5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in İzmit. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  On 11 June 1991 an auditor initiated an investigation into the alleged falsification of documents carried out in the applicant's pharmacy. On 4 July 1991 the auditor informed the Diyarbakir Public Prosecutor about the outcome of his investigation. 8.  The Ministry of Finance and Customs filed a complaint against the applicant. Consequently, on 16 June 1993 the Public Prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicant for forgery of official documents. 9.  On 21 June 1993 the Diyarbakır Assize Court scheduled the first hearing for 20 September 1993. It requested the Diyarbakır Security Directorate to find the applicant's address. It also requested the Ministry of Finance to submit all documents that are relevant to the case. The applicant was not present during most of the hearings, however he was represented by his lawyer. 10.  On 10 May 1994, at the sixth hearing, the Ministry complied with the court's request. 11.  Following the establishment of the applicant's address, his statement taken by way of rogatory letter was submitted to the case file during the hearing of 28 June 1994. Moreover, at the same hearing the court requested Bismil and Mersin Assize Courts to take the statements of two witnesses. These statements were submitted to the case-file at the following hearing. 12.  On 28 February 1995 the court sent the case-file to an expert to comment on the allegedly forged documents. During the following seven hearings there was no reply from the expert. The trial judge has therefore rescheduled the hearing without taking any substantial or procedural decision. At the hearing of 14 May 1996 the expert report was submitted to the case file. 13.  On 19 September 1996 the court referred the case-file to the Forensic Department in order to have their opinion on the matter. After eight hearings, on 27 January 1998, the Forensic Department submitted its report on the allegedly forged documents, but it failed to send back the case-file. On 23 June 1998 the case-file was sent back to the court. 14.  On 9 February 1999 the court requested a graphology expert at the Forensic Department to determine whether the handwriting and the signatures found on the documents belonged to the applicant. 15.  On 23 December 1999 the graphology expert submitted his report. 16.  On 18 January 2000 the Diyarbakır Assize Court found the applicant guilty of the charges and sentenced him to two years and eleven months imprisonment. 17.  The applicant appealed against the judgement of the Assize Court. On 24 January 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Assize Court. The Court of Cassation pronounced its decision in the presence of the applicant. The final decision was deposited with the Registry of the first instance court on 26 February 2002.