6.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is serving a sentence in Diyarbakır prison. 7.  On 12 September 1994 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely Hizbullah. He was allegedly subjected to torture while held in police custody, which lasted twenty-two days. 8.  The applicant was questioned by the police at the Diyarbakır Security Directorate. Subsequently, the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor took statements from him in the absence of a lawyer, concerning his involvement in the activities of Hizbullah. In his statements, the applicant admitted his membership of the illegal organisation and mentioned certain activities in which he had participated. 9.  On 20 September 1994 the applicant participated in an on-site inspection (keşif) and a reconstruction of events (yer gösterme), in the course of which he confessed, in the absence of a lawyer, to committing some offences. 10.  On 25 September 1994 the applicant participated in another on-site inspection and reconstruction of events, in the course of which he confessed, again in the absence a lawyer, to other offences. 11.  Twenty-two days after his arrest, namely on 4 October 1994, a doctor at Diyarbakır Public Hospital drew up a collective medical report in respect of the applicant and twenty-seven other suspects. According to the report, there were no traces of ill-treatment on the applicant’s body. 12.  On the same day, the applicant was questioned by the investigating judge in the absence of a lawyer. He retracted the statements he had made to the police and the prosecutor, alleging that he had given them under duress. The investigating judge ordered the applicant’s remand in custody. 13.  Owing to a lack of prison places, the applicant was not put in prison but was kept at the anti-terrorism branch of the Diyarbakır Security Directorate for three more days, during which time he was allegedly subjected to torture again. 14.  On 24 October 1994 the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor issued an indictment charging the applicant and twenty-one others under Article 125 of the former Turkish Criminal Code with seeking to destroy the unity of the Turkish State and to remove part of the country from the State’s control by killing and injuring numerous individuals. Seven other individuals were charged under Articles 168 and 169 of the same Code. The criminal proceedings commenced before the Diyarbakır State Security Court, the bench of which included a military judge. 15.  On 4 November 1994 the Diyarbakır State Security Court held a preparatory hearing and decided that the first hearing would take place on 18 November 1994. 16.  At the second hearing held on 23 January 1995 the applicant gave evidence in the presence of his lawyer and retracted the statements he had made to the police and the public prosecutor, alleging that they had been obtained through torture. He further stated that he had no relationship with the illegal organisation and that all the acts attributed to him had been a sham orchestrated by the police. 17.  At the hearings of 28 April, 8 December and 28 December 1995, the State Security Court heard evidence from F.E., C.D., H.Y., C.Ö., İ.A. and M.A. as witnesses and from İ.Ç. as a complainant. 18.  At the hearing held on 26 January 1996 the State Security Court informed the applicant that he was entitled to lodge a complaint with the public prosecutor concerning his allegations of torture against the police officers. 19.  At the hearings of 22 August, 4 October and 15 November 1996, the State Security Court heard evidence from H.O., Ş.D. and M.H.B. as witnesses, and from S.Ö. as a complainant. 20.  On 22 August 1996 the applicant maintained his allegation that he had been tortured while in police custody and applied to the court for his release and acquittal. 21.  At the hearings of 5 August and 30 December 1997, the State Security Court heard evidence from A.Y. and M.E. as witnesses. 22.  On 6 November 1997 the applicant stated that he had been coerced by the police into admitting to the acts attributed to him. 23.  At the hearings of 5 March and 3 December 1998, the State Security Court heard evidence from A.Y. and A.Ö. as witnesses. 24.  While the criminal proceedings against the applicant were pending, 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. 25.  In the first thirty-four hearings that were held until the hearing of 20 July 1999, the composition of the Diyarbakır State Security Court changed seventeen times. Each time the previous reports were read out as a result of the change in the composition of the trial court. 26.  At the hearing of 20 July 1999, the Diyarbakır State Security Court, composed of three civilian judges, read out the previous reports as a result of the change in the composition of the trial court. 27.  On 15 January 2002, 23 October 2003 and 12 May 2005 the public prosecutor filed additional indictments against the applicant, charging him under Article 146 of the former Turkish Criminal Code. In total, the applicant was accused of taking part in the killing of nineteen people and of injuring eight others on behalf of Hizbullah. The Diyarbakır State Security Court joined all the cases owing to the link between them. 28.  By virtue of Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. Therefore, the Diyarbakır Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the case. 29.  At a hearing held on 2 February 2007, the applicant applied to the court for his acquittal. 30.  On 26 February 2007 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant under Article 146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The trial court relied on, inter alia, the statements the applicant had given to the police and the public prosecutor, the reports of the reconstruction of events and the on-site inspection, as well as the statements of some of the co-accused and the witness F.E. It rejected the applicant’s contention that he had been tortured while in police custody on the grounds that according to the medical report dated 4 October 1994, no traces of ill-treatment had been found on him. According to the reasoned judgment, thirty other co-defendants who had given incriminating statements to the police denied the accusations against themselves when giving evidence in person before the trial court. In particular, twenty-eight of them had fully retracted their police statements before the trial court while two of them had partially done so. 31.  The applicant appealed and on 16 April 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. It appears from the decision of the Court of Cassation that the applicant’s request for a correction of his age had been dismissed by the Diyarbakır Assize Court. 32.  In 2010 the applicant requested a copy of the medical report prepared on 4 October 1994 from the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor’s Office. On 5 February 2010 he was informed that all the documents prepared in 1994 had been destroyed in 2004.