4.  The applicant, Mr Davut Abo, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and is currently serving his prison sentence in Diyarbakır. 5.  On 1 October 2000 the applicant was arrested by gendarmerie forces on the suspicion of his membership of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). 6.  Between 2 and 4 October 2000 the applicant was questioned by police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Beytülşebap Security Directorate. All of the interviews were conducted in the absence of a lawyer. In his statements, the applicant acknowledged that he was a member of the PKK and gave details of certain events in which he had taken part. 7.  On 5 October 2000 the Beytülşebap Public Prosecutor took statements from the applicant. The applicant confirmed the contents of his police statements and gave detailed information about the events, again in the absence of a lawyer. 8.  On the same day, an investigating judge at the Beytülşebap Magistrate’s Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention, without the assistance of a lawyer. The applicant repeated the statements he had made to the police and public prosecutor. 9.  On 1, 2, 4 and 5 October 2000, the applicant was medically examined by a doctor who noted that there were no sign of physical violence on the applicant’s body. 10.  On 22 December 2000 the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor lodged an indictment with the Diyarbakır State Security Court, composed of three civilian judges, accusing the applicant of carrying out activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory, pursuant to Article 125 of the Criminal Code in force at the time. 11.  In his written submissions to the Diyarbakır State Security Court lodged on 6 February 2001, the applicant explained in detail the treatment to which he had allegedly been subjected. 12.  On 22 February 2001 the Diyarbakır State Security Court heard the applicant at its first hearing. He denied all the accusations against him and retracted his statements given to the police, the public prosecutor and the investigating judge. He maintained that he had been threatened by the police whilst being taken to both the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, and he further stated that he thought that he was being brought before police officers when he had been taken to the offices of the prosecutor and judge. He complained that he had been subjected to torture in police custody. During the hearing, the applicant read out his written submissions. 13.  State Security Courts were abolished by Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004. The case was accordingly transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court. 14.  On 22 September 2005, the applicant’s recently appointed lawyer requested the court for a fresh medical examination to be ordered in order to determine whether the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment five years ago during his detention in police custody. The court dismissed this request, having based its rejection on the content of the case file and the state of the evidence. 15.  On 9 November 2006 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged. The court emphasised the consistency of the applicant’s statements during the preliminary investigation with the investigation reports obtained from another case file related to the offence in question. It further found the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment implausible in the light of the medical reports in the case file. Subsequently, the court sentenced him to aggravated life imprisonment. 16.  On 10 November 2006 he appealed against the judgment without raising a complaint into ill-treatment. 17.  On 10 May 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the conviction.