4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in İstanbul. 5.  On 14 April 1998 the applicant was taken into police custody by police officers from the Prevention of Terrorism Department of the Istanbul Security Directorate, on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the TKP/ (ML) TIKKO[1]. 6.  On 15 April 1998 the applicant was interrogated at the Istanbul Security Directorate, where he confessed to being a member of the illegal organisation and taking part in several terrorist incidents. He also maintained that he had left the organisation in 1994. 7.  On 17 April 1998 the applicant was taken before the public prosecutor, where he confirmed his previous statements. On the same day the applicant was seen by a doctor at the Forensic Institute who noted in his report that there were no signs of blows on his body. 8.  After having been taken to the public prosecutor’s office, the applicant was brought before a judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. He expressed regret that he had been a member of the illegal organisation in the past. He noted, however, that he did not wish to become a “confessor” (itirafçı )[2]. The judge ordered his remand in custody. 9.  Following the non-jurisdiction decision of the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court, the case file was transferred to the Malatya State Security Court. 10.  On 28 April 1998, relying on the statements of four witnesses who had also been detained on suspicion of membership of the same organisation, the public prosecutor at the Malatya State Security Court filed an indictment with the court, charging the applicant under Article 146 of the Criminal Code with attempting to undermine the constitutional order. The applicant was accused of participating in four different armed attacks. 11.  On 28 May 1998 the first hearing was held before the Malatya State Security Court. The court issued rogatory letters, requesting the Çemişgezek and Elbistan Criminal Courts to take the statements of three witnesses. 12.  At the hearing of 23 June 1998, the court evaluated the witness statements as well as the autopsy and incident reports sent by the Malatya public prosecutor. 13.  At the hearings of 21 July 1998 and 25 December 1998, the court took the statements of two witnesses who confirmed the applicant’s involvement with the terrorist activities of the illegal organisation. The court also included in the case file the witness statements taken by way of rogatory letters. 14.  On 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judges sitting on the bench of State Security Courts were replaced by civilian judges. By that time, eighteen hearings had been held by the Malatya State Security Court. 15.  On 24 February 2000 the applicant, who was brought before the Malatya State Security Court to give his statement for the first time, claimed that, although he had been a member of the organisation for a while, he had not participated in any of the terrorist activities. He maintained that he had merely purchased and transported goods for the organisation. He denied his statements given in police custody, alleging that they had been taken under duress. Moreover, he denied his statements taken by the public prosecutor. He accepted that, at the public prosecutor’s office, he had confessed to being a member of the organisation. However, he argued that the public prosecutor had not asked him about the acts in which he had taken part. The applicant further denied the statements of the witnesses. He claimed that he did not even know two of the witnesses. 16.  At the following six hearings, the prison authorities again failed to bring the applicant before the court. The court rescheduled the hearings for later dates without taking any interlocutory decisions. 17.  At the hearing of 16 May 2000, the applicant’s lawyer requested the court to confront the applicant with the witnesses. Although the court agreed to his request, the confrontation never occurred. 18.  On 29 August 2000 the prosecution made their final submissions. Relying on the statements of the witnesses, the evidence collected during the proceedings and the incident reports, they sought the applicant’s life imprisonment, pursuant to Article 146 of the Criminal Code. 19.  On 21 November 2000 the applicant was present in court. He contended that, although he had been a member for a year, he had left the organisation five years ago. He further maintained that he had never participated in any of the terrorist activities. 20.  In a letter dated 19 December 2000, the applicant’s lawyer requested the court to disregard his statements given during the preliminary stage of the proceedings as he had been under pressure during that period. Furthermore he maintained that the statements of the witnesses should be disregarded as these were either unsubstantiated or given in order to benefit from the law that protected “confessors”. On the same day, relying on the applicant’s statements given at the preliminary stage of the proceedings as well as before the court, the statements of the witnesses and the incident reports, the Malatya State Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged, sentenced him to life imprisonment for offences under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code, and permanently debarred him from employment in the civil service. 21.  On 26 January 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation, arguing that the lower court should have considered his acts under Article 168 of the Criminal Code which penalised forming an armed gang to undermine the State’s independence. He also argued that, if the court insisted on convicting him under Article 146 of the Criminal Code, than his sentence should have been reduced, as he had repented. 22.  On 28 May 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant’s conviction. On 2 July 2001 the decision of the Court of Cassation was submitted to the registry of the first instance court. 23.  On 13 August 2003 the applicant filed a request with the Malatya State Security Court in order to benefit from Law no 4959 on the reintegration of offenders into society, which came into force in 6 August 2003. 24.  On 29 April 2004, at the end of the hearing, which was held in the presence of three civilian judges, the Malatya State Security Court reduced the applicant’s sentence to nine years’ imprisonment.