4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and detained in Kandıra prison. 5.  On 3 March 1997 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation. 6.  On 14 March 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor. The medical report drawn up by the doctor indicated that there was hyperaemia on the applicant's thighs. 7.  On the same day the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor, where he stated that he had been stripped and hosed with water under police custody. 8.  On the same day the judge at the İstanbul State Security Court ordered his pre-trial detention. Before the judge the applicant stated that his statement in police custody had been taken under torture, but he did not give any details. 9.  On 28 April 1997 the public prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court issued an indictment charging the applicant with attempting to undermine the constitutional order under Article 146 of the former Criminal Code. 10.  On 7 July 1997 the applicant stated before the İstanbul State Security Court that his statement in police custody had been taken under torture, without giving any details. 11.  On 26 April 2002 the İstanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 146 of the former Criminal Code. 12.  On 12 May 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 26 April 2002. 13.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was subsequently resumed before the İstanbul Assize Court. 14.  On 25 December 2008 and 9 April 2009 the applicant objected to his continued detention and requested his release. The 11th Chamber of the İstanbul Assize Court dismissed the applicant's objections on 14 January and 15 April 2009 respectively, having regard to the nature of the offence in question and to the state of the evidence. No hearing was held. 15.  On 2 April 2009 the İstanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant. 16.  According to information in the case file, the case is pending before the Court of Cassation. 17.  Throughout the proceedings, the first instance courts examined the applicant's continued detention at the end of each hearing, either on their own motion or upon the applicant's requests. Each time the courts ordered the applicant's continued detention having regard to the state of the evidence, the nature of the offence, the strong suspicion of his having committed the offence in issue, the danger of flight, the overall period of the pre-trial detention, and the persistence of the grounds for the continued detention.