4.  At the time of the lodging of the application the applicants Mr Aydoğan and Ms Özen were in Tekirdağ and Kütahya prisons respectively. The other applicants were residing in Istanbul. 5.  In the course of an operation carried out against the activities of an illegal armed organisation, namely DHKP/C (Turkish People’s Liberation Party/Front) the applicants were arrested and taken into custody on 22 and 23 October 1996. 6.  On 5 November 1996 the applicants were brought before a judge who remanded them in custody. 7.  In an indictment dated 11 November 1996, the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court accused Mr Aydoğan and Ms Özen of attempting to undermine the constitutional order of the State and requested their conviction and sentence under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code. They were accused of taking part in armed attacks on various political party buildings and police stations and of being responsible for the death of Mr Mehmet Ünlü and causing bodily harm to two other persons. The other applicants were accused of aiding and abetting an illegal armed terrorist organisation. The prosecutor requested their conviction and sentence under Article 169 of the Criminal Code. 8.  On an unspecified date the criminal proceedings against the applicants commenced before the Istanbul State Security Court, which was composed of one military and two civilian judges. 9.  Mr İşeri, Mr Evren, Mr Varol and Mr Öztürk were released pending trial, on various dates, in 1996 and 1997. 10.  On 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judges sitting on the bench of State Security Courts were replaced by civilian judges. 11.  At a hearing held on 7 July 1999 the judge who had been appointed to replace the military judge sat as a member of the trial court for the first time. In this hearing the prosecutor maintained his earlier submissions as regards the merits. Mr Aydoğan read out his submissions on the merits. The court granted Ms Özen’s lawyer’s requests regarding obtaining information about the outcome of other cases pending against the accused and additional time to prepare her submissions. 12.  Between 10 September 1999 and 19 October 2001 the court held eleven hearings, during which the judges dealt with procedural matters connected with the completion of the case file and, in particular, with the securing of final defence statements of the accused, whose representative had several times requested additional time to submit them. The court warned the applicants’ representative three times and in a hearing held on 29 November 2000 held that the case was being prolonged due to the failure of the applicants to submit their final observations on the merits of the case. However, the court granted the applicants’ representative’s request for an extension in the next hearing; since the security forces had a widespread operation in prisons the lawyer said he was not sure if his clients were still alive. At a hearing held on 4 April 2001 the applicants’ representative complained that the prison authorities were making it difficult for him to prepare his defence, for example by not admitting him to see his client if he did not have the power of attorney on him. The court granted leave to the applicants’ lawyer to complain about this situation to the prosecutor and Minister of Justice. During this time the court ordered the continued detention of Mr Aydoğan and Ms Özen at the end of each hearing. 13.  On 19 October 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court, after having examined the evidence in the case file, convicted Mr Aydoğan and Ms Özen as charged and sentenced them to death. The evidence in the case file included verbatim records of reconstructions of events, search and seizure protocols, forensic reports, statements by others tried before another State Security Court and testimony from a number of witnesses. As to the other applicants, the court decided to defer the imposition of a final sentence, pursuant to Law no. 4616. 14.  On 8 April 2002 the Court of Cassation, after having reviewed Mr Aydoğan’s and Ms Özen’s case from a procedural and a substantive point of view, upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. The decision indicates that their lawyer, despite having requested the court to hold a hearing, had failed to attend it. As regards the other applicants, the court refused them leave to appeal since the first-instance court’s decision in their respect was not open to appeal. 15.  On 24 September 2002 Mr Aydoğan’s and Ms Özen’s sentences were commuted to life imprisonment. No information was submitted by the parties as to further developments.