4.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Edirne. 6.  On 7 February 1996 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Edirne Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the DHKP-C (Devrimci Halk Kurtuluş Partisi-Cephesi; the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front). 7.  In a letter of 8 February 1996 the Edirne Security Director asked the Chief Public Prosecutor to grant permission to keep the applicant and four other arrested persons in police custody until 12 February 1996. The security director reasoned that the police needed time to question the detainees in detail so that they could apprehend other members of the DHKP-C. On the same day, the Chief Public Prosecutor granted the leave requested until the end of the working day on 11 February 1996. 8.  On 10 February 1996 police officers took statements from A.İ. and Ü.U. who had been victims of illegal acts committed by members of the DHKP-C. In particular, Ü.U. named the applicant as the perpetrator of the petrol bomb (Molotov cocktail) attack on his lorry. 9.  During his detention in police custody the applicant later alleged that he was subjected to various forms of ill-treatment and forced to sign certain statements under duress. 10.  Following his release from police custody, on 12 February 1996, the applicant underwent a medical examination at the Edirne Forensic Institute. The medical report stated that there was no sign of injury or physical violence on the applicant's body. 11.  On 12 February 1996 the Chief Public Prosecutor questioned the applicant in connection with the acts allegedly committed by him and his statements made at the Security Directorate. The applicant submitted that the police officers had targeted him because he had previously been convicted for a similar offence and had been kept in prison for five months. The applicant maintained that he had been forced to sign a prepared statement under duress in which he admitted to having carried out illegal activities on behalf of the DHKP-C. 12.  On 12 February 1996 the applicant's father filed an application with the Chief Public Prosecutor's office in Edirne inquiring into the whereabouts of his son. He complained that he had not been able to see or learn about the fate of his son since his detention by the police officers on 8 February 1996 and that he was worried about his son's life. 13.  On the same day, the applicant was brought before the Edirne Magistrates' Court (Edirne Sulh Ceza Mahkemesi), which ordered his detention on remand. He allegedly raised his complaint concerning the alleged ill-treatment before the court. He stated that he had been tortured while in custody and denied the accusations during the trial before the Istanbul State Security Court (“SSC”). He did not, however, give details of the alleged ill-treatment, but merely asserted that he had been threatened by the officers and had signed documents without being aware of the contents. 14.  On 11 March 1996 the Chief Public Prosecutor attached to the Istanbul SSC filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant and four other co‑accused with membership of an illegal armed organisation, notably the DHKP-C, and aiding and abetting members of the said organisation. The charges against the applicant were brought under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713 (Anti-terrorism Act). The indictment contained three counts of crimes allegedly perpetrated by the applicant. Under count one, the applicant was alleged to have been involved in distributing illegal leaflets containing propaganda by the DHKP-C; count two consisted of the allegations that the applicant had thrown a petrol bomb at a lorry belonging to Ü.U. and that he had also put up a poster in the entrance to a shop; and under count three, it was alleged that the applicant had painted a slogan on the walls of a stadium. 15.  At the hearing of 21 May 1996 held by the Istanbul SSC, the applicant denied the charges against him and claimed that, following his arrest on 6 February 1996, he had been subjected to various forms of torture and that he had been forced to sign written statements prepared by the police officers. He thus denied the accuracy of the statements allegedly made by him during his detention in police custody. He accepted that his statements before the Chief Public Prosecutor and the investigating judge were true. 16.  In his observations on the merits of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and other co-accused, the public prosecutor submitted that the applicant had denied the allegation that he had thrown a petrol bomb at a cash dispenser belonging to a bank, but that other co-accused had admitted to having committed the offence in question. He noted, however, that there was sufficient evidence on which to convict the applicant for having aided and abetted the illegal organisation. Thus, the public prosecutor asked the court to apply Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713 in respect of the applicant. 17.  On 20 March 1997 the applicant filed his observations on the merits of the case and also responded to the public prosecutor's submissions. He denied the charges against him and asserted that his statements at the police station had been obtained under duress. He asserted that only the statements which he had made before the judge were accurate. 18.  On 8 April 1997 the Istanbul SSC found the applicant guilty of the offence under Article 169 of the Criminal Code, notably for aiding and abetting the DHKP-C, and sentenced him to four years and six months' imprisonment. The court noted that the applicant had earlier been given leave to comment on the re-qualification of his acts as constituting an offence under Article 169 rather than Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The court further reasoned that the applicant's statements at the Security Directorate, the testimonies of his co‑accused during the preliminary investigation, the testimonies of the police officers under oath and the evidence contained in the case-file had supported the conviction and punishment of the applicant for the offence under Article 169 of the Criminal Code. 19.  The court also noted the applicant's allegations, as part of his defence submissions, that he had been subjected to various forms of torture and that he had been made to sign written statements prepared by the police officers. However, relying on the medical report dated 12 February 1996, it found them unconvincing. 20.  On 21 May 1997 the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation. He argued that he had been convicted solely on the basis of the statements made by him and his co-accused under duress at the police station. He pointed out that his co-accused had already denied the accuracy of the statements allegedly made by them in the police station. He therefore contended that the first-instance court had erred in its judgment in relying on the statements obtained under duress. 21.  On 9 December 1997 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. It held that the applicant's activities were of a varied and continuous nature. It therefore ruled that the applicant should have been tried and convicted of the offence under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code, namely for membership of an illegal armed organisation. 22.  By a judgment of 7 July 1998 the Istanbul SSC reiterated its previous finding that the applicant's acts constituted the offence under Article 169 of the Criminal Code. The case was transferred to the Grand Chamber of the Court of Cassation for Criminal Law Matters (Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulu). 23.  On 11 May 1999 the Grand Chamber quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. It reasoned that the evidence contained in the case-file had clearly indicated that the applicant had been an active member of the DHKP-C. The court therefore referred the case to the Istanbul State Security Court for reconsideration. 24.  Meanwhile, on 18 June 1999 the Grand National Assembly amended Article 143 of the Constitution and excluded military members from the state security courts. Following similar amendments made on 22 June 1999 to the Law on the State Security Courts, the military judge sitting on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court hearing the applicant's case was replaced by a civilian judge. 25.  On 22 July 1999 the applicant was examined by a medical doctor at the Edirne Forensic Medicine Institute. The doctor noted that there was no sign of ill-treatment or physical violence on the applicant's body. 26.  By a judgment of 4 April 2000 the Istanbul SSC, composed of three civilian judges, adhered to the Court of Cassation's decision and convicted the applicant for membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the DHKP-C, under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The court however acquitted the applicant of the charges of throwing a petrol bomb at a lorry and burning down a cash dispenser belonging to a bank. It sentenced the applicant to twelve years and six months' imprisonment and further disbarred him from public service. 27.  On 1 February 2002 the applicant was released from prison following a decision to suspend the execution of his sentence. 28.  Following the entry into force of the new Criminal Code on 1 June 2005, which prescribed a less severe sentence under Article 314 § 2 for the offence committed by the applicant, in a decision of 14 October 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court reviewed the applicant's sentence and reduced it to six years and three months' imprisonment.