CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 12 septembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sC02E897A { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE4770B24 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt; font-size:10pt } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s6F0D830B { width:26.04pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB965C79D { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.75pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s6C2746C6 { margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s6047437D { width:11.03pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF9B3189B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEB3FA797 { width:8.43pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s56A455C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB6A7F5BF { width:17.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7E447BAE { width:130.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .sE6A1EE2A { width:86.74%; border-collapse:collapse } .s6D39A02A { width:10.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sF3EE681A { width:36.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s39AEB946 { width:16.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5369BFEB { width:37.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5821A369 { width:10.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s706BBAC5 { width:36.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s12283442 { width:16.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5D9CACFF { width:37.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   SECOND SECTION CASE OF GEYLANİ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Application no. 10443/12)   JUDGMENT   Art 3 (procedural and substantive) • Art 11 • Degrading treatment • Freedom of assembly • Use of water cannon by the police to disperse a peaceful demonstration resulting in injury to the second applicant from being hit by pressurised water • Case-law on the use of tear-gas grenades and rubber bullets applicable mutatis mutandis, given dangerous nature of water cannons: police operations – including use of water cannons - to be authorised and sufficiently delimited by domestic law within the framework of a system of adequate and effective safeguards against arbitrariness, abuse of force and avoidable accidents • Domestic legal framework lacking specific provisions on the use of water cannons during demonstrations as well as any instructions for their deployment • Not shown that the security forces’ intervention was properly regulated and organised in such a way as to minimise to the greatest extent possible any risk of bodily harm to the demonstrators • Use of force neither strictly necessary by second applicant’s own conduct nor indispensable for the purpose of quelling a mass disorder • Ineffective investigation • Police intervention disproportionate and “not necessary in a democratic society”   STRASBOURG 12 September 2023   FINAL   12/12/2023   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Geylani and Others v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Jovan Ilievski,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Saadet Yüksel,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Frédéric Krenc,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   10443/12) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Turkish nationals, Mr Hamit Geylani, Ms Sevahir Bayındır (“the second applicant”) and Mr Hasip Kaplan (collectively “the applicants”), on 27 January 2012; the decision to give notice to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the dispersal by the police of the demonstration in which the applicants participated, the alleged ill-treatment of the second applicant in the course of the dispersal and the alleged lack of an effective investigation into the matter, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 11 July 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the dispersal by the police of a demonstration organised by a political party and the injuries sustained by the second applicant during the dispersal. The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Article 11 of the Convention. The second applicant alleges a further violation of Article 3 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2 .     The applicants’ details are set out in the appended table. They were represented initially by Mr E. Cinmen, a lawyer practising in Muğla, and subsequently also by Mr R. Demir and Ms Y. Kılıç, lawyers practising in Istanbul. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 5.     At the time of the events giving rise to the present application, the applicants were members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly (“the National Assembly”) and the Peace and Democracy Party (“the BDP”, a left-wing pro ‑ Kurdish political party). BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS SUBMITTED BY THE GOVERNMENT 6.     According to a number of police reports issued in May and June 2010, two websites which were considered to have links with the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an armed terrorist organisation) mainly reported that various wings of the PKK would put an end, as of 1 June 2010, to the ceasefire which they had declared thirteen months previously. The information on the websites in question also contained statements by the leader of the PKK and invited people to “resist” and to “join” the PKK. 7 .     On 29 May 2010 the security forces received an intelligence report indicating that as of 1 June 2010 the PKK would incite people to acts of civil disobedience across the country. The report further mentioned possible attacks against the security forces and public buildings, involving the use of stones, sticks and Molotov cocktails as well as the burning of vehicles. 8 .     On 31 May 2010 the General Security Directorate issued a similar report about possible attacks in the Silopi district of Şırnak province. 9 .     On 2 June 2010 one of the above-mentioned websites reported that the Silopi branch of the BDP would organise a march the following day with the participation of some members of parliament, with a view to protesting against the increased military operations in the region. The march was to begin at 4 p.m. in front of the BDP party office in Silopi and to continue towards the Habur border post between Türkiye and Iraq (situated approximately fifteen kilometres from Silopi). 10 .     Referring to the planned demonstration, a police report of 2 June 2010 indicated that a crowd of people intended to block the main road leading to the Habur border post and march towards the border post, where a statement to the press would be read out. The report mentioned that the group might, if provoked, attack the security forces and their vehicles with stones. 11 .     On 3 June 2010 the Silopi Security Directorate issued an internal document outlining the measures to be taken and the instructions to be followed by the police before and during the forthcoming demonstration. The document contained, inter alia , the following instructions: (i) the police officers were to avoid provoking the demonstrators, follow the warning procedure at all times and comply with the chain of command; and (ii) force might be used in a graduated manner only if necessary and subject to the instructions of the superior officer. EVENTS OF 3 JUNE 2010 AND INJURIES OF THE SECOND APPLICANT 12 .     On 3 June 2010, at about 2 p.m., representatives of the BDP had a meeting with the District Governor of Silopi (“the District Governor”) and the officers in command of the security forces in that district. The representatives of the BDP informed the District Governor of their intention to organise the aforementioned march. The District Governor proposed alternative venues for the planned demonstration, but these were rejected by the organisers, who argued that the degree of public attention would be diminished in such circumstances. The District Governor further informed them that the security forces would have to intervene in the event of the demonstration being held on the main road. 13 .     According to the police reports, at about 3 p.m., people began gathering in front of the BDP party office; their number had reached approximately three thousand by around 4.30 p.m. At about that time, a bus belonging to the BDP arrived on the right ‑ hand side of the main road leading to the Habur border post, and the demonstrators suddenly headed towards the bus and gathered around it. Both sides of the road were then blocked by the police and by three water ‑ cannon vehicles, which, according to the statements of the police officers, were initially stationed about 100 to 150 metres from the demonstrators (see paragraph 24 below). 14.     Some demonstrators were holding banners displaying slogans such as “The only interlocutor is esteemed Öcalan” (“ Tek muhatap sayın Öcalan ”), “The Republic of Türkiye needs you, esteemed Öcalan” (“ T.C.’nin size ihtiyacı var sayın Öcalan” ), “Our leadership is looking for an interlocutor for a solution” (“ Önderliğimiz çözüm için muhatap arıyor ”), “Take the esteemed leader of the Kurdish people Abdullah Öcalan as an interlocutor for a democratic solution of the Kurdish issue” (“ Kürt sorununun demokratik çözümü için Kürt önderi sayın Abdullah Öcalan muhatap alınsın ”), “End the operations” (“ Operasyonlara son” ) and “Keep your dirty hands off our free mountains” (“ Kirli ellerinizi özgür dağlarımızdan çekin” ). A number of demonstrators were carrying wooden sticks, as well as flags of the PKK and posters of its leader or members. Some demonstrators’ faces were covered. 15.     The police warned the participants several times that the demonstration was unlawful and ordered them to disperse immediately, failing which it would use force. 16 .     According to the police reports, at about 4.40 p.m., the applicants joined the front lines of demonstrators. Shortly afterwards the group, accompanied by the bus, began marching on the main road towards the police. As the demonstrators continued to march despite another warning, the police dispersed them by using water cannon and tear gas. 17 .     During the first moments of the police intervention, the second applicant fell to the ground and sustained injuries to her hip (see also paragraphs   28 and 38 below). She was subsequently taken to the Silopi Public Hospital. The medical report drawn up by the hospital at 5.25 p.m. mentioned that she had a fractured neck of femur (a type of hip fracture), which could not be treated by a simple medical procedure. Furthermore, the “history” section of a second report drawn up by the same hospital on that day noted that the second applicant had “slipped and fallen when Panzers had sprayed water during the demonstration”. 18 .     The second applicant was subsequently transported to a private hospital in Ankara, where she was operated on the same day. She was discharged from the hospital on 11 June 2010, after which she received physiotherapy owing to her inability to walk and was prescribed several consecutive periods of sick leave lasting until 24 March 2011. A medical report from 2014 indicated, among other things, that she was able to walk with crutches. In her submissions to the Court the second applicant stated that she was still receiving treatment for her injury. 19 .     A police officer (S.Y.) reported that he had sustained injuries to his left leg caused by a stone thrown by the demonstrators before the intervention of the security forces. The medical report issued on 3 June 2010 by the Silopi Public Hospital mentioned soft tissue damage rendering him unfit for work for ten days. 20.     Another police officer (İ.K.), who stated that he had been injured during the intervention of the security forces, was prescribed seven days’ sick leave. 21 .     The police records drawn up on the date of the events noted that several vehicles belonging to the security forces had been damaged by stones, but did not mention whether the damage had occurred before or during the police intervention. ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION 22.     On 14 June 2010 the presidency of the Inspection Board of the Ministry of the Interior appointed two chief inspectors to investigate the incidents that had taken place during the demonstration. 23.     The chief inspectors collected documents and evidence, including the video footage of the incidents recorded by the police. They also took statements from, inter alia , the Şırnak Governor (“the Governor”), the District Governor, the officers in command of the security forces in Silopi, the chair of the Silopi branch of the BDP and the police officers driving the water ‑ cannon vehicles, as well as those who had operated the water jets during the events of 3 June 2010. 24 .     According to the police officers, one of the water-cannon vehicles had been stationed on the right ‑ hand side of the road leading to the Habur border post, while the other two vehicles had been on the opposite side of the road. The officers maintained that the initial distance between the crowd and the vehicles had been about 100 to 150 metres. They explained that they had used water cannons because the demonstrators had begun advancing towards the vehicles. One of the operators (S.T.) stated that water had been sprayed in accordance with the instructions they received when the group had advanced about 50 metres towards the police. One of the drivers (H.S.Ş.) stated that they had received an instruction to intervene once the initial distance had been halved. Another operator (M.K.) maintained that the demonstrators had started to throw stones from a distance of 50 metres. S.Y. reported that he had been injured when some demonstrators had begun to throw stones from a distance of approximately 50 metres (see also paragraph 19 above). 25 .     Some police officers further stated that water had been sprayed only once by each vehicle, for a duration of between eight and ten seconds. They maintained that they could not have, and had not, targeted a specific person when using the water cannon. Furthermore, since visibility from within the water ‑ cannon vehicles had been poor, they had been watching the events from the monitors inside the vehicles. One of the drivers (D.A.) maintained that it was a coincidence that the second applicant had been hit by water and been injured as a result of her fall. S.T. stated that water had caused the second applicant to fall and be injured through an unfortunate coincidence. 26.     The police officers maintained that if they had not intervened at that moment it would have not been possible to move the water-cannon vehicles because of the approaching crowd of demonstrators, and a direct confrontation between the latter and the police officers positioned behind the vehicles would have been inevitable. According to the police officers, this would have caused even more serious incidents. 27.     In their statements, the representatives of the BDP maintained that they had been informed by some members of parliament that the Governor had given them permission to hold the march on one side of the main road. The Governor and the District Governor denied this claim. 28 .     On 14 September 2010 the chief inspectors submitted their report to the presidency of the Inspection Board. The report stated that the Governor had not given permission for the demonstration to be held on the main road and that the District Governor had also proposed alternative venues to the organisers. According to the report, the police had taken the necessary preparatory measures as they had deployed three water-cannon vehicles which were stationed at a distance about 100 to 150 metres from the gathering point. Furthermore, the officials had expressed concerns that if the police did not intervene, the number of participants might increase, rendering it impossible to intervene. The report further referred to concerns about possible provocative acts and serious incidents targeting the military barracks situated further along the road taken by the demonstrators. The report mentioned that the police had warned the protestors many times that the demonstration was unlawful and had ordered them to disperse. As the crowd had not stopped advancing towards the police, the latter had used water cannon and tear gas, prompted by concerns that it would become impossible to intervene if the crowd reached the police barricade. The intervention had lasted eight to ten seconds, and pressurised water had been sprayed only once. According to the report, there was nothing to indicate that the members of parliament had been targeted by the police officers, and it was pure coincidence that the second applicant had been hit by water ( tamamen tesadüfen suya hedef olduğu ). The injury sustained by the second applicant had been the result of her falling awkwardly ( biçimsiz bir şekilde ) owing to physical weakness. Indeed, the other demonstrators who had been hit by the same pressurised water had not been injured. The report found that the police had intervened at the right moment, given that there had been more than three thousand demonstrators and that their number could have reached ten thousand at any moment. There had been no serious injuries apart from that of the second applicant. Therefore, the intervention had been carried out in such a manner as to cause the least possible damage. Accordingly, the chief inspectors concluded that there were no grounds for instituting criminal or administrative proceedings against the Governor and the law-enforcement personnel. 29 .     On 30 December 2010, on the basis of the aforementioned report and pursuant to Law no. 4483 on the prosecution of civil servants, the Ministry of the Interior decided not to authorise the prosecution of the Governor and the law-enforcement personnel in relation to the events of 3 June 2010. 30.     On 28 January 2011 the applicants lodged an objection against that decision. 31 .     On 6 July 2011 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ objection, taking the view that the intervention had been carried out in such a manner as to cause the least possible damage. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION 32.     On an unknown date the Silopi public prosecutor’s office initiated, of its own motion, an investigation into the events of 3 June 2010. 33.     On 8 June 2010 the public prosecutor’s office requested information from the District Governor’s Office as to whether a preliminary investigation into the matter had been initiated pursuant to Law no. 4483. It further requested that a decision be taken on whether to authorise the prosecution of the law ‑ enforcement personnel in Silopi for the offence of misconduct in office. 34.     On 28 June 2010 the applicants filed a complaint against the police officers and other officials involved in the incidents at issue. They claimed that they had been ill-treated and that their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly had been violated. 35 .     On 9 February 2012 the Silopi public prosecutor issued a decision not to bring a prosecution against the law-enforcement personnel and their superior officers in relation to the events at issue. Referring to the Ministry of the Interior’s decision of 30 December 2010, he considered that no prosecution could be brought in respect of the offence of misconduct in office, since the latter fell within the scope of Law no. 4483 (see paragraph   29 above). As regards the other offences, the public prosecutor reiterated the conclusions of the chief inspectors’ report (see paragraph 28 above) and found that there was no indication that the officials had acted with an intention to directly or indirectly inflict bodily harm and that no negligence was attributable to them. The public prosecutor further held that freedom of expression and of assembly were subject to limitations and that the intervention of the security forces in an unlawful demonstration could not be regarded as preventing the exercise of the right to freedom of expression or other rights of the applicants. 36.     On 21 March 2012 the applicants objected to that decision, which was amenable to judicial review except in so far as it concerned the alleged offence of misconduct in office. 37.     On 8 May 2012 the Siirt Assize Court dismissed the applicants’ objection on the grounds that the demonstration had not been duly notified to the authorities, that the demonstrators had been warned and ordered to disperse, that the injuries complained of had occurred in a moment of panic during the police intervention and that there had been no direct intervention by the police officers. VIDEO FOOTAGE SUBMITTED BY THE GOVERNMENT 38 .     The Government provided the Court with several video recordings made by the police during the events of 3 June 2010. The footage shows the second applicant in the front lines immediately before the spraying of pressurised water towards that area. Although it is impossible to see clearly the exact moment when she fell, it can be seen that she was on the ground immediately after the first round of water spraying and that she attempted to stand up after her fall but was unable to do so. The footage also shows that pressurised water was sprayed more than once during the intervention. 39 .     The video footage shows that the traffic on the road in question was not stopped until the demonstrators began heading towards the bus (see also paragraph   13 above). It also appears from the footage that the police intervention began less than two minutes after the applicants joined the front lines (see also paragraph 16 above). It can be seen from the footage that at least three adolescents among the demonstrators threw stones at the security forces shortly after the group began heading towards the road, that some of the demonstrators reacted against this behaviour and that the vast majority of the participants were not involved in any violent act during the period before the intervention of the police. The footage also shows some demonstrators throwing stones at the police after the dispersal of the march. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK DOMESTIC LAW 40 .     The relevant domestic law in respect of freedom of assembly and the prosecution of civil servants and public officials is set out in Oya Ataman v.   Turkey (no. 74552/01, §§ 13-15, ECHR 2006-XIV) and Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası and Others v. Turkey (no. 20347/07, §§ 42-52, 5   July 2016). 41 .     At the material time section 10 of the Meetings and Demonstration Marches Act (Law no. 2911) was worded as follows: “In order for a meeting to take place, the governor’s office or authorities of the district in which the demonstration is planned must be informed, during opening hours and at least seventy-two hours prior to the meeting, by a notice containing the signature of all the members of the organising committee ...” 42 .     Section 22 of the same Act, as in force at the material time, prohibited demonstrations and processions on, inter alia , public streets and highways. Section 24 provided that demonstrations and processions which did not comply with the provisions of the Act would be dispersed by force on the order of the governor’s office and after the demonstrators had been warned. 43 .     Under section 16 of Law no. 2559 on the Duties and Powers of the Police, when faced with resistance in the performance of their duties, the police may use force for the purpose of, and to the extent necessary for, breaking down such resistance. The use of force means recourse to physical and material force and weaponry in order to immobilise those resisting the police, in a graduated manner depending on the nature and degree of resistance. The term “material force” is defined as including, inter alia , handcuffs, truncheons, pressurised water and tear gas. A warning is required before using force; however, depending on the nature and degree of resistance, it may also be possible to use force without any warning. The police determine the equipment and the degree of force to be used. Where the action is taken against a group, that determination is made by the supervisor of the intervening unit. 44 .     Article 25 of the Directive of 30 December 1982 on the rapid reaction forces ( Polis Çevik Kuvvet Yönetmeliği ) lays down the principles governing the supervision, control and intervention of those forces during demonstrations (for a summary of the text, see Abdullah Yaşa and Others v.   Turkey , no. 44827/08, § 27, 16 July 2013). INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL United Nations 45 .     The Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted on 7 September 1990 by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, provide, inter alia , that “the development and deployment of non-lethal incapacitating weapons should be carefully evaluated in order to minimise the risk of endangering uninvolved persons, and the use of such weapons should be carefully controlled.” 46 .     On 6 July 2018 the Human Rights Council adopted Resolution   38/11 on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “ The Human Rights Council ,   ... 13. Calls upon States to investigate any death or significant injury, including those that lead to disability, incurred during protests, including those resulting from the discharge of firearms or the use of less-lethal weapons by officials exercising law enforcement duties or by private personnel acting on behalf of the State; ... 15. Encourages States to make appropriate protective equipment and less-lethal weapons available to their officials exercising law enforcement duties in order to decrease their need to use weapons of any kind, while pursuing efforts to regulate and establish protocols for the training and use of less-lethal weapons, bearing in mind that even less-lethal weapons can result in a risk to life; 16. Underlines the importance of thorough and independent testing of less-lethal weapons prior to procurement and deployment to establish their lethality and the extent of likely injury, and of monitoring appropriate training and use of such weapons;” 47 .     The relevant paragraphs of the United Nations Human Rights Guidance on Less-Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement, issued on 1   June 2020 by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, provide as follows (footnotes omitted): “7.7.2 In general, water cannon should only be used in situations of serious public disorder where there is a significant likelihood of loss of life, serious injury or the widespread destruction of property. In order to meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, the deployment of water cannon should be carefully planned and should be managed with rigorous command and control at a senior level. ... 7.7.3 Water cannon should not be used against persons in elevated positions, where there is a risk of significant secondary injury. Other risks include hypothermia and cold-water shock in cold weather (especially if the water is not heated), and the risk of persons slipping or being forced by the jet against walls or other hard objects. Certain water cannon are indiscriminate in their effects, as they are unable to target individuals accurately. ... 7.7.4 Water cannon shall not target a jet of water at an individual or group of persons at short range owing to the risk of causing permanent blindness or secondary injuries if persons are propelled energetically by the water jet. Water cannon shall not be used against restrained persons or persons otherwise unable to move.” Council of Europe 48.     The relevant part of Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Resolution   2435 (2022) on fighting and preventing excessive and unjustified use of force by law-enforcement officers, adopted on 27 April 2022, reads as follows: “9. The Assembly, therefore, calls on member States of the Council of Europe and observer States, where applicable, to: ... 9.3. ensure that the use of weapons and other lethal or non-lethal tools by law ‑ enforcement agencies is thoroughly regulated by their national legislation, which should lay down instructions and safeguards against abuse;” 49.     The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights published a Human Rights Comment on 25 February 2014 entitled “Police abuse – a serious threat to the rule of law”. It reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “States should develop clear guidelines concerning the proportionate use of force by police, including the use of tear gas, pepper spray, water cannons and firearms in the context of demonstrations, in line with international standards.” Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly 50 .     The Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly (third edition, 2019), prepared by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Co‑operation in Europe in consultation with the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) of the Council of Europe, read, in so far as relevant, as follows: “185. Specific means for officials to address disorder at an assembly. The following good practice guidance relating to the specific means by which law enforcement officials may exercise, or seek to regain, control when an assembly becomes disorderly, draws on the developing practices of national policing institutions: ... • The use of plastic/rubber bullets, baton rounds, attenuated energy projectiles (AEPs), or water cannons and other forceful methods of crowd control must be strictly regulated and recorded ...;” THE LAW         PRELIMINARY REMARKS 51.     The Government argued that the application was not in compliance with Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, pointing out that although the application form was signed by the applicants’ initial representative Mr Cinmen, the authority forms submitted to the Court at the time of the lodging of the application did not contain his signature. 52 .     The applicants maintained that their signatures on the authority forms in question demonstrated that they had given their initial representative specific and explicit instructions to lodge an application before the Court on their behalf. 53.     The Court notes that where applicants choose to be represented under Rule   36   §   1 of the Rules of Court rather than lodging the application themselves, Rule 45 § 3 requires them to produce a written authority to act, duly signed. It is essential for representatives to demonstrate that they have received specific and explicit instructions from the alleged victim, within the meaning of Article 34, on whose behalf they purport to act before the Court (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.   Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 102, ECHR 2014). 54.     Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the authority forms in question containing the applicants’ signatures were submitted to the Court by their initial representative, together with the application form signed by the latter. However, the authority forms contained neither his signature nor his name. 55.     That being said, the Court notes that the version of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court in force at the time of the lodging of the application did not make any reference to the format of the authority form. Furthermore, the Court sees no reason to doubt that the signatures contained in the authority forms, whose authenticity was not challenged by the Government, belonged to the applicants. It is also to be noted that the authority forms expressly referred to the applicants’ representation before the Court. 56.     Moreover, prior to the submission of their observations, the applicants duly designated additional representatives (see paragraph 2 above). They further confirmed, through their additional representatives, that they had authorised their initial representative to lodge an application with the Court on their behalf (see paragraph 52 above). There is thus nothing to indicate that the authority forms were signed without the applicants’ understanding and consent to designate Mr Cinmen as their representative before the Court (see, to similar effect, Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no.   27765/09, §   52, ECHR 2012). 57.     As to the fact that the initial representative’s signature does not appear on the authority forms, the Court considers that by sending the signed application form and the relevant documents, as well as by communicating with the Court on several occasions in connection with the present application, the initial representative implicitly but necessarily accepted the authority granted to him by the applicants (see Alican Demir v.   Turkey , no.   41444/09, § 64, 25 February 2014). 58.     In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court rejects the Government’s objection in this regard (see, mutatis mutandis , Ranđelović and Others v. Montenegro , no. 66641/10, §§ 78-79, 19 September 2017). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND APPLICANT 59.     The second applicant complained that she had been subjected to ill ‑ treatment by the police and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. She relied on Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention. 60.     The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case (see Radomilja   and Others v. Croatia   [GC], nos.   37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114 and 126, 20 March 2018), considers that this complaint falls to be examined   under Article   3 of the Convention only, which reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Admissibility 61.     The Court notes that these complaints are neither manifestly ill ‑ founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article   35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible. Merits Substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention (a)    The parties’ submissions 62.     The second applicant contended that her hip had been injured as a result of pressurised water sprayed by the police during the demonstration. She argued that she had not committed any violent act or resisted the police. She further maintained that even if she had not been specifically targeted by the police officers, the area where she had been standing during the march had been exposed to pressurised water in such a manner as to potentially cause injuries. 63.     The second applicant argued that the police had failed to take the necessary precautions when using water cannons. She added that even assuming that certain individuals had been throwing stones during the demonstration this could not absolve the police of their obligation to take the relevant precautions. She further maintained that the police had not been called upon to react in the course of an unexpected event, since they had been able to take a number of preparatory measures. 64 .     The Government argued that the second applicant’s injury had not constituted ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention and had not attained the requisite minimum level of severity. They contended in this connection that the second applicant’s injury had not been caused by the use of pressurised water but rather as a result of her falling on the ground during the scuffle that had broken out during the dispersal of the demonstration. Referring to the second medical report issued by the Silopi Public Hospital (see paragraph 17 above), they maintained that the applicant had stated during her medical examination that her injury had occurred as a result of her fall. The Government further maintained that although the injuries sustained by the applicant might be considered to be of a serious nature, those injuries had been the result of her own actions since she had fallen to the ground after losing her footing during the scuffle. 65.     According to the Government, the use of pressurised water in the circumstances of the present case could cause only minor or no injuries, having regard to the fact that other demonstrators who had been standing close to the second applicant had not sustained any injuries as a result of the use of water. Furthermore, the area where the applicant had been standing had been sprayed with pressurised water only once and for less than ten seconds. There had been no intention on the part of the security forces to inflict bodily harm on the demonstrators, including the second applicant, or to humiliate them. Moreover, it was not possible to target specific individuals by water cannon. 66.     The Government maintained that the gathering had not been peaceful. The use of force had been absolutely necessary as some demonstrators had attacked the police and their vehicles with stones even before the intervention. Some demonstrators had been armed with sticks and had carried banners and chanted slogans containing violent language. Furthermore, the demonstration had been organised in response to a call made by the PKK. The Government referred also to various security concerns and to the public disturbance caused by the demonstration, advancing arguments similar to those put forward with respect to Article 11 of the Convention (see paragraph 108 below). 67.     Lastly, the Government submitted that the police had warned the demonstrators many times and had thus shown a certain degree of tolerance before dispersing the crowd. The intervention had also been undertaken in accordance with the domestic law. (b)    The Court’s assessment (i)       General principles 68.     The Court refers to the general principles concerning the substantive limb of Article 3 of the Convention as set out in Bouyid v.   Belgium ([GC], no.   23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR 2015). 69.     It reiterates, in particular, that allegations of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 must be supported by appropriate evidence. To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, among other authorities, ibid., § 82). As to the burden of proof in relation to alleged ill-treatment inflicted in the context of the policing of a demonstration, the Court has found in previous cases that the applicants were required to make a prima facie case that their injuries had resulted from the use of force by the police before the burden could be shifted to the Government to refute those allegations (see Muradova v.   Azerbaijan , no.   22684/05, §§ 107-08, 2 April 2009, and Zakharov and Varzhabetyan v.   Russia , nos. 35880/14 and 75926/17, §   63, 13 October 2020). When the cause of injury was in dispute between the parties the Court attached special importance to the fact that the injury had been sustained while the applicant was within the area in which the law‑enforcement authorities were conducting an operation during which they resorted to the use of force for the purpose of quelling mass unrest (see Zakharov and Varzhabetyan , cited above, § 63). To discharge the burden of proof the Government had to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation as to the cause of the applicant’s injuries (ibid.). 70 .     The Court further reiterates that in respect of a person who is deprived of his or her liberty or, more generally, is confronted with law-enforcement officers, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his or her own conduct diminishes human dignity and is, in principle, an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (see Bouyid , cited above, § 88). Specifically, when authorities resort to the use of force for the purpose of quelling mass unrest, such force may be used only if it is indispensable, and it must not be excessive (see Muradova , §   109, and Zakharov and Varzhabetyan , § 62, both cited above). (ii)     Application of these principles to the present case 71.     At the outset, the Court takes note of the Government’s argument that the second applicant’s injury had not attained the minimum level of severity required for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraph   64 above). The Court notes, however, that where – as in the present case – an applicant is confronted with law-enforcement officers, its examination shifts to the necessity rather than the severity of the treatment to which the applicant was subjected, in order to determine whether the issue complained of falls within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 70 above; see also Bouyid , cited above, §§   100-01). Specifically in the context of demonstrations, the Court has already held that if the treatment is not considered strictly necessary by the applicant’s own conduct or indispensable for the purpose of quelling mass disorder, it amounts to ill ‑ treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention (see Zakharov and Varzhabetyan , cited above, §§ 70-74). In any event, the Court notes that the second applicant’s injury and its seriousness, which the Government appear to accept as such (see paragraph 64 in fine ), are confirmed by her medical records (see paragraphs   17 and   18 above). Lastly, in so far as the Government argued that the injuries in question had been the result of the second applicant’s own actions (see paragraph 64 above), the Court refers to its analysis below