendarmerie commando
    battalion command in the Şırnak province and the Kelmehmet mountains. 134.  In
    the Bismil public prosecutor''s decision of non-jurisdiction of 17 June 1996,
    the stated offence is abuse of authority. Mehmet Salih Acar is mentioned as the
    victim of this offence, Hüsna and Halise Acar and the applicant as the complainants,
    and the gendarmes İzzet Cural and Ahmet Babayiğit and the village guard Harun
    Aça as the accused. Since, at the material time, İzzet Cural and Ahmet Babayiğit
    were serving at the Bismil gendarmerie and Harun Aça was working with the gendarmerie,
    the Bismil public prosecutor held that he was not competent to deal with the matter
    and that, pursuant to section 15(3) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no.
    3713 of 12 April 1991), the case was to be determined by the Diyarbakır Provincial
    Administrative Council.

    (c)  Proceedings before the Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council 135.  On
    26 June 1996 the Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council transmitted the
    decision of non-jurisdiction of 17 June 1996 and the relevant case file on the
    preliminary investigation carried out by the Bismil public prosecutor to the Diyarbakır
    provincial gendarmerie command, requesting it to examine the facts on which this
    decision was based, to conduct – if necessary – an investigation and to communicate
    the results thereof. 136.  On 24 September 1996, in connection with the applicant''s
    petition of 27 July 1995 (see paragraphs 90 and 111 above), Captain İrfan Odabaş
    took a statement from Harun Aça who declared that between 19 July and 6 September
    1994 he had participated in the security forces'' operations in the provinces
    of Şırnak and Mardin. He denied the accusation against him, stating that he had
    nothing to do with the matter and that he had no information about it. He added
    that, since he had taken up his duties with the gendarmerie, he had only been
    able to go on leave when given permission to do so and that his leave record could
    be checked at his duty station. 137.  On 9 December 1996, in connection with the
    applicant''s petition of 27 July 1995, İrfan Odabaş took statements from İlhan
    Ezer, İhsan Acar, Hüsna Acar and Halise Acar. 138.  İlhan Ezer made the following
    statement:

    “On the day of the incident I was eating lunch in the field below Ambar with Mehmet
    Salih Acar, who has been abducted. A grey Renault TX-model car without licence
    plates with two people in it drove towards us. They asked for our identity cards.
    After looking at them, they returned my card, but did not return that of my friend
    Mehmet Salih Acar. They told us to get into the car. I said that I definitely
    would not get into a car belonging to people I did not know. Mehmet Salih Acar
    got into the car without making any objection. The men said: ''Mehmet Salih will
    show us a field. We will bring him back'', and they drove off towards Ambar. I
    then asked Mehmet Salih''s son whether he knew the men. He said ''No'', so I told
    him to go to the village and tell the people that strangers had taken his father
    away. The child went to the village. I know Captain İzzet and NCO Ahmet very well.
    If I saw them in the village, I would recognise them. The men who came were definitely
    not them. If they had been, I would have recognised them. I had not seen the men
    who abducted Mehmet Salih Acar before and did not recognise them. One was about
    25 to 26 years old and the other 18 to 20. Both were wearing hats and the older
    one was wearing glasses and had a moustache.” 139.  İhsan Acar''s statement to
    İrfan Odabaş reads:

    “On the day of the incident I was working with my father in the field we leased.
    Our neighbour İlhan Gezer was working alongside us on his own land. We had gone
    under a tree in our field to eat our lunch, but there was a distance of about
    ten metres between my father and myself. Then a grey Renault without licence plates
    with two people in it came towards us. It stopped by my father. İlhan Gezer also
    came over. They began to talk to the two of them. I was watching because I was
    further away. They asked my father and Uncle İlhan for their identity cards. They
    then returned İlhan Gezer''s card. The conversation between them was in Turkish.
    Then, they took my father towards Ambar. There was no argument or struggle when
    they took him away. The men who came had a Kalashnikov rifle. They wore hats and
    the older one had a moustache. Then İlhan Gezer asked me if I knew them. After
    answering that I did not know them, I ran to inform the village. Since that day
    we have not heard anything from my father.” 140.  Hüsna Acar made the following
    statement:

    “Mehmet Salim Acar is my son. He has been missing since the date of the incident.
    I have no direct knowledge of the disappearance of my son Mehmet Salim Acar. I
    only know what my grandson İhsan Acar told me when we came to the village on the
    day of the incident. I do not know anything more than this. I do not know who
    abducted my son Mehmet Salim Acar or for what reason. I do not think that the
    gendarmerie took my son. The only thing that I want from my State is for my son
    to be found dead or alive and to be handed over to me. Apart from this, I have
    no complaint against Captain İzzet or Expert Sergeant Ahmet. I do not know these
    people and I have no feelings of animosity towards them. Because my son is not
    a terrorist, we had not had any dealings with the gendarmerie until then. I want
    those who abducted my son to be found and punished. Apart from that, I do not
    wish to complain about anyone.” 141.  Halise Acar made the following statement
    to İrfan Odabaş:

    “Mehmet Salim Acar, who has gone missing, is my husband. On the day of the incident
    he had gone to work in the field with my son İhsan Acar. My son later came running
    back to the house saying that Mehmet Salim Acar had been made to get into a car
    by two people whom he did not know and had driven off towards Ambar. I did not
    see the abduction of my husband Mehmet Salim Acar myself. I do not know who took
    my husband or why. We have been unable to get any news from him. All I want from
    the State is that they find my husband dead or alive and hand him over to me.
    I am making a formal complaint against those who abducted my husband. But I have
    no complaint against Captain İzzet or Expert Sergeant Ahmet as I do not believe
    that they abducted my husband. At the moment I am living with my mother-in-law
    and her daughter at [address]. My mother-in-law''s son Tahsin Acar works in Sweden
    and has filed various petitions in order to find my husband.” 142.  On 10 December
    1996 the applicant wrote a letter to the President of the Diyarbakır Provincial
    Administrative Council, claiming that his brother Mehmet Salim Acar had been taken
    into detention by Captain İzzet Cural and Sergeant Ahmet Korkmaz on the basis
    of incorrect information provided by Harun Aca. The applicant further stated that
    an officer of the anti-terrorism branch of the Diyarbakır police had investigated
    the case in July 1995 and that the Bismil gendarmerie had admitted that his brother
    was being held by them. However, Captain İzzet Cural had later told this police
    officer that the person who was detained was not Mehmet Salim Acar but someone
    called Mahmut Acar, from Nusaybin. The applicant also described a telephone conversation
    he had had on 22 September 1995 with Captain İrfan Odabaş, who had replaced Captain
    İzzet as commander of the Bismil gendarmerie and who had asked the applicant whether
    a ransom had been demanded. The applicant had told Captain Odabaş that no such
    demand had been made, but that he would be willing to pay a ransom. On 27 September
    1995 the applicant''s family had been contacted by someone demanding a ransom
    in exchange for his brother''s release. On 5 October 1996 another person – identified
    by the applicant as Namık Keser, from Diyarbakır – contacted the family and said
    that Mehmet Salim Acar was being held by the Diyarbakır gendarmerie and would
    be released if the applicant agreed to work as an informer for the authorities,
    which the applicant refused to do. 143.  On 25 December 1996 İrfan Odabaş took
    a statement from Ahmet Babayiğit, who declared that he had not seen the abduction
    of Mehmet Salim Acar and that he knew nothing about it. 144.  On 1 January 1997
    İrfan Odabaş took a statement from Captain İzzet Cural, who declared:

    “We received a report that Mehmet Salim Acar from Ambar, which lies within our
    command''s jurisdiction, had been abducted by unidentified persons. I was at the
    unit centre when the report was received. I immediately gave the necessary information
    to the authorities concerned. We started to conduct the necessary searches at
    the entrances to and the exits from Bismil and Ambar, but we could not find the
    men in question. I do not know who abducted Mehmet Salim Acar or for what purpose.
    In spite of all our searches, we were unable to find the perpetrators or the victim.
    As a result of our search and investigation in and around the village, we established
    that he had been abducted by two persons, but we were unable to establish their
    identities. We definitely did not apprehend or detain this man, as alleged. It
    has still not been possible to obtain any information about the abduction of Mehmet
    Salim Acar.” 145.  İrfan Odabaş submitted the report on his investigation to the
    Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council on 15 January 1997. The report names
    Tahsin Acar as the complainant, İzzet Cural, Ahmet Babayiğit and Harun Aca as
    the persons accused of the offence of abuse of authority, and İlhan Ezer, Halise
    Acar, İhsan Acar and Hüsna Acar as witnesses. The report contains, inter alia,
    a summary of the statements taken from the accused and the witnesses, and Captain
    Odabaş''s advisory opinion that the applicant''s claims remained unsubstantiated
    and found no support in the statements obtained, which indicated that the accused
    had not been involved. He therefore concluded that there was no need to open a
    judicial or administrative inquiry and that a decision not to prosecute would
    be appropriate. 146.  In its unanimous decision of 23 January 1997, in which Hüsna
    Acar is named as the complainant, and Captain İzzet Cural, NCO Ahmet Babayiğit
    and Harun Aca as defendants, the Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council
    found that the accusation of abuse of authority allegedly committed by former
    Bismil gendarmerie district commander Captain İzzet Cural, NCO Ahmet Babayiğit
    and temporary village guard Harun Aca by having abducted Mehmet Salih Acar in
    August 1994 was not supported by evidence against the defendants that could be
    regarded as sufficient for instituting proceedings against them. It therefore
    decided to reject the request to take proceedings, in accordance with section
    5 of the Law on the prosecution of civil servants and Article 164 of the Turkish
    Code of Criminal Procedure. 147.  In its unanimous decision of 14 January 2000,
    following ex officio appeal proceedings, the Second Division of the Supreme Administrative
    Court held that the evidence available was insufficient to send the defendants
    for trial and thus upheld the decision of 23 January 1997 by the Diyarbakır Provincial
    Administrative Council.

    (d)  Other domestic investigations 148.  On 24 August 1995 Minister Algan Hacaloğlu
    informed the applicant that his petition of 26 July 1995 (see paragraph 89 above)
    had been transmitted to the Diyarbakır Provincial Governor. 149.  On 8 September
    1995, on the basis of the applicant''s allegations set out in his petition of
    26 July 1995, statements were taken from İhsan Acar, İlhan Ezer, Halise Acar and
    Hüsna Acar at the Bismil central gendarmerie command. 150.  İhsan Acar made the
    following statement:

    “I live in the village of Ambar with my family. Tahsin Acar is my paternal uncle.
    Mehmet Salim Acar is my father. Last summer we were irrigating the cotton field.
    I, my father and İlhan Ezer from the village of Üçtepe decided to take a break
    for lunch in the shade of a tree. A car approached us. It was a dark grey or grey
    Renault car without licence plates. It stopped near to us. Two men got out of
    the car. One was short and wearing a hat. The other one was young, tall and wearing
    a hat and glasses. They asked my father and İlhan from Üçtepe to show their identity
    cards. They refused, saying: ''We will not show you our identity cards because
    we do not know who you are.'' The two men replied that they were from the police.
    So my father and İlhan showed them their identity cards. The two men looked at
    the cards and gave İlhan his card back. They did not give my father his card back.
    They spoke to us in Turkish. They said to my father: ''Get into the car with us,
    you will show us a field.'' They made my father get into the car by force. They
    told me: ''We will bring your father back in half an hour.'' They left and did
    not come back. I ran home to warn my mother and I told her what had happened.
    My mother left in order to tell the muhtar about what had happened. ... I had
    never seen those men before. I have never seen them in the area. They do not resemble
    any person living in my village. Moreover, they never got out of the taxi. It
    was my father and İlhan who approached the car in order to talk to them. They
    were not military or gendarmes. They both had moustaches. They had weapons under
    the seats of the car. Afterwards, we went to the Bismil tribunal and made statements.
    A search for my father was begun, but, to date, it has not led to any news from
    him.” 151.  İlhan Ezer declared:

    “I live in the village of Üçtepe. I do not share any property with Mehmet Salim
    Acar, but we have a cotton field in the village of Ambar. We planted cotton in
    the same place as him. I do not know his brother Tahsin Acar. I only heard his
    name in connection with the letter in question. This is what I can tell you about
    the events. In August last year I was irrigating the cotton we had planted. I
    went in the shade of a tree to have lunch. I noticed a dark grey-coloured taxi
    coming from the direction of Ambar. The vehicle had no licence plates. It stopped
    near to us. I was with Mehmet Salim Acar and his son. We were asked to show our
    identity cards. We refused, as we did not know these two men. A discussion took
    place between us and the two men, but we still did not show our identity cards.
    They said they were policemen. So we asked them to show us their police identity
    papers. They did not do so. They took our identity cards and told us that they
    would give them back. They looked at them and asked us to get into the car. We
    did not get into the car. They forced us, but I continued to refuse to get in.
    I noticed that at that moment Mehmet Salim Acar kept silent, he did not speak.
    They returned my identity card to me and the card of Mehmet Salim Acar. Subsequently,
    Mehmet got into the car. They told me: ''Your friend will accompany us to a field
    and then he will come back.'' He left and did not return. I had never seen those
    two men before. They were dressed in civilian clothes. I did not know them. They
    were both wearing hats[5]. I had never seen them before in the area. ... The two
    men were not officers of the Bismil gendarmerie district command. As I have already
    pointed out, I had never seen them before. Nor had Mehmet Salim Acar; he did not
    behave as if he knew them.” 152.  Halise Acar stated that on the day in question
    her husband Mehmet Salim Acar and their son İhsan had left in the morning to work
    in a field close to the neighbouring village of Sarıtoprak. Around noon, her son
    had come running home, telling her that his father had been taken away in a car
    without licence plates. He also told her that there had been two men in the car.
    Halise Acar further stated that this Renault taxi had already been seen several
    times in the village. Her daughter had told her that she had seen her father in
    that car on the Dicle river bank and that she had thought that he was going somewhere.
    Halise Acar lastly stated that her family had alerted all the administrative authorities
    and the Bismil gendarmerie that her husband had disappeared, that they had made
    statements about the matter to the Bismil public prosecutor and that her husband
    had been searched for but without any results to date. 153.  Hüsna Acar declared
    that she was the mother of Mehmet Salim Acar, that she was living with his family
    and that, in August 1994, her son had left in the morning to irrigate the cotton
    field. Her grandson, who had accompanied Mehmet Salim, had come running home around
    noon, saying that a car had stopped close to his father, that he had been told
    that they were going to look at a field and that they would return, that he had
    waited for an hour and that nobody had come back. Hüsna Acar further stated that
    nothing had been heard from her son since, that the Bismil gendarmerie had been
    informed and that the Bismil public prosecutor had summoned and questioned her
    and her relatives. 154.  On 3 October 1995 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting
    on the Commission''s decision of 4 September 1995 (see paragraph 4 above), requested
    the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior to gather and transmit
    information about the case of Mehmet Acar who, according to his brother Tahsin
    Acar, had been forcibly taken away by plain-clothes police officers and placed
    in detention. The respective ministries were requested to inform the Ministry
    of Foreign Affairs whether Mehmet Acar had been taken into detention, whether
    any proceedings had been taken against him and, if not, whether there were indications
    that he had been abducted by or joined the PKK. 155.  By a letter of 22 November
    1995, the Diyarbakır Provincial Governor, Mehmet Doğan Hatıpoğlu, informed the
    Ministry of the Interior that an investigation into the facts alleged by the applicant
    had been carried out. The conclusions of this investigation were that Mehmet Selim
    Acar had not been apprehended by Captain İzzet Cural and NCO Ahmet Korkmaz (deceased
    in the meantime) or by Hasan Acar. No mention of a taking into custody of Mehmet
    Selim Acar had been found in the custody records of the Bismil gendarmerie district
    command. The victim had been abducted by two unknown persons claiming to be policemen
    in a dark grey-coloured taxi without licence plates. The subsequent investigation
    of these leads had not led to any results. The matter had been raised before the
    judicial authorities and the Bismil public prosecutor had conducted the necessary
    investigations. The two eyewitnesses to the incident, İhsan Acar (Mehmet Selim
    Acar''s son) and İlhan Ezer had made statements in which they had declared that
    they did not know the identities of the persons who had abducted Mehmet Selim
    Acar, that they knew gendarmerie captain İzzet Cural as well as the other officers
    of the gendarmerie, and that the two men who had abducted Mehmet Selim Acar were
    certainly not gendarmes. The Governor finally stated that Tahsin Acar''s other
    allegations concerning the detention of his brother at the Bismil gendarmerie
    command thus remained wholly unfounded. 156.  In a letter dated “November 1995”,
    the Diyarbakır gendarmerie regional commander, referring to a letter of the General
    Gendarmerie Command of 7 November 1995 and a letter of the provincial gendarmerie
    command of 24 November 1995, informed the applicant – in reply to a complaint
    filed by Hüsna Acar and/or the applicant to the General Gendarmerie Command (see
    paragraph 92 above) – that, according to the results of an investigation that
    had been carried out, Mehmet Selim Acar had not been apprehended by gendarmes
    but had been abducted in a car without licence plates by two unknown persons claiming
    to be plain-clothes policemen. 157.  Appended to this letter were statements taken
    from İhsan Acar and İlhan Ezer, who had seen the incident, including a certified
    statement made by İlhan Ezer on 25 October 1995 to the Bismil notary public. This
    statement reads:

    “While we were working in the cotton field situated within the boundaries of the
    village of Ambar in the district of Bismil, province of Diyarbakır, we took shelter
    in the shade of a tree in order to take a rest. A taxi arrived from the direction
    of Ambar. It was a Renault TX-model car without licence plates. Mehmet Salim Acar,
    his son İhsan Acar and I were sitting in the shade. We were asked to show our
    identity cards. We refused. The men then announced that they were policemen and
    took our identity cards. After looking at them, they gave them back. They asked
    us to get into the car. İhsan Acar and I were not willing to get into the car.
    Mehmet Salih Acar got into the car without objecting. They told us: ''Your friend
    is going to accompany us to a field and he will return later.'' We have not had
    any news from our friend since then. I had never seen the men who arrived in the
    car before, I do not know them. It is being said that they were gendarmerie captain
    İzzet Cural and NCO Ahmet, of the central gendarmerie. I know these two men personally;
    they are not the ones who abducted my friend.” 158.  On 18 December 1995, in reply
    to the petition filed by Hüsna Acar and/or the applicant (see paragraph 92 above),
    the President of the Investigation Commission for Human Rights of the Turkish
    Grand National Assembly informed the applicant that the petition registered under
    no. 4467/2872 had been examined. The Governor of Diyarbakır had conducted an investigation
    into the matter, in the course of which statements had been taken from İlhan Ezer
    and İhsan Acar, who had both stated that gendarmerie captain İzzet Gürlo and NCO
    Ahmet Korkmaz had not taken Mehmet Salim Acar away but that he had been abducted
    by two unknown men claiming to be police officers, who had made him get into a
    car without licence plates. The applicant was further informed that an investigation
    had been opened by the Bismil public prosecutor and was still ongoing. 159.  In
    a letter of 14 May 1996 sent by fax, apparently on the basis of the applicant''s
    reply of 20 March 1996 to the observations submitted by the Government to the
    Commission (see paragraph 4 above), the Ministry of Justice requested the Bismil
    public prosecutor to examine the various allegations set out in this reply of
    20 March 1996. 160.  On the same day the Bismil public prosecutor informed the
    Ministry of Justice that the investigation into the incident referred to by the
    applicant had been registered under no. 1994/445 in the preliminary investigation
    register at the Bismil public prosecutor''s office. He further informed the Ministry
    that, in the course of this investigation, statements had been taken from the
    complainants Halise and Hüsna Acar, from the witnesses İhsan Acar and İlhan Ezer,
    and from the accused, Sergeant Ahmet Uyar, former Bismil gendarmerie commander
    İzzet Cural and Harun Aça, and that a request for judicial assistance had been
    sent to the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor for the purposes of obtaining a statement
    from Ahmet Babayiğit. The Bismil public prosecutor lastly stated that, upon receipt
    of Ahmet Babayiğit''s statement, he would issue a decision. 161.  On 21 August
    1996 the Ministry of the Interior transmitted Hüsna Acar''s petition of 5 August
    1996 (see paragraph 95 above) to the Diyarbakır police headquarters, requesting
    the latter to investigate the allegations set out in the petition, to institute
    the required proceedings and to communicate the results of the investigation to
    the Ministry of the Interior and to Hüsna Acar. 162.  On 29 August 1996, referring
    to an order of 21 August 1996, the Diyarbakır police headquarters informed the
    Bismil District Governor that Hüsna Acar''s daughter Meliha Dal was living in
    Diyarbakır and transmitted a statement that had been taken from her on 29 August
    1996 in connection with the petition filed with the Ministry of the Interior on
    5 August 1996 by Hüsna Acar. 163.  In her statement Meliha Dal declared that she
    had lived in Diyarbakır for seven years. She stated that Mehmet Açan, who – like
    her older brother Mehmet Salim Acar – was living in Ambar, had had a quarrel with
    her brother in the café about a water pump in the course of which Mehmet Açan
    had threatened her brother with “disappearance” within three days. Three days
    later the Bismil gendarmerie station commander, Captain İzzettin, and another
    person had come to the village in a car without licence plates and asked for Mehmet
    Salim Acar. He was told that Mehmet Salim was in the cotton field. Captain İzzettin
    had then gone to the cotton field, where her brother was with his son İhsan Acar
    and a man called İlhan. Captain İzzettin asked Mehmet Salim Acar to show him the
    way to a place, made Mehmet Salim get into the car and left. Nothing had been
    heard from Mehmet Salim since. According to Meliha Dal, Captain İzzettin had handed
    Mehmet Salim Acar over to the brothers Mehmet and Harun Açan in return for money.
    Her mother Hüsna and her sister-in-law Halise knew this but, as Captain İzzettin
    was involved and as he was a State official, they could not tell the truth as
    they were frightened of being killed as well. Meliha Dal had heard from them what
    she was now stating. 164.  By a letter of 25 December 1996, sent in reply to Hüsna
    Acar''s petition of 11 December 1996 (see paragraph 99 above), the Office of the
    President of Turkey informed Hüsna Acar that an instruction had been issued to
    the Batman Provincial Governor to investigate her claim and to inform the Office
    of the President of the result of the investigation. Her petition was transmitted
    to the Batman Provincial Governor on 27 December 1996.

    On 2 January 1997 the Office of the Prime Minister wrote a letter with a similar
    content to Hüsna Acar in respect of another petition she had sent on 11 December
    1996. 165.  On 17 January 1997 the office of the Governor of Diyarbakır informed
    Meliha Dal, in reply to her petition of 25 November 1996 (see paragraph 97 above),
    that an investigation had been conducted. According to the findings of this investigation,
    Mehmet Selim Acar had been abducted from his field in July 1994 by two unknown
    armed persons. The gendarmerie district command had been informed about the matter
    and had carried out an investigation. According to statements obtained from witnesses,
    the two perpetrators were unknown in the region. The witnesses further specified
    that they personally knew Captain İzzet Cural, NCO Ahmet Korkmaz and Harun Aca
    and that these three men were definitely not among the perpetrators. When the
    Bismil gendarmerie command had been informed of the abduction, it was Captain
    İzzet Cural himself who had given the necessary instructions, and the investigation
    conducted by the Bismil public prosecutor was currently ongoing. 166.  On 16 February
    2000 Meliha Dal informed the Diyarbakır public prosecutor that she had seen her
    brother Mehmet Salih Acar on an NTV news broadcast on 3 February 2000. Her brother''s
    name and surname had been mentioned in this broadcast. It was reported that her
    brother and two others had been apprehended in Diyarbakır and taken into detention
    in Muş. She requested the Diyarbakır public prosecutor to investigate the matter
    and to inform her whether her brother was alive or dead. She sent an identical
    petition to the Governor of Diyarbakır on 18 February 2000. 167.  On 24 March
    2000 the applicant submitted a petition to the President of Turkey in relation
    to the disappearance of his brother Mehmet Salim Acar. In this petition, the applicant
    stated that, in the NTV news broadcast on 3 February 2000 around 11 p.m., it had
    been reported that three persons had been apprehended and taken into detention
    in Muş and that one of them was called Mehmet Salih Acar. His family had then
    applied to the Bismil police, the Bismil public prosecutor, the Governor of Diyarbakır,
    the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır National Security Court, the Diyarbakır
    anti-terrorism police authorities and the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie authorities.
    They were told by the anti-terrorism branch that Mehmet Salim Acar did not wish
    to see them and they were not given any information about his whereabouts or his
    condition. The applicant requested the President to intervene in order to find
    out what had happened to his brother. 168.  In a written statement dated 27 March
    2000, Meliha Dal declared that she had gone to the Bismil public prosecutor to
    enquire about her brother Mehmet Salim Acar. She was told that three men by the
    name of Mehmet Salim Acar had been apprehended but that their particulars (parents''
    names, date and place of birth) did not match those of her brother. When she left
    the public prosecutor''s office, the latter''s clerk, Mehdi, told her that her
    brother was alive, that he was in the hands of the State and that he had been
    sent into exile. He further told her that they had scared her brother by threatening
    to destroy his family and that this was why he was concealing himself from them.
    169.  By a letter of 18 April 2000, Meliha Dal informed the Diyarbakır public
    prosecutor that two men had been sent to her house and that she had made statements
    about having seen her brother on television and having heard his name on television
    during a news broadcast in which it was reported that three men had been apprehended
    in Muş. The public prosecutor had, on her behalf, written and sent a petition
    to Muş. The public prosecutor had said at the end of their meeting that, as far
    as he understood, her brother was in the hands of the authorities in Muş. 170.  By
    a letter of 19 April 2000, the applicant''s representative informed the European
    Court of Human Rights that Meliha Dal, Hüsna Acar and Halise Acar had been watching
    the news on NTV on 3 February 2000 around 11 p.m. when the newsreader announced
    that four men had been apprehended in Diyarbakır, one of whom was named as Mehmet
    Selim Acar. Pictures of the apprehended men had been shown and they had recognised
    Mehmet Selim Acar as one of them. The women had continued to watch television
    all night and they had seen him again the following day at 8 a.m. The applicant''s
    representative further informed the Court that, on 4 February 2000, the three
    women had gone to the Bismil public prosecutor to report their sighting on television
    of Mehmet Selim Acar and that, on 16 February 2000, Meliha Dal had filed a petition
    about the matter with the Diyarbakır public prosecutor and, on 18 February 2000,
    with the Governor of Diyabakir. The family had further attempted to obtain a video
    recording of the NTV news broadcast of 3 February 2000, but without success. Referring
    to the applicant''s petition of 24 March 2000 to the President of Turkey, the
    applicant''s representative finally informed the Court that, so far, no information
    had been obtained from the authorities contacted by the applicant about the whereabouts
    of Mehmet Selim Acar. 171.  Appended to this letter were, inter alia, Meliha Dal''s
    petitions of 16 and 18 February 2000 (see paragraph 166 above), a statement dated
    23 March 2000 in which Meliha Dal had declared that she had seen her missing brother
    on television on 3 February 2000, the applicant''s petition of 24 March 2000 (see
    paragraph 167 above), Meliha Dal''s statement of 27 March 2000 (see paragraph
    168 above), an undated statement by Meliha Dal in which she declared that she
    had seen her brother Mehmet Salim Acar on a television news broadcast on 1 February
    2000 around 11 p.m. and 2 February 2000 around 8 a.m., an undated statement by
    Halise Acar stating that she had seen her husband Mehmet Salih Acar on television
    one day, and an undated statement by Hüsna Acar stating that, quite a long while
    after his disappearance, she had seen her son Mehmet Salih Acar on television.
    172.  On 28 April 2000, having taken note of the letter of 19 April 2000 and the
    appended documents, the Court requested the Government to submit a copy of the
    NTV news broadcasts referred to by the applicant''s representative, to confirm
    that Mehmet Salim Acar had in fact been shown and named during these broadcasts,
    to inform the Court of the circumstances of Mehmet Salim Acar''s arrest, and to
    confirm whether he was currently being detained and, if so, to indicate in which
    detention facility. 173.  By a letter of 22 May 2000, in response to the Court''s
    request of 28 April 2000, the Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor informed the
    Ministry of Justice that a person named Mehmet Selim Acar (son of Süleyman and
    Pevruze, born in 1965 in Sivrice) had been detained on 9 December 1996 and was
    currently serving a prison sentence in Gaziantep, and that a person named Salih
    Acar (son of Musa and Besnadan, born in 1979 in Batman) had been detained on 19
    April 2000 and was currently being held in pre-trial detention in Batman. 174.  On
    30 May 2000, in response to the complaint filed by Meliha Dal, the Diyarbakır
    public prosecutor decided not to open an investigation. This decision reads:

    “The complainant stated in her petition that her brother had disappeared six years
    ago and that nothing had been heard from him since, that she recognised one of
    the men shown on a news programme in February about persons apprehended during
    operations conducted against the terrorist organisation Hizbullah, that this man''s
    name was the same as her brother''s, and that she wished to be given the opportunity
    to watch a video recording [of the news broadcast] so that she could identify
    her brother.

    It has been stated in the Muş Chief Public Prosecutor''s decision of non-jurisdiction
    dated 2 May 2000 that the person detained in the province of Muş – a man called
    Mehmet Salih Acar, born in 1964 and the son of Yahya and Ayşe – is not the complainant''s
    brother, and it appears from the above decision of non-jurisdiction and from the
    register of births that the person detained in Muş, who was put on trial by the
    Chief Public Prosecutor of the Van National Security Court, is not the complainant''s
    brother.

    It is therefore concluded, in accordance with Article 164 of the Code of Criminal
    Procedure and subject to the right of appeal, that there is no basis for pursuing
    the matter ...” 175.  On 6 July 2000 the Government informed the Court that the
    person apprehended and named in the NTV news broadcast was not the applicant''s
    brother and that there were several persons in detention with similar names to
    the applicant''s brother. According to the Government, it was in all probability
    a case of a confusion of names. 176.  On 13 July 2000 the Court reminded the Government
    of its still outstanding request of 28 April 2000 to be given the video recording
    of the NTV news broadcast referred to by the applicant''s representative. 177.  In
    a statement dated 28 September 2000, submitted to the Court on 4 October 2000,
    Meliha Dal declared that she had seen her brother Mehmet Salim Acar in an NTV
    news broadcast on 2 February 2000 at 8 p.m. and 3 February 2000 at 8 a.m. 178.  On
    18 October 2000 the Court requested the applicant''s representative also to submit
    a video recording of the news broadcast referred to by the applicant''s relatives.
    179.  By a letter of 24 January 2001, the NTV administration informed the applicant''s
    representative that it could not grant his request. The required footage could
    only be made available upon a request made by the applicant himself. On the same
    day the applicant sent by fax a request to the NTV administration to be provided
    with a video recording of the NTV news programmes broadcast on 2 February 2000
    at 11 p.m. and 3 February 2000 at 8 a.m. 180.  In the meantime, on 17 January
    2001, the Government had submitted to the Court a video recording containing the
    NTV news broadcasts of 3 February 2000 at 11 a.m. and 11 p.m. 181.  On 16 February
    2001 the applicant sent a reminder of his request of 24 January 2001 to the NTV
    administration, explaining that the video recording submitted by the Government
    to the Court did not contain the relevant news broadcasts. 182.  On 20 February
    2001 the applicant informed the Court that the video recording submitted by the
    Government did not contain the relevant news broadcasts, namely, those of 2 February
    2000 at 11 p.m. and 3 February 2000 at 8 a.m. 183.  On 26 February 2001 the Court
    requested both parties to submit a video recording containing the NTV news broadcasts
    of 2 February 2000 at 11 p.m. and 3 February 2000 at 8 a.m. 184.  On 30 March
    2001 the applicant informed the NTV administration that he had received the video
    recordings of the NTV news broadcasts of 2 February 2000 at 11 p.m. and 3 February
    2000 at 8 a.m., but that these did not contain the relevant news item. He requested
    the NTV administration to search for the news item reporting the arrest of four
    men in Diyarbakır and their subsequent taking into detention in Muş or Van in
    the television news programmes broadcast between 31 January 2000 and 6 February
    2000. 185.  By a letter of 2 May 2001, in reply to a request made by the Government
    in April 2001, a lawyer employed by NTV informed the Government that their request
    to be provided with a copy of the NTV news programmes broadcast on 2 February
    2000 at 11 p.m. and 3 February 2000 at 8 a.m. could not be met as it concerned
    broadcasts of more than one year ago. It was pointed out that, under section 28
    of Law no. 3984 and Article 23 of the Regulation on Procedures concerning Radio
    and Television Programmes, broadcasting organisations were obliged to keep copies
    of each broadcast programme for one year. The Government informed the Court of
    this outcome on 13 June 2001.'
  sentences:
  - Individual applications The Court may receive applications from any person, nongovernmental
    organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation
    by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention
    or the Protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder
    in any way the effective exercise of this right.
  - 'Right to life 1. Everyone''s right to life shall be protected by law. No one
    shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence
    of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided
    by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention
    of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely
    necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to
    effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
    (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.'
  - 'Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations
    or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public
    hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established
    by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be
    excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order
    or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles
    or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent
    strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where
    publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a
    criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
    9 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
    (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail,
    of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time
    and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person
    or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means
    to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice
    so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain
    the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions
    as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if
    he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.'
- source_sentence: 9.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bingöl. 10.  On
    15 October 1993 the applicant and two days later his wife, Mrs N.F., were taken
    into police custody in Bingöl on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal terrorist
    organisation, namely the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan). 11.  Mrs F. was held
    in police custody for four days, during which period she was allegedly kept blindfolded.
    The police officers allegedly hit her with truncheons, insulted her verbally and
    threatened her with rape. 12.  On 20 October 1993, following her detention in
    police custody, Mrs F. was examined by a doctor, who reported that there were
    no signs of ill-treatment on her body. On the same day she was taken to a gynaecologist
    for a further examination. The police requested that the report should indicate
    whether she had had vaginal or anal intercourse while in custody. Despite her
    refusal, Mrs F. was forced by the police officers to undergo a gynaecological
    examination. The police officers remained on the premises while Mrs F. was examined
    behind a curtain. The doctor reported that she had not had any sexual intercourse
    in the days preceding the examination. 13.  On the same day Mrs F. was taken to
    the Bingöl public prosecutor's office, where she complained about her forced gynaecological
    examination. The public prosecutor did not record her complaints and ordered her
    release. 14.  On 28 October 1993 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır National
    Security Court charged the applicant and his wife with aiding and abetting members
    of the PKK. 15.  On 23 March 1994 the Diyarbakır National Security Court acquitted
    the applicant and his wife for lack of evidence. 16.  On 9 February 1995, the
    applicant and his wife complained to the Bingöl public prosecutor about their
    ill-treatment while in police custody. They further complained that Mrs F. had
    been forced to undergo a gynaecological examination without her consent. 17.  The
    police officers denied the allegations in statements made before the Bingöl public
    prosecutor. They submitted that it had been necessary for a gynaecological examination
    to be performed in order to determine whether Mrs F. had been sexually assaulted
    while in police custody. They further submitted that the examination had been
    performed with her consent. 18.  On 5 October 1995 the Bingöl public prosecutor
    decided not to prosecute the police officers for lack of evidence. The applicant
    and his wife appealed. 19.  On 29 November 1995 the Muş Assize Court quashed the
    public prosecutor's decision on the ground that there had been insufficient examination
    of the evidence in the investigation file. 20.  On 19 December 1995 the Bingöl
    public prosecutor charged three police officers with, inter alia, violating Mrs
    F.'s private life by forcing her to undergo a gynaecological examination. 21.  On
    16 May 1996 the Bingöl Assize Court acquitted the defendant police officers on
    the ground that the complainants had not provided sufficient convincing evidence
    in support of their allegations. The court held that the police officers had had
    no intention of subjecting the applicant's wife to degrading and humiliating treatment
    when they made her undergo a gynaecological examination, but were trying to protect
    themselves against a possible accusation of rape. The applicant and his wife appealed.
    22.  On 7 May 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the Bingöl Assize Court's judgment.
  sentences:
  - Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect
    for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall
    be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except
    such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society
    in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being
    of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of
    health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
  - 'Prohibition of torture No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
    degrading treatment or punishment. Have agreed as follows:'
  - 'Right to life 1. Everyone''s right to life shall be protected by law. No one
    shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence
    of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided
    by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention
    of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely
    necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to
    effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
    (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.'
- source_sentence: '7.  The applicants were born in 1945 and 1941 respectively and
    live in Gdańsk. 8.  The applicants share a plot of land and a house with another
    family (hereinafter: the neighbours). 9.  On 17 June 1987 they filed with the
    Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a petition in which they requested that the
    co-ownership of the plot of land and the house be dissolved. 10.  On 19 April
    1989 the court forbade the neighbours to carry out any modifications in the cellar
    until the completion of the proceedings. On 27 September 1989 a similar order
    concerning the whole house was issued in respect of the applicants. 11.  On 3
    June 1992 the Gdańsk District Court gave judgment. The neighbours appealed and
    on 11 March 1993 the Gdańsk Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the
    case for re-examination. 12.  Subsequently, the District Court held a number of
    hearings and ordered several expert opinions. 13.  On 28 October 1996 it forbade
    the neighbours to carry out any works in the house. On 23 May 1997 the Regional
    Court dismissed their appeal against that decision. 14.  In its letter of 30 January
    1997 the Ministry of Justice confirmed that the proceedings were lengthy and found
    that the applicants’ neighbours had contributed to the delay by their petitions
    contesting the expert opinions. It further noted that since 1994 the President
    of the Gdańsk Regional Court had supervised the course of the proceedings and
    made monthly reports on their progress. However, the Ministry found these measures
    ineffective and decided to take the proceedings under its administrative supervision.
    15.  The proceedings are still pending.'
  sentences:
  - Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect
    for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall
    be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except
    such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society
    in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being
    of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of
    health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
  - Right to marry Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to
    found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this
    right.
  - 'Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations
    or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public
    hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established
    by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be
    excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order
    or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles
    or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent
    strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where
    publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a
    criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
    9 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
    (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail,
    of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time
    and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person
    or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means
    to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice
    so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain
    the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions
    as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if
    he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.'
pipeline_tag: sentence-similarity
library_name: sentence-transformers
---

# SentenceTransformer based on nlpaueb/legal-bert-base-uncased

This is a [sentence-transformers](https://www.SBERT.net) model finetuned from [nlpaueb/legal-bert-base-uncased](https://huggingface.co/nlpaueb/legal-bert-base-uncased). It maps sentences & paragraphs to a 768-dimensional dense vector space and can be used for retrieval.

## Model Details

### Model Description
- **Model Type:** Sentence Transformer
- **Base model:** [nlpaueb/legal-bert-base-uncased](https://huggingface.co/nlpaueb/legal-bert-base-uncased) <!-- at revision 15b570cbf88259610b082a167dacc190124f60f6 -->
- **Maximum Sequence Length:** 512 tokens
- **Output Dimensionality:** 768 dimensions
- **Similarity Function:** Cosine Similarity
- **Supported Modality:** Text
<!-- - **Training Dataset:** Unknown -->
<!-- - **Language:** Unknown -->
<!-- - **License:** Unknown -->

### Model Sources

- **Documentation:** [Sentence Transformers Documentation](https://sbert.net)
- **Repository:** [Sentence Transformers on GitHub](https://github.com/huggingface/sentence-transformers)
- **Hugging Face:** [Sentence Transformers on Hugging Face](https://huggingface.co/models?library=sentence-transformers)

### Full Model Architecture

```
SentenceTransformer(
  (0): Transformer({'transformer_task': 'feature-extraction', 'modality_config': {'text': {'method': 'forward', 'method_output_name': 'last_hidden_state'}}, 'module_output_name': 'token_embeddings', 'architecture': 'BertModel'})
  (1): Pooling({'embedding_dimension': 768, 'pooling_mode': 'mean', 'include_prompt': True})
)
```

## Usage

### Direct Usage (Sentence Transformers)

First install the Sentence Transformers library:

```bash
pip install -U sentence-transformers
```
Then you can load this model and run inference.
```python
from sentence_transformers import SentenceTransformer

# Download from the 🤗 Hub
model = SentenceTransformer("sentence_transformers_model_id")
# Run inference
sentences = [
    '7.  The applicants were born in 1945 and 1941 respectively and live in Gdańsk. 8.  The applicants share a plot of land and a house with another family (hereinafter: the neighbours). 9.  On 17 June 1987 they filed with the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a petition in which they requested that the co-ownership of the plot of land and the house be dissolved. 10.  On 19 April 1989 the court forbade the neighbours to carry out any modifications in the cellar until the completion of the proceedings. On 27 September 1989 a similar order concerning the whole house was issued in respect of the applicants. 11.  On 3 June 1992 the Gdańsk District Court gave judgment. The neighbours appealed and on 11 March 1993 the Gdańsk Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for re-examination. 12.  Subsequently, the District Court held a number of hearings and ordered several expert opinions. 13.  On 28 October 1996 it forbade the neighbours to carry out any works in the house. On 23 May 1997 the Regional Court dismissed their appeal against that decision. 14.  In its letter of 30 January 1997 the Ministry of Justice confirmed that the proceedings were lengthy and found that the applicants’ neighbours had contributed to the delay by their petitions contesting the expert opinions. It further noted that since 1994 the President of the Gdańsk Regional Court had supervised the course of the proceedings and made monthly reports on their progress. However, the Ministry found these measures ineffective and decided to take the proceedings under its administrative supervision. 15.  The proceedings are still pending.',
    'Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 9 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.',
    'Right to marry Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.',
]
embeddings = model.encode(sentences)
print(embeddings.shape)
# [3, 768]

# Get the similarity scores for the embeddings
similarities = model.similarity(embeddings, embeddings)
print(similarities)
# tensor([[1.0000, 0.7361, 0.2542],
#         [0.7361, 1.0000, 0.3289],
#         [0.2542, 0.3289, 1.0000]])
```
<!--
### Direct Usage (Transformers)

<details><summary>Click to see the direct usage in Transformers</summary>

</details>
-->

<!--
### Downstream Usage (Sentence Transformers)

You can finetune this model on your own dataset.

<details><summary>Click to expand</summary>

</details>
-->

<!--
### Out-of-Scope Use

*List how the model may foreseeably be misused and address what users ought not to do with the model.*
-->

<!--
## Bias, Risks and Limitations

*What are the known or foreseeable issues stemming from this model? You could also flag here known failure cases or weaknesses of the model.*
-->

<!--
### Recommendations

*What are recommendations with respect to the foreseeable issues? For example, filtering explicit content.*
-->

## Training Details

### Training Dataset

#### Unnamed Dataset

* Size: 12,180 training samples
* Columns: <code>sentence1</code>, <code>sentence2</code>, and <code>sentence3</code>
* Approximate statistics based on the first 1000 samples:
  |         | sentence1                                                                             | sentence2                                                                            | sentence3                                                                            |
  |:--------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  | type    | string                                                                                | string                                                                               | string                                                                               |
  | details | <ul><li>min: 149 tokens</li><li>mean: 448.29 tokens</li><li>max: 512 tokens</li></ul> | <ul><li>min: 15 tokens</li><li>mean: 216.86 tokens</li><li>max: 422 tokens</li></ul> | <ul><li>min: 15 tokens</li><li>mean: 111.68 tokens</li><li>max: 422 tokens</li></ul> |
* Samples:
  | sentence1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                | sentence2                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                | sentence3                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
  |:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  | <code>11.  At the beginning of the events relevant to the application, K. had a daughter, P., and a son, M., born in 1986 and 1988 respectively. P.’s father is X and M.’s father is V. From March to May 1989 K. was voluntarily hospitalised for about three months, having been diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia. From August to November 1989 and from December 1989 to March 1990, she was again hospitalised for periods of about three months on account of this illness. In 1991 she was hospitalised for less than a week, diagnosed as suffering from an atypical and undefinable psychosis. It appears that social welfare and health authorities have been in contact with the family since 1989. 12.  The applicants initially cohabited from the summer of 1991 to July 1993. In 1991 both P. and M. were living with them. From 1991 to 1993 K. and X were involved in a custody and access dispute concerning P. In May 1992 a residence order was made transferring custody of P. to X. 13.  K. was again hospitalis...</code> | <code>Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.</code>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              | <code>Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens Collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited.</code>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
  | <code>9.  In June 1949 plots of agricultural land owned by the applicant’s father were expropriated by the former Doksy District National Council (okresní národní výbor) under the Czechoslovak New Land Reform Act No. 46/1948 (“the 1948 Act”). The applicant’s father had never obtained any compensation. In 1957 some of these plots were transferred to the ownership of natural persons in an assignment procedure under the 1948 Act. In 1977 the applicant’s father died and the applicant’s rights over his estate were confirmed. 10.  After the fall of the communist regime in Czechoslovakia, the Act No. 229/1991 on Adjustment of Ownership Rights in respect of Land and Other Agricultural Property (“zákon o půdě”, the “Land Ownership Act”) entered into force on 24 June 1991. The Act provided that the 1948 Act was no longer applicable and that under certain conditions property confiscated pursuant to that Act without compensation could be returned to its former owners or their heirs if it was still in th...</code> | <code>Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 9 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the acc...</code> | <code>Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the...</code> |
  | <code>8.  In 1991 Mr Dušan Slobodník, a research worker in the field of literature, published an autobiography entitled Paragraph: Polar Circle. He described in it, inter alia, his conviction by a Soviet military tribunal in 1945 on the ground that he had been ordered to spy on the Soviet army after having been enrolled, in 1944 when he was 17 years old, in a military training course organised by Germans. In the book, Mr Slobodník also wrote about his detention in Soviet gulags and his rehabilitation by the Supreme Court of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics in 1960. In June 1992 Mr Slobodník became Minister for Culture and Education of the Slovak Republic. 9.  On 20 July 1992 the newspaper Telegraf published a poem by the applicant. It was dated 17 July 1992 (the day when the sovereignty of the Slovak Republic was solemnly proclaimed) and entitled “Good night, my beloved” (“Dobrú noc, má milá”). One of its verses read as follows:
  “In Prague prisoner Havel is giving up his president...</code> | <code>Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.</code>                                                           | <code>Prohibition of torture No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Have agreed as follows:</code>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
* Loss: [<code>MultipleNegativesRankingLoss</code>](https://sbert.net/docs/package_reference/sentence_transformer/losses.html#multiplenegativesrankingloss) with these parameters:
  ```json
  {
      "scale": 20.0,
      "similarity_fct": "cos_sim",
      "gather_across_devices": false,
      "directions": [
          "query_to_doc"
      ],
      "partition_mode": "joint",
      "hardness_mode": null,
      "hardness_strength": 0.0
  }
  ```

### Training Hyperparameters
#### Non-Default Hyperparameters

- `per_device_train_batch_size`: 16
- `learning_rate`: 2e-05
- `warmup_steps`: 0.1
- `fp16`: True

#### All Hyperparameters
<details><summary>Click to expand</summary>

- `do_predict`: False
- `prediction_loss_only`: True
- `per_device_train_batch_size`: 16
- `per_device_eval_batch_size`: 8
- `gradient_accumulation_steps`: 1
- `eval_accumulation_steps`: None
- `torch_empty_cache_steps`: None
- `learning_rate`: 2e-05
- `weight_decay`: 0.0
- `adam_beta1`: 0.9
- `adam_beta2`: 0.999
- `adam_epsilon`: 1e-08
- `max_grad_norm`: 1.0
- `num_train_epochs`: 3
- `max_steps`: -1
- `lr_scheduler_type`: linear
- `lr_scheduler_kwargs`: None
- `warmup_ratio`: None
- `warmup_steps`: 0.1
- `log_level`: passive
- `log_level_replica`: warning
- `log_on_each_node`: True
- `logging_nan_inf_filter`: True
- `enable_jit_checkpoint`: False
- `save_on_each_node`: False
- `save_only_model`: False
- `restore_callback_states_from_checkpoint`: False
- `use_cpu`: False
- `seed`: 42
- `data_seed`: None
- `bf16`: False
- `fp16`: True
- `bf16_full_eval`: False
- `fp16_full_eval`: False
- `tf32`: None
- `local_rank`: -1
- `ddp_backend`: None
- `debug`: []
- `dataloader_drop_last`: False
- `dataloader_num_workers`: 0
- `dataloader_prefetch_factor`: None
- `disable_tqdm`: False
- `remove_unused_columns`: True
- `label_names`: None
- `load_best_model_at_end`: False
- `ignore_data_skip`: False
- `fsdp`: []
- `fsdp_config`: {'min_num_params': 0, 'xla': False, 'xla_fsdp_v2': False, 'xla_fsdp_grad_ckpt': False}
- `accelerator_config`: {'split_batches': False, 'dispatch_batches': None, 'even_batches': True, 'use_seedable_sampler': True, 'non_blocking': False, 'gradient_accumulation_kwargs': None}
- `parallelism_config`: None
- `deepspeed`: None
- `label_smoothing_factor`: 0.0
- `optim`: adamw_torch_fused
- `optim_args`: None
- `group_by_length`: False
- `length_column_name`: length
- `project`: huggingface
- `trackio_space_id`: trackio
- `ddp_find_unused_parameters`: None
- `ddp_bucket_cap_mb`: None
- `ddp_broadcast_buffers`: False
- `dataloader_pin_memory`: True
- `dataloader_persistent_workers`: False
- `skip_memory_metrics`: True
- `push_to_hub`: False
- `resume_from_checkpoint`: None
- `hub_model_id`: None
- `hub_strategy`: every_save
- `hub_private_repo`: None
- `hub_always_push`: False
- `hub_revision`: None
- `gradient_checkpointing`: False
- `gradient_checkpointing_kwargs`: None
- `include_for_metrics`: []
- `eval_do_concat_batches`: True
- `auto_find_batch_size`: False
- `full_determinism`: False
- `ddp_timeout`: 1800
- `torch_compile`: False
- `torch_compile_backend`: None
- `torch_compile_mode`: None
- `include_num_input_tokens_seen`: no
- `neftune_noise_alpha`: None
- `optim_target_modules`: None
- `batch_eval_metrics`: False
- `eval_on_start`: False
- `use_liger_kernel`: False
- `liger_kernel_config`: None
- `eval_use_gather_object`: False
- `average_tokens_across_devices`: True
- `use_cache`: False
- `prompts`: None
- `batch_sampler`: batch_sampler
- `multi_dataset_batch_sampler`: proportional
- `router_mapping`: {}
- `learning_rate_mapping`: {}

</details>

### Training Logs
| Epoch  | Step | Training Loss |
|:------:|:----:|:-------------:|
| 0.6562 | 500  | 2.5875        |
| 1.3123 | 1000 | 2.3216        |
| 1.9685 | 1500 | 2.2555        |
| 2.6247 | 2000 | 2.1670        |


### Training Time
- **Training**: 44.4 minutes

### Framework Versions
- Python: 3.12.13
- Sentence Transformers: 5.4.1
- Transformers: 5.0.0
- PyTorch: 2.10.0+cu128
- Accelerate: 1.13.0
- Datasets: 4.0.0
- Tokenizers: 0.22.2

## Citation

### BibTeX

#### Sentence Transformers
```bibtex
@inproceedings{reimers-2019-sentence-bert,
    title = "Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks",
    author = "Reimers, Nils and Gurevych, Iryna",
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
    month = "11",
    year = "2019",
    publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
    url = "https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10084",
}
```

#### MultipleNegativesRankingLoss
```bibtex
@misc{oord2019representationlearningcontrastivepredictive,
      title={Representation Learning with Contrastive Predictive Coding},
      author={Aaron van den Oord and Yazhe Li and Oriol Vinyals},
      year={2019},
      eprint={1807.03748},
      archivePrefix={arXiv},
      primaryClass={cs.LG},
      url={https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.03748},
}
```

<!--
## Glossary

*Clearly define terms in order to be accessible across audiences.*
-->

<!--
## Model Card Authors

*Lists the people who create the model card, providing recognition and accountability for the detailed work that goes into its construction.*
-->

<!--
## Model Card Contact

*Provides a way for people who have updates to the Model Card, suggestions, or questions, to contact the Model Card authors.*
-->