5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Kırıkkale. 6.  On 25 September 1998 the applicant was arrested by police officers and taken into custody on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation. 7.  On 30 September 1998 police officers at the Istanbul Security Headquarters took a statement from the applicant in the absence of a lawyer, as a result of the restriction stemming from Law no. 3842. He confessed that he was a member of the organisation in question and gave information about certain activities in which he had participated. 8.  On 2 October 1998 a statement was taken from the applicant by the Istanbul public prosecutor. He confirmed the statement he had made to the police. 9.  On the same day, the applicant was questioned by the investigating judge in the absence of a lawyer. He confirmed the statement he had made to the public prosecutor, but withdrew the one he had made to the police. The applicant alleged that he had given the statements under duress. The investigating judge ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention. 10.  On 7 October 1998 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court, charging the applicant under Article 125 of the former Turkish Criminal Code with being involved in separatist activities against the Republic of Turkey. The criminal proceedings commenced before the Istanbul State Security Court, the bench of which included a military judge. 11.  On 12 October 1998 the Istanbul State Security Court held a preparatory hearing and decided that the first hearing would take place on 16 December 1998. 12.  On 16 December 1998 the other co-accused, namely G.T., Z.A. and D.P.N.J., gave evidence in person. They did not give any statement in relation to the applicant. 13.  On 8 March 1999 the trial court, noting the absence of the accused, decided to adjourn the hearing. 14.  At the hearing held on 2 June 1999, the applicant gave evidence in person and stated that he had been forced to sign his previous statements. The applicant retracted those statements while maintaining that he had not been involved in any of the offences attributed to him. At the same hearing, the other co-accused, namely A.B. and B.G. also gave evidence in person. They did not make any statements in respect of the applicant. 15.  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 Istanbul State Security Court was replaced by a civilian judge. Between 18 June 1999 and 2 September 2002, the trial court consisting of three civilian judges held fourteen hearings on the merits. 16.  On 4 August 1999, the State Security Court, composed of three civilian judges, heard evidence from A.S., Ş.K., H.K., S.K., N.Ç., T.G., Ö.Ö. as witnesses, from M.N. as accused and from K.Ö. as a complainant. Two of them made incriminatory statements in relation to the applicant. When asked his comments concerning those statements, the applicant rejected them, maintaining that he had had no connection with the accusations. 17.  On 25 April 2001 the public prosecutor read out his observations on the merits (esas hakkında mütalaa) and requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code. At the same hearing, the applicant’s lawyer requested time to submit the applicant’s defence submissions. 18.   On 29 August 2001 the applicant’s lawyer made his defence submissions in relation to the merits of the case. 19.  On 27 March 2002 the applicant’s lawyer reiterated his previous defence submissions. 20.  On 19 June 2002 the applicant’s lawyer, again reiterated his previous defence submissions. At the same hearing, the applicant stated that he had agreed to his lawyer’s submissions. 21.  On 2 September 2002 the applicant and his lawyer presented their closing arguments. On the same day the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to thirty years’ imprisonment, pursuant to Article 125 of the former Criminal Code. The first-instance court based its decision on several items of evidence, such as the applicant’s statements to the police, the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, documents relating to the organisation which had been found and seized in the course of police operations, and the statements of some co-defendants. 22.  On 7 April 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. On 29 May 2003 that decision was deposited with the registry of the Istanbul State Security Court.