4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and is currently detained in Ümraniye prison, Istanbul. 5.  On 4 September 1995 the applicant was arrested in Istanbul on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation. He was placed in custody at the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul Police Headquarters. 6.  On 13 September 1995 he was questioned by police officers and on 17 October 1995 he was handed over to police officers in the south-eastern city of Batman and placed in police custody there. On 30 October 1995 police officers from the Batman Police Headquarters questioned the applicant. In his statements he submitted that he had been trained at PKK[1] camps before being sent to Istanbul where his health deteriorated. 7.  On 2 October 1995 the applicant was brought before the Batman Chief Public Prosecutor for questioning. The same day the applicant was also questioned by the judge at the Batman Criminal Court of Peace. The judge ordered his detention in Batman prison pending the initiation of criminal proceedings against him. 8.  On 11 October 1995 the prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment with that court and charged the applicant with the offence of membership of an illegal organisation, an offence which was defined in Article 168 of the Criminal Code and which carried a maximum sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s trial began before the Diyarbakır State Security Court on 17 October 1995. 9.  In the course of its ninth hearing held on 11 December 1996, the Diyarbakır Security Court noted that another set of criminal proceedings had been initiated against the applicant on 31 July 1996 on the basis of an indictment filed on 23 July 1996, and that those proceedings were pending before the 3rd Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court. In those proceedings the applicant was being tried in absentia for the offence of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of a part of the national territory, an offence which was defined in Article 125 of the Criminal Code and which provided for the death penalty as the sole punishment. The Diyarbakır State Security Court considered that both cases were similar, and decided to join them before the 3rd Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court. The judge also ordered the applicant’s transfer to a prison in Istanbul. 10.  A hearing took place before the 3rd Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court on 17 January 1997 in the applicant’s absence. 11.  In the course of its sixth hearing held on 7 March 1997, the 3rd Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court noted that criminal proceedings were pending against a certain İ.K. before the 1st Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court concerning the killing of a village guard. Having regard to the evidence which had the potential to prove that the applicant had also been involved in that killing, the court decided to join the cases. The 1st Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court took over the trial. 12.  After having joined the three cases, the 1st Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court (hereinafter “the trial court”) held its first hearing of the case on 10 April 1997. The applicant was not present at this hearing. 13.  Between 10 April 1997 and 31 October 2000 – i.e. for a period of more than three and a half years – the trial court continued its hearings in the absence of the applicant because it was unable to establish the prison in which the applicant was being detained. 14.  When the authorities finally succeeded in ascertaining where the applicant was being held, the trial court held its first hearing in the presence of the applicant on 31 October 2000. In the course of that hearing the applicant was informed about the additional charges which had been brought against him on 23 July 1996 under Article 125 of the Criminal Code and the joinder of his cases to that of İ.K. The applicant rejected the accusations and submitted that he had been in prison at the time of the commission of the offences. Having regard to “the nature of the offences in question and the evidence in the file, as well as the date of his arrest and detention and the current stage of the proceedings”, the trial court rejected the applicant’s request for release. 15.  In the course of the hearing on 12 June 2003, the applicant’s request for release was rejected by the trial court on the basis of “the nature of the offence in question and the evidence in the file”. 16.  On 17 June 2003 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a formal objection against the trial court’s decision and reminded the court of his client’s rights under Article 5 of the Convention. This objection was examined by the 2nd Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court and rejected on 19 June 2003. 17.  Following the abolition of the State Security Court, the case file was transferred to the docket of the 9th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court (hereinafter “the trial court”), which held its first hearing on 20 July 2004. 18.  In the course of the hearing on 7 October 2004, the applicant once more reminded the trial court of his rights under Article 5 of the Convention and requested his release. This request was rejected on the same grounds relied on by the previous trial court. 19.  During the hearing on 11 April 2006, the applicant again asked to be released. This request was also rejected by the trial court on account of the “sentence which would be imposed if he were to be found guilty”. The applicant’s objection to that decision was examined by the 10th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court and rejected because of “the nature of the offence in question and the existence of a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question”. 20.  The applicant’s requests for release have all been rejected in the subsequent three hearings held between 15 May 2007 and 15 November 2007. 21.  During the hearing held on 27 December 2007, the trial court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. It also decided that the applicant should never be released from the prison. 22.  The appeal lodged by the applicant against his conviction is currently pending before the Court of Cassation.