4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Istanbul. 5.  On 22 May 1996 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of having committed a murder, together with the wife of the deceased. 6.  On 27 May 1996 the Küçükçekmece Magistrates' Court (Sulh Ceza Mahkemesi) ordered the applicant's detention on remand. 7.  On 6 June 1996 the Bakırköy public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Bakırköy Assize Court charging the applicant and the deceased's wife, K.Y., under Articles 450 § 4, 40 and 64 of the Criminal Code with homicide. 8.  On 31 July 1996 the Third Chamber of the Bakırköy Assize Court held the first hearing and heard the applicant who denied the charges against him. On the same day, the first-instance court issued a summons requiring M.Y., K.Y.'s son, to give evidence and ordered that the autopsy report on the deceased be submitted to it. 9.  On 18 September 1996 the first-instance court heard M.Y and read out the autopsy report. On the same day, the applicant requested the first-instance court to order an examination of the blood stains found at the scene of the incident. The court disregarded the applicant's request. The applicant further requested to be released pending trial. The first-instance court dismissed this request, having regard to the content of the case file. The court also issued summonses requiring M.Y. and K.Y.'s other children, Ü.Y. and H.Y., to testify before the court during the next hearing. 10.  On 6 November 1996 M.Y. once again testified before the first‑instance court. The court further heard M.D., the applicant's wife. On the same day, the deceased's brother, İ.Y., joined the proceedings as a civil party (müdahil). At the end of the hearing, the assize court once again requested Ü.Y. and H.Y. to give evidence and also issued summonses requiring İ.Y.'s wife and brother and a certain H.D. to testify before the court. 11.  On 9 December 1996 the court heard H.D. and reiterated its orders in respect of İ.Y's brother, Ü.Y. and H.Y. 12.  On 17 February 1997 the assize court heard S.Y., İ.Y.'s daughter. On the same day, the statements of İ.Y.'s brother taken by the Niksar Criminal Court of First Instance were read out. The first-instance court reiterated its order in respect of Ü.Y. and H.Y. 13.  On 28 March 1997 H.Y. testified before the first-instance court. The court heard the applicant and K.Y. and issued summonses requiring F.Ç. and Y.Ç, the applicant's witnesses, to give evidence. The court dismissed the request for an on-site inspection. 14.  On 16 May 1997 the Third Chamber of the Bakırköy Assize Court heard Ü.Y., F.Ç. and Y.Ç. On the same day, the court decided to send the case file to the public prosecutor and requested the latter to file his submissions on the merits of the case. 15.  On 27 June 1997 the first-instance court heard K.Y. who maintained that the deceased had filed an application for divorce. The court ordered that the file concerning this case be obtained from the relevant court. It further ordered that M.Y. be brought before the court in order to give further evidence. 16.  On 22 July 1997 the applicant requested the first-instance court to broaden the scope of the investigation. In particular, he requested that two additional witnesses be heard by the court and that the financial links between K.Y., the deceased and the deceased's brother İ.Y. be investigated. 17.  On 27 August 1997 the assize court reiterated its order that M.Y. be brought before the court in order to give additional evidence. It further requested the public prosecutor to submit his opinion on the applicant's request to broaden the scope of the investigation. 18.  On 20 October 1997 the first-instance court once again heard the applicant and K.Y. At the end of the hearing, it dismissed the applicant's request holding that it was not necessary to broaden the scope of the investigation. The court once again ordered that M.Y. be brought before it. 19.  On the same day, the Third Chamber of the Bakırköy Assize Court again dismissed the applicant's request to be released pending trial. 20.  On 30 October 1997 the applicant filed an objection with the Fourth Chamber of the Bakırköy Assize Court against the decision of 20 October 1997. 21.  On 3 November 1997 the Fourth Chamber of the Bakırköy Assize Court dismissed his objection. 22.  On 5 December 1997 M.Y.'s statements which had been taken by another court were read out. The assize court issued a summons requiring İ.Y. to testify before it. 23.  On 4 February 1998 the Bakırköy Assize Court heard İ.Y. and issued summonses requiring İ.Y.'s brothers and one of his neighbours to give evidence. 24.  On 13 March 1998 the first-instance court heard İ.Y.'s neighbour and postponed the hearing in order to await the statements of İ.Y.'s brothers. 25.  On 27 April 1998 the statements of İ.Y.'s brothers were read out. On the same day, the court decided to investigate whether K.Y., İ.Y. and the deceased had rented a common safe-deposit box in a bank. It further requested a relative of İ.Y. to give evidence. 26.  On 8 June 1998 the court heard İ.Y.'s relative, the applicant and K.Y. The latter gave evidence concerning a certain T.Ç. The assize court subsequently decided to investigate possible financial links between T.Ç. and K.Y. It further ordered that T.Ç. be summoned to give evidence. 27.  On 15 July 1998 the court heard N.G., a former co-prisoner of K.Y. It reiterated its summons concerning T.Ç. but withdrew its decision to investigate the financial links between T.Ç. and K.Y. 28.  On 11 September 1998 the assize court heard T.Ç. and in the light of the latter's statements ordered a bank to provide information concerning K.Y.'s account with them. 29.  On 4 November 1998 the first-instance court decided to send the case file to the public prosecutor and requested him to submit his observations on the merits of the case. 30.  On 16 December 1998 the public prosecutor's submissions were read out. The court requested the applicant to submit his defence submissions. 31.  On 8 February 1999 the first-instance court postponed the trial in order to prepare its judgment in the case. 32.  On 19 March 1999 the court heard the applicant. It requested that the tapes and the transcripts of two television programmes concerning the murder, during which the applicant had made statements, be submitted to it. 33.  On 12 May 1999 the court withdrew its order of 19 March 1999. 34.  On 21 June 1999 the first-instance court once again heard K.Y. and the applicant. Furthermore, letters from the television channels informing the court that the requested tapes had been destroyed were read out. On the same day, the court ordered that blood samples be taken from the applicant, K.Y., İ.Y. and another person, T.Ç., and that a comparative analysis of these blood samples and the blood stains found at the scene of incident be carried out. 35.  On 11 August 1999 the court postponed the trial as the results of the blood analysis had not been sent to them. 36.  On 6 October 1999 the court ordered İ.Y. and T.Ç. to give blood samples. 37.  On 1 December 1999 the first-instance court once again postponed the trial as the results of the blood tests concerning İ.Y. and T.Ç. had not been sent to them. 38.  On 30 December 1999 experts from the Forensic Medicine Institute concluded that the blood found at the scene of the incident did not match that of the applicant. They considered that it might belong to T.Ç. The experts were of the view that a DNA analysis was necessary in order to determine whether the blood found at the scene of the incident matched that of T.Ç. 39.  On 24 January 2000 the court postponed the trial as the results of the examination carried out by the experts from the Forensic Medicine Institute had not been received by the court. 40.  On 22 March 2000 the report of 30 December 1999 was read out. On the same day, the court issued a summons requiring T.Ç. to give a blood sample for DNA analysis. 41.  On 17 May 2000 the first-instance court went back on its decision to obtain a blood sample from T.Ç. for DNA analysis. The court requested the applicant and K.Y. to make their defence submissions at the next hearing. 42.  On 7 June 2000 the applicant and K.Y. made their submissions. On the same day, the Bakırköy Assize Court acquitted the applicant, holding that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. It further ordered the applicant's release from detention. 43.  The Third Chamber of the Bakırköy Assize Court held thirty hearings. Throughout these hearings the applicant requested to be released pending trial. He also filed several petitions with the first-instance court to be released on bail. The applicant submitted in his petitions that he had a permanent domicile and that he would not try to abscond. At the later stages of the proceedings, he further maintained that all the evidence had been obtained and that, therefore, there was no risk that it would be tampered with it. During the first hearing, the court dismissed the applicant's request to be released having regard to the content of the case file and the state of the evidence. The court dismissed his requests on all subsequent occasions with reference to the content of the case file. 44.  On an unspecified date İ.Y. appealed against the judgment of 7 June 2000. 45.  On 3 May 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 7 June 2000 in respect of the applicant. 46.  On 9 October 2001 the applicant brought an action before the Eyüp Assize Court against the Treasury, pursuant to Law No. 466. He requested compensation for his unjustified detention on remand. 47.  On 18 April 2003 the Eyüp Assize Court awarded the applicant 3,372,421,663 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] and TRL 10,000,000,000[2] in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage respectively. The applicant appealed, arguing that the amount of compensation awarded was not sufficient. 48.  On 2 June 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 18 April 2003.