4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Diyarbakır. 5.  On 19 January 1994 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody by officers of the Diyarbakır security police in connection with an investigation into an illegal organisation. 6.  On 7 February 1994 the applicant was brought before the Diyarbakır public prosecutor and then the investigating judge, who remanded the applicant in custody. 7.  By an indictment dated 17 March 1994, the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and a number of others, accusing him, inter alia, of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. 8.  On 30 July 1997 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted and sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment, pursuant to Article 125 of the Criminal Code. 9.  The applicant appealed. On 1 March 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on procedural grounds and remitted the case to the Diyarbakır State Security Court. Following constitutional amendments introduced on 7 May 2004, the State Security Courts were totally abolished. Subsequently, the applicant’s case was resumed before the 6th Assize Court of Diyarbakır. 10.  Throughout the whole proceedings the applicant regularly requested his release whereas the trial courts rejected his requests. On 20 October 2005 the applicant noted that he had already been detained for a period of more than eleven years and reiterated his request. Relying on the accusations against the applicant, the existence of strong evidence against him and the content of the case file, the 6th Assize Court of Diyarbakır refused his request again. The applicant appealed. On 25 October 2005 the 4th Assize Court of Diyarbakır dismissed the appeal without further reasoning. 11.  On 9 March 2007 the 6th Assize Court of Diyarbakır convicted the applicant and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On 7 March 2008 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.