4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and was detained in Diyarbakır prison at the time of his application to the Court. 5.  On 8 November 1993 the applicant was taken into police custody by police officers from the Diyarbakır Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party). 6.  On 26 November 1993 he was brought before a judge who ordered his detention on remand. 7.  On 29 November 1993 the applicant filed an objection against the decision of 26 November 1993. 8.  On 7 December 1993 the Diyarbakır State Security Court dismissed the applicant’s objection. 9.  On 23 December 1993 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and ten other persons. The applicant was charged under Article 125 of the Criminal Code with carrying out activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory. 10.  On 28 December 1993 the Diyarbakır State Security Court held the first hearing in the case against the applicant and the other co-accused (case no. 1993/663). 11.  Between 28 December 1993 and 16 January 1996 the Diyarbakır State Security Court held fourteen hearings, approximately once every two months on the merits of the case. During this time, at each hearing the court heard some of the accused and requested documents from various authorities with a view to completing the case file. 12.  Meanwhile, on 4 October 1994 the first-instance court decided to join another case (case no. 1993/821) to case no. 1993/663. 13.  On 26 March 1996 the public prosecutor submitted his observations on the merits of the case. The first-instance court requested the applicant and some of the other co-accused to make their defence submissions. 14.  Between 26 March 1996 and 16 September 1997 the Diyarbakır State Security Court adjourned the hearings as some of the accused had failed to file their defence submissions. 15.  In the meantime, on 3 July 1996 the Diyarbakır State Security Court decided to join another case (case no. 1994/433) to case no. 1993/633. 16.  On 21 October 1997 the Diyarbakır State Security Court decided to join a third case (case no. 1996/512) to case no. 1993/663. 17.  Between 21 October 1997 and 3 March 1998 the first-instance court heard the accused of the joined case and collected evidence in their respect. 18.  On 3 March 1998 the court requested the public prosecutor to submit his observations on the merits of the case. 19.  On 22 July 1998 the public prosecutor amended the indictment concerning the applicant and charged him under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code with membership of an illegal organisation. 20.  On 15 September 1998 the applicant’s lawyer contended that the applicant had been employed in Alanya at the time of the alleged offence and requested the first-instance court to conduct a further investigation with a view to confirming the veracity of his claim. The court accepted the applicant’s request and ordered the Alanya gendarmerie command to obtain evidence in that respect. 21.  On 29 December 1998 the court adjourned the hearing as it did not receive the requested information from the Alanya gendarmerie command. 22.  On 2 February 1999 the first-instance court withdrew its order of 15 September 1998. 23.  On 2 March 1999 the Diyarbakır State Security Court requested the accused to file their defence submissions. On an unspecified date, the applicant made his submissions. 24.  On 23 March 1999 the Diyarbakır State Security Court concluded the proceedings against twenty accused persons, including the applicant, and convicted the latter of membership of the PKK under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713. The first-instance court sentenced the applicant to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment and permanently debarred him from employment in the civil service. 25.  The Diyarbakır State Security Court held forty-one hearings in total. At the end of each hearing the court considered the applicant’s and the other co‑accused’s continued detention, either of its own motion or upon the request of the accused. The court ordered the applicant’s continued detention on every occasion, having regard to the state of the evidence, the nature of the offence and the content of the case file. 26.  On 17 February 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Diyarbakır State Security Court in respect of the applicant and some of the other co-accused.