ÇAKICI v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 12 gendarmes that Ahmet Çakıcı was already wanted by the authorities in relation to suspected PKK involvement before this operation and found that in all probability the Hazro gendarmes went to Çitlibahçe with the intention of locating and apprehending Ahmet Çakıcı in relation to the kidnapping incident. 47. The Commission assessed the evidence of the witnesses from the village, Remziye Çakıcı, Fevzi Okatan and Mehmet Bitgin, who stated that they saw Ahmet Çakıcı being taken from the village by the gendarmes, as being on the whole consistent, credible and convincing. They found the Government’s objections to their credibility to be unfounded on examination. Accordingly, the Commission found that when the gendarmes arrived in Çitlibahçe on 8 November 1993, Ahmet Çakıcı attempted to hide but was found and taken from the village in custody by the Hazro gendarmes. Meanwhile, in Bağlan village, the Lice gendarmes took into detention three individuals, Mustafa Engin, Abdurrahman Al and Tahsin Demirbaş. 2. The alleged detention and ill-treatment of Ahmet Çakıcı 48. Mustafa Engin, Abdurrahman Al and Tahsin Demirbaş were taken to Lice gendarmerie headquarters where they spent the night. They were not entered into the custody records. The next day, on 9 November 1993, they were taken to Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie headquarters, where entries in the custody record stated that they had been detained on that day. 49. The Hazro gendarmerie station custody record made no entry on 8 November with respect to Ahmet Çakıcı. Nor did the copies of the entries for the period November to December 1993 at the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie headquarters. The Commission examined in detail the entries for both. It found disturbing discrepancies. In particular, it found that entries were not in sequential or chronological order; that all the entries in the Diyarbakır custody record were in the same handwriting; and that the number of persons recorded as detained in Diyarbakır exceeded the officially available number of cells. This gave rise, inter alia, to a strong suspicion that entries were not made contemporaneously. The oral explanations of Ahmet Katmerkaya, who was responsible for the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie records, were found by the Commission to be highly unsatisfactory, indicating that an entry in the register did not necessarily indicate the physical presence of a suspect and that no entries were made to reflect the movements of suspects in and out of the custody area. It concluded that the record did not constitute an accurate or comprehensive record of the persons who might have been detained over that period and the absence of Ahmet Çakıcı’s name in the Hazro and Diyarbakır records was not sufficient to prove that he had not been taken into custody. 50. The Commission accepted the oral evidence of Mustafa Engin, who stated that while he was detained at Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie