4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Turkey. 5.  The applicant was wanted by the police on suspicion of membership of the illegal organisation, the DHKP-C (Devrimci Halk Kurtuluş Partisi-Cephesi; the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front). 6.  According to the applicant, on 2 August 1996 he was taken into police custody by plain clothes police officers, who kicked and punched him during the arrest. They then handcuffed the applicant, put him in a taxi and took him to the headquarters of the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate in the Aksaray District. 7.  The arrest report, dated 2 August 1996 and signed by the applicant, stated, that the police had received information that the applicant would meet with another member of the DHKP-C at an address in the Kadıköy District of Istanbul. Four police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Branch waited for him at that address. When they saw the applicant, they identified themselves as police officers. The applicant tried to run away and the officers had to use force to arrest him. 8.  At the headquarters of the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate, the applicant was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment. In particular, he was allegedly stripped naked, blindfolded and subjected to Palestinian hanging and falaka. Electric cables were attached to his sexual organs and his toes, and electric shocks were administered to him. His testicles were squeezed and a firearm was inserted into his anus. The applicant was also hosed down with cold water. 9.  On 12 August 1996 the applicant was examined by a doctor who noted the following marks on his body: a completely-healed 5 cm abrasion on the side of the left wrist, three grazes of 1 x 4 - 5 cm on the right wrist, a completely-healed 5 cm long graze on the left shoulder, two abrasions of 1 cm in diameter under the right knee. The doctor further opined that the injuries rendered the applicant unfit for work for two days. 10.  On 15 August 1996 the applicant was taken before the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court. He contended that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his custody period and that his statements had been taken under duress. The public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court referred the applicant to the Forensic Medicine Institute for a medical examination. The applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert who noted the same marks on the applicant's body as the doctor who had examined him on 12 August. 11.  The Istanbul State Security Court subsequently ordered the applicant's detention on remand. 12.  On an unspecified date, the Fatih public prosecutor initiated an investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment of the applicant. 13.  On 7 and 25 November 1996, 9 December 1996 and 13 August 1998 the Fatih public prosecutor took statements from four police officers who were on duty at the headquarters of the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate at the relevant time and were involved in taking the applicant's police statement. 14.  On 31 December 1998 the Fatih public prosecutor sent a report to the Istanbul public prosecutor and summarised the facts and complaints concerning the investigation. The Fatih public prosecutor requested the Istanbul public prosecutor to file a bill of indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court, charging the four police officers with inflicting torture under Article 243 § 1 of the Criminal Code. 15.  On 14 January 1999 the Istanbul public prosecutor did so. 16.  Between 25 January 1999 and 16 February 2000, the Istanbul Assize Court held seven hearings and heard three of the police officers. The fourth police officer and the applicant made statements before the Aydın Assize Court and the Sakarya Assize Court respectively on commission, which were then sent to the Istanbul Assize Court. The applicant maintained before the court that he had been subjected to torture in police custody. The police officers denied the allegations against them. 17.  On 16 February 2000 the Istanbul Assize Court acquitted the accused police officers. In its judgment, the first-instance court noted that the applicant could not identify the accused police officers and that therefore, there was insufficient evidence to convict them. The court further considered that the injuries on the applicant's body could have occurred during the arrest. 18.  On 6 August 2001 the judgment of 16 February 2000 was served on the applicant, who was detained in Kırklareli E-type prison. 19.  On 7 August 2001 the applicant filed an appeal against the judgment of the Istanbul Assize Court. 20.  On 8 October 2001 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant's appeal, holding that the applicant could not lodge an appeal since he had not intervened as a civil party to the criminal proceedings. 21.  The judgment of the Istanbul Assize Court became final as neither the public prosecutor nor the accused appealed.