5.  The applicant Kemal Kahraman was born in 1972 and lives in Istanbul. 6.  On 10 June 1999 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of the IBDA-C (Great Eastern Islamic Raiders’ Front- İslami Büyükdoğu Akıncılar Cephesi). He was believed to have been involved in the bombing of bars and clubs in Istanbul on three different occasions, which had caused casualties. The police found instructions on how to make bombs, the necessary materials and explosives for doing so, as well as photographs in which the applicant was covered in the organisation’s flag whilst holding a Kalashnikov-type rifle, at his place of residence. The applicant claimed that during his questioning by the police officers he was blindfolded and subjected to various forms of ill-treatment. In particular, he was suspended by his arms (“reverse hanging”), hosed with cold water and beaten up by the police officers. Thereafter the applicant was made to sign statements in which he admitted the charges against him. 7.  On 14 June 1999 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court, where he repudiated the content of his police statements, alleging that they had been extracted from him under torture. 8.  On the same day, the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute. The medical report recorded a bruise of 2 cm on his left upper leg, a bruise of 1.5 cm on the inner part of his right upper arm, a hyperaemic[1] area of 2cm on the right elbow, a bruise of 1.5 cm on the inner part of the left upper arm, a scab-covered lesion of 1 cm on the left elbow, and a complaint of pain in the back and arms. In her report the doctor also noted the applicant’s complaints that he had been suspended by his arms, beaten up and threatened during his detention in police custody. She thus concluded that the applicant had been subjected to physical violence which rendered him unfit for work for two days. The applicant was then brought before the investigating judge, who ordered his pre-trial detention. 9.  On 18 September 1999 the Chief Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court, accusing the applicant of membership of the IBDA-C. The Public Prosecutor sought the death penalty, under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code, on account of the applicant’s participation in that organisation’s activities, and his aim to undermine the constitutional order of the State and to replace it with a theocratic regime. 10.  In the course of the criminal proceedings, the applicant applied to the Istanbul State Security Court, alleging that he had been tortured during his detention in police custody. He protested his innocence and stated that he had been forced under torture to sign statements which he had not seen, including the report on the search of his home, and that the materials allegedly found at his home did not belong to him. 11.  In his defence submissions dated 21 May 2002, the applicant’s lawyer referred to the medical report of 14 June 1999 indicating signs of ill-treatment, and asked the Istanbul State Security Court to acquit his client for lack of evidence. 12.  On 1 October 2002 the State Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged. The court relied on the evidence gathered by the police from the applicant’s place of residence, such as the photographs showing him wrapped in the IBDA-C banner whilst holding a gun, materials for making bombs, as verified by a criminal expert report, and the applicant’s handwriting on some of the papers, giving instructions on how to make bombs, as well as the statements made by the applicant’s co-accused. It therefore convicted the applicant and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 13.  On 7 November 2002 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation, arguing that the State Security Court had disregarded their defence submissions. Relying on the medical report dated 14 June 1999, he claimed that, in convicting the applicant, the first-instance court had relied on the statements which the police had obtained from the applicant under torture and that no investigation had been carried out into his allegations before the impugned statements had been included in the case file. He therefore asked the court to quash the first-instance court’s judgment and to refer the case back for a new trial. 14.  On 23 September 2003 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the Istanbul State Security Court.