4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and was detained in Mardin prison at the time when the application to the Court was lodged. 5.  In the course of an operation carried out against the activities of an illegal armed organisation, namely the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), the applicant, together with seven other suspects, was arrested and placed in custody at the anti-terrorism branch of the Diyarbakır police headquarters on 31 October 1993. 6.  On the same day, the applicant was examined by a doctor at Çınar Medical Clinic. No physical signs of ill‑treatment were noted on the applicant’s person. 7.  In the application form the applicant alleged, without any further details, that he had been subjected to torture and ill-treatment, including threats and coercion while he was detained. 8.  On 31 October, 17 November and 18 November 1993 the applicant took part in a number of reconstructions of certain events. 9.  The health of one of the suspects arrested on the same ground as the applicant deteriorated while in detention and he died[1]. The applicant claimed that this person had also been tortured in custody. 10.  In the meantime, on 12 November 1993, the applicant was taken for a medical examination because he did not feel well. It appears from his note that the doctor suspected a urinary infection. The laboratory results noted the presence of about 3 or 4 red blood cells in his urine. On 13 November 1993 the applicant paid for the medicament prescribed by the doctor. 11.  On 20 November and 25 November 1993 the applicant, on being questioned by two police officers, made a number of incriminating statements concerning himself and some of the other accused. 12.  On 26 November 1993 the applicant and ten other accused were examined by a doctor at Diyarbakır State Hospital. No physical signs of ill‑treatment were noted on the applicant’s person. 13.  On 26 November 1993 the applicant was brought before the prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court (SSC), where he retracted his statements to the police, claiming that he had given them under torture. He accepted that he was the owner of two of the guns found as a result of reconstruction of the events but stated that he had no idea if one of these guns had been used, before he bought it, in the killing of a certain Mr H.B. and Mr M.S.G. as found in a ballistic report concerning their deaths. He also denied the content of the rest of the verbatim records of the reconstructions of the events, claiming that it was the police who had taken the suspects there and had told them what to say. 14.  On 26 November 1993 the applicant was brought before a judge at the SSC where he reiterated the statements he had given to the prosecutor. In particular, he denied his police statements and the contents of the verbatim records of the reconstructions, claiming that he had signed them under duress and coercion. The court remanded him in custody. 15.  On 30 November 1993 the applicant objected to his remand in custody. In his petition, he claimed his innocence and submitted that he had been subjected to constant and severe ill-treatment while in police custody. The applicant’s request for release was rejected by the SSC on 7 December 1993, its reasons being stated as follows: “having regard to the nature of the offence with which he is charged and the state of the evidence”. 16.  On 23 December 1993 the prosecutor at the SSC filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant under Article 125 of the Criminal Code with the offence of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory. The applicant was accused of taking part, on behalf of the PKK, in the killing of a certain Mr S.T. on 28 June 1993 and of Mr N.Y. on 5 August 1993, of kidnapping Mr C.Y. on 5 August 1993 and of taking part in two instances of laying down mines and shooting at police officers on 31 August 1993 and 22 October 1993. The prosecutor also noted that one automatic rifle belonging to the applicant had been, according to ballistic reports, used in the killing of Mr H.B. and Mr M.S.G. 17.  On 28 December 1993 the criminal proceedings against eleven accused including the applicant commenced before the SSC. 18.  In the course of the trial, at the end of each hearing, the SSC considered releasing the applicant pending trial, both of its own motion and at the request of his legal representative. At each hearing, taking into account the nature of the offence and the state of the evidence, the court decided to prolong the applicant’s detention. 19.  On 23 March 1999 the SSC found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 20.  On 17 February 2000 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and quashed the judgment of the SSC in respect of the applicant and four other accused. 21.  On 3 April 2000 the case was sent back to the first-instance court. 22.  On 22 October 2002 the SSC found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The trial court, on the basis of the evidence contained in the case file, including the applicant’s statements to the police and the verbatim records of the reconstructions of the events, found it established that the applicant had taken part in the killing of two persons and the kidnapping of another, had planted land mines and had opened fire on a police car. 23.  On 18 June 2003 the applicant appealed. In his petition, invoking a number of Convention rights, the applicant asked the Court of Cassation to quash his conviction. In particular, he repeated that he had been tortured and ill-treated in police custody for 27 days and that as a result he had been taken to hospital and treated there. Moreover, he maintained that one of his co-accused had died as a result of torture. He submitted that it was unlawful for the trial court to convict him on the basis of statements obtained under such conditions. 24.  On 30 September 2003 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and upheld the judgment in respect of the applicant.