6.  The applicant, Mrs Ayşenur Zarakolu was a Turkish national and lived in Istanbul. She was represented before the Court by Mr Özcan Kılıç, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. 7.  On 25 April 2002 the Court was informed of Mrs Zarakolu’s death on 28 January 2002 and that Mr Ragıp Zarakolu, her widower, wanted the proceedings to continue and wished to participate in them, retaining the applicant’s lawyer as his representative. 8.  For practical reasons, Mrs Zarakolu will continue to be called “the applicant”, although Mr Zarakolu is now to be regarded as such (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI and see also Ahmet Sadık v. Greece, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, p. 1641, § 3). 9.  The applicant was the owner of a publishing company called “Belge International Publishing Co.”. 10.  In June 1994 Belge International Publishing Co. published a book entitled Birakuji-Kürtlerin İç Savaşı, written by F.D. 11.  In an indictment dated 5 July 1994 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court charged the applicant with disseminating PKK propaganda through publishing this book. The Public Prosecutor requested that the applicant be convicted in accordance with Article 7 § 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law No. 3713). 12.  In the proceedings before the Istanbul State Security Court the applicant denied the charges. She stated that the book was based on true facts. She also referred to her rights under Article 10 of the Convention. 13.  In a judgment dated 28 September 1995, the Istanbul State Security Court found the applicant guilty of the offence under Article 7 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The applicant was sentenced to five months’ imprisonment and the payment of a fine of TRL 41,666,666. 14.  In concluding that the applicant had disseminated propaganda in support of a terrorist organisation, the court referred to the interview with Cemil Bayık, a commander of the PKK, published in pp. 243-250 of the book. The court quoted the following views of Cemil Bayık in its judgment:
“[T]he war in the south has shown that the power of the PKK was not as straightforward as had been estimated. It has also shown that it is not easy to eliminate the PKK. Everybody has been able to see for themselves that it is not possible to reach a solution in Kurdistan without the PKK. The PKK did not lose the war. In fact the reality is that it has emerged from this war with significant gains. The Turkish Republic, in an attempt to hide its defeat, has been disseminating propaganda based on lies, such as that the PKK has been defeated, that it has lost thousands of its men and that it will not recover. In the press, it has also been reported that the PKK has not been crushed and that it has emerged from this war ever more powerful. It has further been reported in the press that by disseminating such propaganda, they [the State] are deceiving themselves but that they need such propaganda to maintain high spirits”. 15.  On 12 October 1995 the applicant appealed alleging, inter alia, that Article 7 § 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act was inapplicable in her case and that the court had convicted her solely on the basis of an interview contained in pp. 243-250 of the book. She referred to her rights under Article 10 of the Convention. 16.  In a decision of 26 December 1995, the 9th Chamber of the Court of Cassation, upholding the cogency of the Istanbul State Security Court’s assessment of the evidence and its reasoning in rejecting the applicant’s defence, dismissed the appeal. 17.  On 6 February 1996 the applicant was notified about her prison sentence and the fine. 18.  On 29 August 1996 the applicant began serving her prison sentence at Bayrampaşa Prison in Istanbul.