4.  The applicants were born in 1977, 1974 and 1974, respectively, and live in Istanbul. 5.  Cem Demirbaş and Haydar Ceylan were arrested on 18 April 1999, and Binnaz Demirbaş was arrested on 19 April 1999. According to the arrest report drawn up in respect of Binnaz Demirbaş and Cem Demirbaş, the reason for their arrest was the suspicion that they were members of an illegal organisation, namely the Türkiye Komunist Partisi/Marksist Leninist - Türkiye İşçi Köylü Kurtuluş Ordusu (the TKP/ML-TİKKO; the Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist Leninist-Workers’ and Peasants’ Liberation Army of Turkey). They were subsequently placed in custody at the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Police Headquarters. 6.  On 25 April 1999 the applicants were brought before the prosecutor and, subsequently, the duty judge of the Istanbul State Security Court, who questioned them further and recorded their statements. The duty judge remanded them in custody pending the introduction of criminal proceedings against them. 7.  On 3 June 1999 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment against the applicants and nine other persons. The applicants were charged with attempting to undermine the constitutional order, an offence proscribed by Article 146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code. 8.  On 25 August 1999 the Istanbul State Security Court held the first hearing on the merits of the case. In the course of twelve subsequent hearings, the actions taken by the trial court were limited to the reading out of the indictment in open court, asking the applicants to submit their defence and obtaining copies of the applicants’ birth certificates and criminal records. The applicants’ request to widen the scope of the investigation by, inter alia, hearing a number of witnesses, was rejected by the trial court. 9.  On 22 May 2002 the first-instance court found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced them to death. This sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. 10.  The applicants appealed. 11.  On 17 April 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment. 12.  On 2 June 2003 the case against the applicants resumed before the Istanbul State Security Court. 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 applicants was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court. 14.  Up until 14 February 2007 the applicants and their representatives requested the formers’ release pending trial several times both before the Istanbul State Security Court and the Istanbul Assize Court. On each of those occasions the trial court rejected the applicants’ requests, considering that the reasons justifying their remand in custody still obtained on account of the “nature of the offence of which they were accused, the evidence in the file, and the continuing risk of escape”. Binnaz Demirbaş’s objection of 15 April 2002 and the other two applicants’ objections of 25 July 2005 against the orders for their continued detention were also dismissed on 17 April 2002 and 5 September 2005 respectively. 15.  On 14 February 2007 the Istanbul Assize Court ordered the applicants’ release pending trial. 16.  According to the information in the case file, thirteen more hearings have been held since 2 June 2003 in the context of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicants which, according to the information available in the case file, are still pending. 17.  On 18 April 1999, following his arrest at 1 p.m., Haydar Ceylan was first taken to the Gaziosmanpaşa district police headquarters in Istanbul. 18.  According to the arrest report drafted by two police officers, Haydar Ceylan was apprehended since the officers found him “suspicious”. The report noted that the applicant refused to sign it. On the same day at 1.45 p.m. another report was drawn up by three officers concerning the body search, which recorded that the objects found on the applicant’s person were given to him. This report also noted that the applicant refused to sign it. According to an undated third report, without the applicant’s signature or a note concerning his refusal to put his signature, drawn up and signed by three officers, the applicant resisted the body search and attempted to jump out of a window while he was detained in the Gaziosmanpaşa police headquarters; the officers prevented him from doing so by using force. 19.  On the same date the applicant was transferred to the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Police Headquarters. 20.  On 19 April 1999 at 3.42 a.m. the applicant was examined by a doctor who found that there were a few ecchymotic lesions (bruising) on the applicant’s back, an ecchymosis on his left eyelid, and a few ecchymoses on his left shoulder. 21.  On 22 April 1999 at 5.45 p.m. the applicant was once again examined by a doctor who observed two old scabbed grazes on his right eyebrow and on the left of his nose, and another scabbed superficial graze on his left shoulder. 22.  On 25 April 1999 at 10.30 a.m., before his referral to the public prosecutor and the duty judge, the applicant was examined at the Beyoğlu branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute. The doctor, who examined the applicant and nine other persons, noted that there were scars of 0.2-0.3 cm in diameter on the applicant’s right eyebrow and on the left of his nose. He also observed a scabbed graze of 1x1 cm on his left shoulder. 23.  On the same day Haydar Ceylan stated before the duty judge at the State Security Court that he had been subjected to torture while he was in police custody. In particular, he had been suspended by the arms, forcibly given water and beaten. 24.  On 3 March 2000 and 22 May 2002 Haydar Ceylan made submissions to the Istanbul State Security Court and stated, inter alia, that he had been subjected to torture while in police custody. In his submissions of 3 March 2000 the applicant gave a detailed description of the ill‑treatment to which he had allegedly been subjected. 25.  On 6 June 2002 the applicant’s representative lodged a formal complaint with the Fatih public prosecutor’s officer against the police officers who had allegedly inflicted ill-treatment on the applicant. In support of these claims, he submitted the medical reports drafted in respect of the applicant. 26.  Upon the receipt of the petition of the applicant’s representative, the Fatih public prosecutor initiated an investigation into the allegations of ill‑treatment. 27.  On 26 August 2002 the Fatih public prosecutor obtained statements from Haydar Ceylan, who maintained that he had been subjected to ill‑treatment in both the Gaziosmanpaşa and Istanbul police headquarters. 28.  On 28 November 2002 the public prosecutor took statements from H.İ., one of the police officers who had arrested the applicant. H.İ. stated that the injuries noted on the medical reports had occurred when the officers had attempted to prevent the applicant from jumping out of the window in the police headquarters. H.İ. denied the allegations of torture. 29.  On 17 February 2003 the public prosecutor took statements from the second arresting police officer, M.Ö., who also contended that the applicant had attempted to jump out of the window and that they had been obliged to use force. 30.  On 25 August 2003 the Fatih public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Fatih Criminal Court against H.İ. and M.Ö., charging them with inflicting ill‑treatment on Haydar Ceylan under Article 245 of the former Criminal Code. 31.  On 1 September 2003 the first hearing before the Fatih Criminal Court was taken up with procedural matters. The first hearing on the merits of the case was scheduled for 18 December 2003. 32.  On 7 November 2003 Haydar Ceylan reiterated his allegations of ill‑treatment before the Kandıra Criminal Court. (He was then being detained in a prison in Kandıra.) The record of the hearing containing his statements was sent to the Fatih Criminal Court. 33.  On 18 December 2003 the Fatih Criminal Court heard H.İ., who once again denied the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. On the same day the Fatih Assize Court accepted the applicant’s request to intervene in the proceedings as a civil party. 34.  At the end of the second hearing on the merits, held on 6 July 2004, the criminal court decided that a forensic expert should give an opinion as to whether the applicant had been ill-treated as alleged. 35.  On an unspecified date a forensic expert recommended that the first‑instance court should obtain a medical opinion from the competent section of the Forensic Medicine Institute regarding the alleged physical trauma as well as the psychological trauma which the applicant could have suffered. 36.  On 2 November 2004 the Fatih Criminal Court requested the Forensic Medicine Institute to prepare a report on the applicant’s case. 37.  On an unspecified date the Forensic Medicine Institute requested the medical reports drawn up in respect of the applicant from the Fatih Criminal Court. It also requested that the applicant be sent to the Institute for a medical examination. 38.  On 1 March 2005 the Fatih Criminal Court requested the medical reports concerning the applicant from the Istanbul Assize Court. 39.  On 8 June and 20 October 2005 the first-instance court postponed the hearings since the Istanbul Assize Court had not responded to its request. 40.  On 21 March 2006 the Fatih public prosecutor submitted to the court that the accused police officers’ acts should be defined as torture under Article 243 of the former Criminal Code and that, therefore, the assize courts had jurisdiction to examine the case. 41.  On the same day the Fatih Criminal Court issued a decision of non‑jurisdiction and transmitted the case to the Istanbul Assize Court. 42.  On 17 October 2006 the first hearing before the Istanbul Assize Court was taken up with procedural matters. The first hearing on the merits of the case was scheduled for 1 December 2006. 43.  On 1 December 2006 the Istanbul Assize Court held that the criminal proceedings against the police officers should be discontinued on the ground that the prosecution was time-barred.