4.  The applicants were born in 1967, 1978, 1979, 1973 and 1965, respectively, and live in Istanbul, except for Ms Yaşar who resides in Allschwill, in Switzerland. 5.  On 24 March 1995[1] the applicants were arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the MLKP-K (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party Foundation), and of organising illegal demonstrations in the Gazi neighbourhood on 12 and 13 March 1995[2] on behalf of that organisation. 6.  On an unspecified date the Istanbul Security Directorate held a press conference and presented the applicants to the press[3]. There is no information as to the content of the police statement. 7.  On 28 March 1995, upon his lawyer’s request and following authorisation from the prosecutor on the basis of a Ministry circular, Mr Kırmızıgül met with his lawyer between 4 and 4.05 p.m. 8.  On 28, 30 and 31 March 1995, the applicants Mr Kırmızıgül, Ms Tağaç, Mr Akbaba and Ms Sarısaltıkoğlu were questioned by two police officers and made a number of statements incriminating both themselves and other applicants. 9.  According to a verbatim record drafted on 31 March 1995, Ms Yaşar refused to give a statement to the police. 10.  On 31 March 1995, following her lawyer’s request of 29 March 1995 and authorisation from the prosecutor on 29 and 31 March 1995 on the basis of a Ministry circular, Ms Yaşar met with her lawyer at 2.45 p.m. The applicant stated this meeting lasted for about twenty minutes. 11.  On 1 April 1995 the applicants, Mr Kırmızıgül and Mr Akbaba, took part in a reconstruction of events where they showed their positions and where and how many shots they had fired during the Gazi incidents. 12.  On the same day the applicants were confronted with each other. 13.  On 3 April 1995 a superintendent from the Istanbul Security Directorate drafted a report (fezleke) in which he considered, on the basis of various documents such as arrest protocols and the applicants’ statements, as well as the documents and firearms discovered during house searches, that the applicants had been involved in MLKP-K activities. In addition, an information note was prepared on the MLKP-K - its origins, aims and activities. 14.  On 4 April 1995 the applicants were examined by a doctor at the Istanbul Forensic Department. The doctor found no signs of traumatic lesions on the applicants’ bodies. She noted that Ms Yaşar had complained of pain in her throat and shoulders and Ms Sarısaltıkoğlu of shoulder and back pain, while Ms Tağaç had claimed that her urine was dark. The latter was examined by a urologist who found no pathological signs on her body or in the results of laboratory tests. 15.  On 4 April 1995 the applicants were bought before the prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court (“ISSC”). Those applicants who had given statements to the police retracted them, with Ms Tağaç and Mr Akbaba claiming that their statements had been made under duress and ill-treatment and Ms Yaşar alleging that she had been ill-treated. 16.  On 5 April 1995 the applicants were brought before a judge at the ISSC where they reiterated the statements they had given to the prosecutor. They claimed that their police statements had been given under torture. 17.  On 3 May 1995 the prosecutor at the ISCC filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicants of membership of the MLKP-K and of inciting the public to rebellion during the Gazi incidents. The charges were bought under Articles 149 and 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and section 5 of Law no. 3713. 18.  On 17 May 1995 criminal proceedings against thirteen accused including the applicants commenced before the ISSC. 19. In the course of the proceedings the applicants challenged the evidence against them and, in particular, requested the court not to take into account statements that had been obtained in police custody under torture and coercion. They also requested the court to hear evidence from the head of the intelligence department of the Istanbul Security Directorate, Mr Avcı, and two members of the Grand National Assembly Susurluk inquiry[4] as regards allegations of State collusion in the Gazi incidents and to conduct an on-site inspection concerning the Gazi incidents. The court, having regard to Mr Avcı’s submissions during the Susurluk inquiry, considered that these statements had no bearing on the case. It also found that, in view of the facts of the case and the evidence in the case file, an on-site inspection was not necessary. 20.  On 16 February 1999 the ISSC convicted the applicants of membership of an illegal armed organisation. In so doing, they took into account the evidence in the case file, including the verbatim records of the reconstruction of the events, the arrest and search protocols, documents and firearms that had been found on two of the accused, the verbatim record of the confrontation of the suspects and the statements of the accused, particularly in police custody. Mr Kırmızıgül and Mr Akbaba were sentenced to eight years and four months’ imprisonment and the other applicants to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicants were acquitted of the charge of incitement to rebellion. 21.  The applicants’ appealed. In particular, they claimed that the first‑instance court’s judgment had attached significant weight to statements unlawfully obtained during police custody. 22.  On 21 January 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the ISSC following a hearing. 23.  On 4 May 2000 the prosecutor at the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ request for rectification of the Court of Cassation’s judgment. 24.  In their observations to the Court dated 3 July 2006, the applicants’ lawyers submitted that Ms Tağaç, Mr Kırmızıgül and Mr Akbaba had been conditionally released after serving six years and three months in prison. The other applicants’ sentences had not yet been enforced.