4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Diyarbakır. 5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6.  On 11 August 1994 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan). 7.  During an on-site inspection the applicant showed the location of a firearm to the security forces. 8.  On 29 August 1994 the applicant was brought before a single judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court who ordered his detention on remand. 9.  On an unspecified date, the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, along with ten other persons. The applicant was accused of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. The public prosecutor alleged that the applicant had been involved in a bombing with a certain H.Y. 10.  On 25 November 1994 the applicant denied the allegations against him before the Diyarbakır State Security Court. On the same day, the applicant's lawyer asked the first-instance court to request information as to whether criminal proceedings were initiated against H.Y. regarding the alleged bombing. The Diyarbakır State Security Court accepted the request and requested the public prosecutor at this court to submit information. 11.  On 30 March 1995 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court informed the latter that there was a non-prosecution decision in respect of H.Y. 12.  On 26 October 1995 the applicant's lawyer requested the Diyarbakır State Security Court that the applicant be released pending trial. His request was dismissed. 13.  On 8 February 1996 the applicant's representative once again requested that the applicant be released pending trial. He maintained, inter alia, that according to the expert report drawn up in respect of the firearm belonging to the applicant, this gun had never been used in any illegal activity and that there was no other evidence against the applicant. His request was dismissed. 14.  Between 8 February 1996 and 15 April 1999 the applicant requested to be released pending trial several times, reiterating that there was no evidence against him. 15.  On 15 April 1999 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant for membership of the PKK under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to twelve years and six months' imprisonment. 16.  The applicant appealed. In his appeal petition, he requested not to be convicted, invoking Repentance Law no. 4450, which provided for amnesty to members of terrorist organisations, claiming that he had surrendered his weapon to the security forces and provided information about the PKK. 17.  On 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judge sitting on the bench of the Diyarbakır State Security Court was replaced by a civilian judge. 18.  On 10 February 2000 the Court of Cassation quashed the first- instance court's judgment in respect of the applicant and another accused, İ.B., holding that the first-instance court should consider their requests under Law no. 4450. It then remitted the case-file to the Diyarbakır State Security Court. 19.  On 13 April 2000 the Diyarbakır State Security Court requested the Ministry of the Interior to submit an opinion as to whether the applicant and İ.B. could benefit from Law no. 4450. 20.  On 10 August 2000 the Ministry of the Interior replied that the accused should not benefit from the law in question. On the same day, the Diyarbakır State Security Court ordered the public prosecutor to make his submissions on the merits of the case. 21.  On 5 October 2000 the public prosecutor submitted his opinion on the merits. 22.  On 7 December 2000 the applicant filed his defence submissions. 23.  On 14 December 2000 the Diyarbakır State Security Court dismissed the applicant's and İ.B.'s requests concerning the application of Law no. 4450 and convicted them under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.The applicant was sentenced to twelve years and six months' imprisonment. He appealed. 24.  On 2 July 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 14 December 2000. 25.  In the meantime, on 21 December 2000 Law no. 4616, which governed the conditional release, suspension of proceedings or execution of sentences in respect of offences committed before 23 April 1999, came into force. The Law stipulated that parole would not be applicable to persons who had committed offences under Article 168 of the Criminal Code. Thus, the applicant could not benefit from Law no. 4616. 26.  On 31 October 2003 the applicant was released from prison during the proceedings that he had initiated in order to benefit from Law no. 4959, which provided for amnesty and mitigation of sentence for members of terrorist organisations.