5.  The applicants were born in 1979 and 1975 respectively and live in Diyarbakır. 6.  On 31 May 1999 the applicants were arrested at different locations in Diyarbakır. It appears from the arrest report in respect of Mr Attı that he was arrested outside the university where he was a student. The reason for the arrest was the police officers' “suspicion of his appearance/condition” (durumundan şüphe ettiğimiz). He was taken into police custody for the “necessary investigation to be carried out”. 7.  According to the arrest report in respect of Mr Tedik, he was arrested in a house and “in relation to an investigation”. Mr Tedik was also taken to the police station. The police officers who arrested Mr Tedik also searched the house and found a number of books and magazines in the Kurdish and Turkish languages. The books included a book of poems, a novel and a Kurdish grammar book. 8.  The Diyarbakır Police Headquarters, where the applicants were being detained, wrote to the prosecutor's office at the Diyarbakır State Security Court on 2 and 4 June 1999, and asked for permission to detain the applicants for a number of additional days. On 4 June 1999 the prosecutor granted permission to the police to detain the applicants until 10 June 1999. 9.  Also on 4 June 1999 a number of police officers took the applicants to a number of locations where, the applicants claimed in two signed statements prepared the same day, they had carried out a number of activities on behalf of the PKK[1], including preparing and throwing Molotov cocktails. 10.  The applicants were questioned by police officers on 8 June 1999. They stated that they were PKK sympathisers and also members of the Patriotic Youth Union (Yurtsever Gençlik Birliği). 11.  On 9 June 1999 the applicants were released from police custody and brought before the prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court, who took statements from them. In their statements the applicants denied any connections with the PKK, and submitted that they had been forced to sign their police custody statements without having been allowed to read them first. The same day the applicants were brought before the duty judge, who remanded them in custody pending the introduction of criminal proceedings against them. 12.  When questioned by police officers and subsequently by the prosecutor and the judge, the applicants were not represented by a lawyer. 13.  On 14 June 1999 the prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, charging the applicants and ten other persons with the offence of membership of an illegal organisation, an offence defined in Article 168 of the Criminal Code which was in force at the time. 14.  The first hearing in the case was held on 22 June 1999 by the First Division of the Diyarbakır State Security Court. In the course of the trial, the applicants were represented by lawyers, and they repeatedly denied the accuracy of the contents of their police custody statements. 15.  On 13 March 2001 the applicants were found guilty as charged and sentenced to twelve and a half years' imprisonment. In convicting the applicants the Diyarbakır State Security Court relied on the statements taken from them in police custody. 16.  The prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written observations to that court but they were not forwarded to the applicants or their lawyers. The applicants' convictions were upheld by the Court of Cassation on 11 October 2001.