4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Istanbul. 5.  On 7 March 1999 around 150-200 people demonstrated in Maraşal Çakmak street. 45 people were arrested, including the applicant, and taken into police custody. 6.  According to the arrest protocol drafted by two police officers and signed by the applicant, the police officers received information that a Molotov cocktail had been thrown at a building. When they arrived at the scene of the incident they saw that a fire had been extinguished. The locals told them that two suspects had been chased in the direction of Karaoğlan Street. A few blocks further on, the police found the applicant on the floor being beaten up by a group of people. 7.  According to the identification protocol, drawn up the same day at Yenibosna police station, the applicant was apprehended as he was being lynched by a mob. This protocol bears the signature of two police officers, the applicant and another person, Mr H.A. The names of four other people appear on the protocol without their signatures. 8.  The applicant refused to give a statement to the police officers who wanted to interrogate him. The applicant's lawyer was present. 9.  The applicant alleged that he was ill-treated during the arrest and throughout his detention in police custody. In his letter of 10 November 1999 to the Court, the applicant submitted that he was first apprehended by a group of people who stole his money, beat him up and ill-treated him, and later arrested by police officers who also ill-treated him while he was in custody. 10.  On 7 March 1999, at around 9.30 p.m., the applicant was examined by a doctor at a State Hospital. The doctor noted that he had a graze of 2x1 cm on his left elbow, a graze of 3 cm on his right arm and two grazes of 1 cm below his right knee. The doctor further noted that the applicant also had two 5x10 cm ecchymoses on the right side of his scapula (shoulder bone) and multiple grazes and ecchymoses between his scapulas. 11.  On 8 March 1999 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Bakırköy Forensic Medicine Department, who mentioned that the applicant complained of having being beaten and sworn at. The doctor noted that he had a freshly-ecchymosed region with small red spots over an area of 22x20 cm on the right scapula, a bump of 2-3 cm on the head and a 2x3 cm bloody graze below the right knee. He further found that the applicant had an oedema of 3x5 cm on the grazed region of his right elbow and a fresh ecchymosis of 2x4 cm on the grazed region of the left arm. Finally, relying on the medical reports of 7 and 8 March 1999, the doctor concluded that the injuries rendered the applicant unfit for work for seven days. 12.  That same day, 8 March 1999, the applicant appeared before the Bakırköy Magistrates' Court where he denied the accusations against him. In particular, he denied that he had been the victim of an attempted lynching and claimed that suspicious-looking persons had stolen his wallet. His lawyer was present at the hearing. The court ordered his remand in custody. 13.  The applicant objected to the court's decision to remand him. In his petition addressed to the Bakırköy Assize Court, the applicant submitted, inter alia, that he had been caught by several people who had stolen his wallet. He had been handed over to the police during a demonstration which he had come across while going to his sister's house. He also stated that there had been no direct intervention by the police. The applicant's objection was dismissed by the court on 15 March 1999, having regard to the nature of the offence and the content of the case file. 14.  In the meantime, on 9 March 1999, the Bakırköy public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicant of throwing a Molotov cocktail. He requested the applicant's conviction and sentence under Article 264 of the Criminal Code. 15.  On 18 March 1999 the Bakırköy Assize Court declared that it lacked competence ratione materiae and transferred the case to the Istanbul State Security Court. It decided, at the same time, to prolong the applicant's remand in custody. 16.  On 12 April 1999 the Istanbul State Security Court decided that the applicant's detention pending trial should be continued. 17.  On 20 May 1999 the applicant applied to the Istanbul State Security Court for release pending trial on the ground that there had been a mistake. In his petition the applicant reiterated that he had been caught by several people who had stolen his wallet during a demonstration, which he had come across while he was shopping for a present for his niece. He stated that there had been no attempted lynching. The court ordered, on 30 June 1999, that the applicant's detention pending trial be continued having regard to the nature of the charge, the state of the evidence and the fact that he had not been heard by the court. 18.  The Istanbul State Security Court, noting that the applicant's act, of which he was accused, had no link to an illegal organisation, found that it lacked competence ratione materiae on 12 July 1999. It decided, at the same time, that the applicant's remand in custody be continued. The case was transferred to the Court of Cassation to rule on the competent court. 19.  On 11 August 1999 the Court of Cassation held that the Bakırköy Assize Court had jurisdiction to try the case and remitted the case to it. 20.  On 7 September 1999 the criminal proceedings before the Bakırköy Assize Court commenced. It extended the applicant's remand in custody. 21.  On 27 October 1999 the court issued summonses requiring Mr H.Ü., Mr M.D. and Mr I.Ö., the police officers who had prepared the arrest protocol, to give evidence. 22.  In the hearing held on 13 December 1999, the applicant submitted that, on the day of the incident, he was walking towards his sister's house when a person ran past him and then someone else twisted his arm, pressed him against a car and stole his wallet. He stated that they later called the police and he was arrested. The applicant stated that he had been beaten at the police station and that the protocols drawn up by the police officers were inaccurate. 23.  On 9 February 2000 the court heard one of the police officers, Mr M.D. who stated, in particular, that the applicant had first been caught by some citizens, badly beaten and handed over to the police. He submitted that, since none of the persons who had caught the applicant agreed to testify, the police had been unable to obtain their signatures on the apprehension protocol. The applicant refuted Mr M.D.'s testimony, stating that he had not been the subject of an attempted lynching. He mentioned that he had been hit on the back by police officers in the car. On the same day, the court ordered the applicant's release pending trial. 24.  Between 7 April 2000 and 30 October 2002, the Bakırköy Assize Court held six hearings and summoned Mr H.A. and the police officers, Mr H.Ü. and Mr I.Ö., to give evidence. 25.  On 30 October 2002 the court abandoned the proposal to hear one of the witnesses, Mr H.A., since he could not be found. 26.  On 19 December 2003 the court heard Officer I.Ö., who stated that he did not remember the incident but that the protocol which had been drawn up at the relevant time would contain accurate information. 27.  Between 19 December 2003 and 2 February 2005, the Bakırköy Assize Court fixed numerous hearings which were all adjourned, in particular because one of the witnesses, Mr H.Ü., repeatedly failed to appear. 28.  By a letter dated 28 June 2007, the applicant informed the Court that his case was still pending before the Bakırköy Assize Court.