4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Turkey. 5.  On 23 September 1994 the applicant was taken into custody within the context of a police operation against the PKK (Kurdish Workers’ Party). 6.  On 29 September 1994 the public prosecutor in Izmir filed a bill of indictment with the Izmir Criminal Court of First Instance (asliye ceza mahkemesi) charging the applicant and his co-accused, under Articles 350 and 351 of the Criminal Code, with forging and using an identification card. 7.  On 26 December 1994 the applicant appeared before the court and made statements. 8.  Between 7 November 1995 and 23 December 1998 the Izmir Criminal Court of First Instance postponed the hearings due to the absence of one of the applicant’s co-accused, Ş.Z., whose statements had to be taken. The representative of the applicant was present before the court only on 26 January 1996. 9.  On 23 December 1998, upon the request of the Izmir public prosecutor, the Izmir Criminal Court of First Instance issued a decision of non-jurisdiction, holding that the acts committed by the applicant and his co‑accused constituted the offence defined in Article 342 of the Criminal Code which prohibits forgery of official documents. The case file was then sent to the Izmir Assize Court (ağır ceza mahkemesi). 10.  On 22 March 1999 the first-instance court issued a summons requiring the applicant to give evidence. 11.  At the next hearing, on 9 June 1999, the applicant appeared before the court and made statements. 12.  Between 22 March 1999 and 23 February 2000 the Izmir Assize Court postponed the hearings due to the absence of the applicant’s co‑accused, Ş.Z. and M.A.Z., whose statements had to be taken. 13.  On 28 December 1999 statements of M.A.Z. were taken by the Çankırı Assize Court and sent to the trial court. 14.  On 23 February 2000, following the receipt of M.A.Z.’s statements of 28 December 1999, the Izmir Assize Court once again postponed the hearing as the address of Ş.Z. could not be determined. 15.  On 2 October 2000 the court ordered the detention of Ş.Z. in his absence. 16.  Until 26 February 2003 the first-instance court postponed the hearings as Ş.Z. could not be found. 17.  On 26 February 2003 the Izmir Assize Court held that the criminal proceedings against the applicant and his co-accused should be discontinued on the ground that the prosecution was time-barred.