3.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Istanbul. 4.  On 11 March 2003 the applicant was taken into police custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the KADEK (the Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress). 5.  On 13 March 2003 he was interrogated at the Anti-Terrorism Branch in the absence of a lawyer. According to a form explaining arrested persons’ rights which the applicant had signed, he had been reminded of the charges against him and of his right to remain silent. In his statement, he admitted his membership of DEHAP (the Democratic People’s Party) and his involvement with the youth branch of HADEP (the People’s Democracy Party). He further stated that in 2000 he had attempted to go to the camps of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party) in Iran, but was caught by the gendarmerie in Van before he could cross the border. The applicant admitted that he had participated in a number of demonstrations organised by DEHAP, where he had chanted slogans in support of Öcalan and the PKK. However, he refused to make a statement regarding his involvement in an illegal demonstration organised in Bahçelievler, Istanbul, on 12 March 2003, where the demonstrators had shouted slogans in support of the PKK and had vandalised banks and shops. 6.  In the meantime, on 13 March 2003 the applicant saw his lawyer from 10.30 to 10.55 a.m. It is not possible to ascertain from the documents in the case file whether this meeting took place prior to or after the police questioning or what the meeting involved. 7.  On 15 March 2003 the applicant was brought before the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court in the absence of a lawyer, where he only partially verified his police statement. He explained that, although he was a member of DEHAP, he had never undertaken any actions to aid and abet KADEK and that he disapproved of the violent acts carried out by this organisation. He denied having chanted illegal slogans in any of the demonstrations in which he had participated in the past. He also denied having taken part in the demonstration of 12 March 2003. 8.  On the same day the applicant’s lawyer requested to see the applicant and to examine the investigation file. The Istanbul State Security Court dismissed the lawyer’s requests, relying on the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the material time (Law no. 1412), which denied these rights to persons accused of offences falling within the jurisdiction of State Security Courts at that stage of the proceedings. 9.  Later on the same day the applicant was interrogated by a single judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, in the presence of his lawyer, where he repeated the statements he had made before the public prosecutor. Denying all the accusations against him, the applicant retracted his statement to the police, which had allegedly been extracted under duress. His lawyer added that the demonstrations about which the applicant had been questioned had all been lawful events. After the questioning was over, the judge ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention. 10.  On 20 March 2003 the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, accusing the applicant and six other persons with membership of the PKK and KADEK, an offence under Article 168 (2) of the former Criminal Code (Law no. 765) and Section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). 11.  On 11 June 2003 the State Security Court held its first hearing, in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer. It heard evidence from the applicant in person, who denied the charges against him. He also rejected his police statement, alleging that it had been extracted from him under duress. The State Security Court ordered the applicant’s release at the end of this hearing. 12.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was therefore transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court. 13.  On 25 April 2007 the Eleventh Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged. 14.  On 16 June 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.