3.  The applicant was born in 1979. At the time of his application to the Court, he was incarcerated in the Batman E-type Prison. 4.  On 16 December 1994 police officers from the Batman Security Directorate arrested the applicant on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdish Workers’ Party), and placed him in custody. 5.  During his detention, the applicant signed statements and confessed to being a member of the PKK and to collecting money for that organisation. 6.  On 30 December 1994 the applicant was questioned by the public prosecutor attached to the Batman Magistrates’ Court. During his questioning, he repeated his statement made to the police. On the same day the Batman Magistrates’ Court ordered his detention on remand. 7.  On 11 January 1995 the prosecutor filed an indictment with the Diyarbakır State Security Court charging the applicant and thirteen co‑accused with membership of an illegal armed organisation. 8.  On 17 January 1995 the applicant was brought before that court, which ordered that his detention on remand be continued. 9.  At the first hearing held on 16 March 1995, the applicant denied all the charges made against him. He submitted that his statements to the police had been taken under duress, and that he had been forced to repeat the same statements before the Batman Magistrates’ Court and the Batman Public Prosecutor’s Office. The court rejected his request for release pending trial. 10.  His requests for release pending trial were rejected by the Diyarbakır State Security Court at each of the hearings. The court examined the applicant’s continued detention on its own motion every one and a half months or two months. In ordering his continued detention, the court relied on the nature of the offences charged, the content of the case file, the state of the evidence, and the stage reached in the proceedings, without giving detailed reasoning. 11.  At the first hearing, the court requested the following: (i) oral statements of the police officers who had interrogated one of the accused, (ii) a forensic examination of one of the accused, Mr Ferhan Arasan, in order to establish his real age, (iii) defence statements of the accused who were on conditional release, to be taken by a criminal court in the area where they resided, and finally (iv) witness statements and police records on certain allegations made by one of the accused, Mr Mehmet Emin Güngör, regarding the bombing of his house by unknown perpetrators. 12.  At the following two hearings, the court heard some of the accused and adjourned the proceedings pending a forensic report on Mr Ferhan Arasan’s age. 13.  During the following ten hearings, held between 7 September 1995 and 7 November 1996, the court repeatedly ordered the taking of statements of two of the accused who were on conditional release and the preparation of a forensic report. 14.  At the fourteenth hearing, held on 19 December 1996, the court ordered the presence of several of the accused (including the applicant) at the following hearing, and adjourned the proceedings pending submission of the forensic report. 15.  Over the course of the following twenty-four months the court held thirteen hearings without obtaining new evidence in respect of the applicant, except for one hearing, held on 8 July 1997, at which the applicant and the other accused were questioned as to whether they had any information about the bombing of Mr Mehmet Emin Güngör’s house. During that period, the court obtained only the final observations of the prosecutor and the defendants, and continued to adjourn the proceedings pending submission of the forensic report. 16.  On 18 December 1998, noting that the forensic report was still pending, the court severed the proceedings against Mr Ferhan Arasan and issued judgments in respect of the remaining accused. It found the applicant guilty of all charges and sentenced him to eight years and four months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed. 17.  On 15 November 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.