5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul. 6.  On 4 February 2000 a car driven by the applicant and a lorry driven by Mr E.K. were involved in a road traffic accident. The applicant's passenger died on the spot and the applicant was seriously injured. 7.  Two passengers in the lorry involved in the accident were questioned by the gendarmerie the same day. They stated that the road had been slippery and that the car driven by the applicant had skidded and hit their lorry head on. 8.  The driver of the lorry, Mr E.K., was arrested but was released the following day. 9.  On 11 February 2000 the prosecutor at the Gerede Criminal Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) filed an indictment charging the applicant and E.K. with the offence of causing death and injury by recklessness. It appears from the indictment that one of the passengers travelling in the lorry was also injured in the accident. 10.  During the first hearing, which took place on 11 April 2000, the lawyer representing the applicant informed the trial court that the applicant was still ill and bedbound. He would submit his defence arguments to the trial court after his client, the applicant, had given evidence to the trial court in person. 11.  On 7 June 2000 the applicant was questioned by a court in Istanbul which had been requested to do so by the trial court in a letter rogatory. The applicant stated that the road had been very icy and that the lorry had gone out of control and hit his car. 12.  On 20 July 2000 the trial court judge and the prosecutor examined the stretch of road where the accident had taken place. 13.  A report was prepared by a police officer and submitted to the trial court on 28 July 2000. According to the report, the applicant had been solely responsible for the accident. 14.  In his petition of 25 September 2000, the lawyer for the applicant lodged an objection to the above-mentioned report and requested that an additional report be prepared by the Forensic Medical Institute. This request was accepted by the trial court. 15.  In their report of 17 January 2001, three experts at the Forensic Medical Institute confirmed that the applicant had been solely responsible for the accident. 16.  During the hearing held on 29 March 2001, the applicant's lawyer lodged an objection to the Forensic Medical Institute's report and asked the trial court to obtain another report, this time from a university. No decision was taken by the trial court in response to that request. 17.  On 4 October 2001 the trial court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment and to payment of a fine. The trial court decided that, regard being had to the applicant's personality and the nature of the offence, there was no reason to commute the prison sentence to a fine. 18.  The applicant appealed on 31 October 2001. 19.  The Chief Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written observations to that court and requested that the applicant's conviction be quashed. These observations were not communicated to the applicant. 20.  On 23 September 2002 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. The Court of Cassation did not hold a hearing before reaching its conclusion. 21.  The decision of the Court of Cassation was received at the registry of the trial court on 25 October 2002. The applicant claimed that he had become aware of the decision on 2 December 2002. 22.  On 16 December 2002 the applicant asked for the trial court's judgment to be rectified. 23.  The order for payment of the fine and for the applicant to surrender himself to the prison authorities was communicated to the applicant on 25 December 2002. 24.  On 27 December 2002 the applicant applied to the prosecutor's office and asked for execution of the prison sentence to be deferred. The applicant's request was accepted on 30 December 2002 and execution of the prison sentence was deferred until 25 April 2003. 25.  On 24 February 2003 the applicant's request for rectification was rejected by the prosecutor at the Court of Cassation. The prosecutor stated that the grounds invoked by the applicant had already been examined by the Court of Cassation in its decision of 23 September 2002. 26.  On 17 March 2003 the applicant asked for a retrial. The same day the request was rejected by the Gerede Criminal Court of First Instance, which noted that the applicant's arguments had been considered and rejected in the Court of Cassation decision. 27.  On 26 May 2003 the applicant began serving his prison sentence.