5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and is detained in Tekirdağ. 6.  On 13 November 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of the PKK/KADEK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan/Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress), an illegal organisation. He was in possession of a fake identity card at the time of his arrest. Subsequently, following the applicant’s directions to the police, the latter conducted a house search in the presence of the applicant on the premises where he and another co-accused had been staying. The police found and seized 40 grams of cyanide, a description and diagrams for the construction of a bomb mechanism handwritten by the applicant, and a fake passport bearing the applicant’s photograph that had been used by him to go to Iran twice. 7.  On 14 November 2003 the applicant was taken for questioning to the Istanbul police headquarters. The applicant’s statements to the police were transcribed on pre-printed forms, the first page of which was filled in to indicate, inter alia, that the applicant was suspected of the killing of a certain M.Y. in 1999 on behalf of the PKK/KADEK, of undergoing military and political training at the organisation’s camps abroad and of carrying out other activities for the organisation. The same page also included a pre-printed message which stated, inter alia, that the person being questioned had the right to remain silent and the right to choose a lawyer. It appears from the form that the applicant had refused legal assistance, since the first page of the record includes a pre-printed phrase stating “No lawyer sought” and a box next to it that is marked with a pre-printed “X”. Moreover, according to the record, he also stated that he did not want a lawyer or to remain silent. In his statement, which was fifteen pages long, the applicant admitted that he had become a member of the PKK/KADEK in 1996 and gave a detailed account of all the activities he had carried out for that organisation since then, including the killing of M.Y., opening fire on a police armoured vehicle during a demonstration organised in the aftermath of Abdullah Öcalan’s arrest, and receiving training at the organisation’s camp in Iraq. Moreover, when he was asked whether he wished to benefit from Law no. 3419 on Repentance (Pişmanlık Yasası), the applicant turned the offer down, explaining that he found the relevant Law to be “degrading” and “dishonourable”. Every page of the statement form was signed by the applicant. 8.  According to an undated form explaining arrested people’s rights, which the applicant duly signed, he was reminded of his right to remain silent and to have access to a lawyer. According to another document dated 14 November 2003, the applicant had been informed of his rights under Article 135 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as in force at the material time and stated that he would like to give his statements without a lawyer present. This was also a pre-printed form that bore the applicant’s signature and the indication that a copy of a form explaining his rights had been given to him. 9.  On 15 November 2003 at 11.10 p.m. two police officers and the applicant signed an incident report according to which the applicant had suddenly moved towards a window while in custody, pushing the officers, and had tried to harm himself by punching the window and hitting his head off it. 10.  On 16 November 2003 at midnight the applicant was examined at Haseki Hospital in Istanbul by a doctor who noted the presence of an abrasion on the applicant’s third and fifth fingers of his left hand. 11.  According to a report drawn up by the police officers and signed by the applicant and his lawyer, T.D., on 16 November 2003, the applicant had seen his lawyer the same day. 12.  On 17 November 2003, the applicant underwent a further medical examination at the branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute responsible for the Istanbul State Security Court at 10.30 a.m. The doctor who examined the applicant also observed the same abrasion, adding that the applicant had told him that it had happened when he had hit the window. That report also bore the applicant’s handwritten complaints according to which he had been subjected to external stress, deprived of sleep and subjected to psychological pressure and had not been informed of his rights. However, the doctor concluded that there were no signs of ill-treatment on the applicant’s body. 13.  On the same day the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court, where he was once again informed of his right, inter alia, to have access to a lawyer and his right to remain silent. He stated that he did not wish to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer and that he wanted to remain silent. He complained to the prosecutor that he had been subjected to psychological duress at the Istanbul police headquarters, that he had not been informed of his rights and that he had been denied legal assistance. He alleged that when he had asked to see a lawyer, the police had told him that the lawyer had not wished to come to the interview session. 14.  On the same day the applicant was questioned by a single judge at the Istanbul State Security Court without a lawyer present, where he expressed his wish to see a lawyer before giving any statement. Thus, the applicant remained silent and refused to make a statement. At the end of the interview, the judge ordered his pre‑trial detention. 15.  On 4 December 2003 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with that court against the applicant and four other persons, charging the applicant with the offence of breaking up the unity of the State and seeking to remove part of the national territory from the State’s control, under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code. The acts attributed to the applicant were as follows: involvement in opening fire on a police vehicle during a demonstration on 16 February 1999; involvement in a demonstration of 20 February 1999 where six police officers had been wounded by gunfire; membership of a terrorist organisation; killing M.Y. on 1 June 1999; and collecting money on behalf of a terrorist organisation through coercion. 16.  On 17 March 2004 the Istanbul State Security Court held its first hearing (case no. 2003/332), where the applicant denied all the charges against him, as well as his police statement. He maintained that at the Istanbul police headquarters he had been forced to sign a self-incriminating statement prepared by the police officers and that his request for legal assistance had been disregarded. The applicant’s lawyer also stated that the applicant had not been provided with a lawyer during his pre‑trial detention despite his requests, and repeated this allegation throughout the proceedings. He further stated that the witness testimony given by a certain S.N. during a different set of proceedings before the same court (case no. 1999/285), which also concerned the killing of M.Y., included a description of the suspected killer which bore no resemblance to the applicant. The lawyer, therefore, pleaded the applicant’s innocence and applied for his release. At the end of the hearing, the court held, inter alia, that there was no need to summon S.N. as a witness as he had already testified in case no. 1999/285 and he had not had much information about the killing of M.Y. in any event. It also ordered the applicant’s continued detention. It further decided to request the investigation file concerning the torture allegations of the applicant from the Fatih public prosecutor’s office. 17.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, the State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was therefore transferred to the Twelfth Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court. 18.  At a hearing held on 25 August 2004 the applicant’s lawyer informed the trial court that the Fatih public prosecutor had delivered a decision not to prosecute the police officers and that he had lodged an objection (itiraz) against that decision. 19.  At a hearing held on 22 November 2004 case no. 2003/332 was joined with case no. 1999/285, which was also pending before the Twelfth Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court. 20.  At a hearing held on 6 April 2005 the applicant’s lawyer informed the trial court that the objection against the decision of the Fatih public prosecutor had been dismissed by the Beyoğlu Assize Court. 21.  At a hearing held on 20 July 2005, the applicant’s lawyer stated that in accordance with Article 148 § 4 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, in force as of 1 June 2005, statements taken by the police without a lawyer present should not be used unless confirmed by the individual before a judge or a court. Thus, he asked the court to exclude the applicant’s statements to the police. The trial court did not respond to his application. 22.  At a hearing held on 9 November 2005 the trial court received a copy of the Fatih public prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated the applicant. At the same hearing, the applicant’s lawyer, while referring to his previous defence submissions, stated that the applicant’s police statement had no probative value in line with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court did not give a ruling on that issue. 23.  At a hearing held on 6 March 2006 the applicant’s lawyer submitted once again that the evidence had been collected in respect of the applicant had been in breach of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that such evidence should not be used in the trial. The trial court did not respond to this application. 24.  At a hearing held on 5 June 2006 the public prosecutor read out his observations on the merits of the case, stating that the applicant should be convicted and sentenced under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code. At the same hearing, the applicant’s lawyer and some of the lawyers of the other co-defendants applied for time to prepare their defence submissions in reply to the public prosecutor’s observations on the merits of the case. The trial court adjourned and granted them further time until the next hearing on 26 July 2006. 25.  At a hearing held on 26 July 2006, the trial court noted that two different lawyers of the other co-defendants had informed the court that they would be unable to attend the hearing as one of them had another hearing outside Istanbul and the other one had a hearing in another court in Istanbul. Referring to the absence of those lawyers and the fact that they had not been able to prepare their defence submissions, the applicant’s lawyer also asked the trial court to give them a short period of time to prepare their written observations in reply to the public prosecutor’s observations on the merits. The trial court accepted the excuses of the two lawyers, adjourned and granted all three lawyers further time to prepare their submissions. 26.  At the next hearing, held on 13 November 2006, the public prosecutor read out his observations on the merits and reiterated his previous observations. The applicant’s lawyer did not attend that hearing. The lawyer of co-defendant M.A. and the applicant applied for more time to prepare their submissions. The trial court adjourned and granted that application, stating that it would give them time until the next hearing but that it would be for the last time. 27.  At the hearing of 12 March 2007 the applicant’s lawyer submitted a seven-page-long defence submission where he reiterated, inter alia, that the applicant had been subjected to torture while in police custody and had been forced by the police to sign his statements. In that respect, he referred to Article 148 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pursuant to which statements that had been obtained through such methods could not be used in evidence. Moreover, the applicant’s lawyer reiterated that Article 148 § 4 of the Code provided for a specific proscription of the use of police statements taken without a lawyer present unless they had been confirmed by the individual before a judge or a court. Thus, he asked the trial court not to use the applicant’s police statements taken without his lawyer present, given that he had never accepted the content of those statements. According to the applicant’s lawyer, it would be a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention were the trial court to rely on the applicant’s statements to the police to convict him. At the same hearing, M.A.’s lawyer once again applied for additional time to prepare defence submissions, citing his inability to meet his client and the voluminous nature of the case file. The applicant’s lawyer stated that in the event of another adjournment of the trial, he would like to make his oral submissions at the next hearing. The trial court noted the reasons put forward by M.A.’s lawyer, adjourned and granted them further time until the next hearing. 28.  At the next hearing, held on 2 July 2007, it was noted that M.A.’s lawyer had sent a fax to the trial court in which he had provided an excuse and asked for an adjournment. The applicant’s lawyer was present and reiterated his defence submissions that the evidence against the applicant was unlawful and that it could not be used by the trial court. The trial court did not respond to this application. However, the trial court accepted the excuse of M.A.’s lawyer, adjourned and granted further time to that lawyer for the preparation of his defence submissions on the merits. 29.  At the next hearing, held on 8 October 2007, the trial court noted the application lodged by M.A.’s lawyer asking for M.A. to be represented by new counsel. The applicant’s lawyer was present and reiterated his previous defence submissions. The trial court adjourned the hearing with a view to appointing a new lawyer for M.A. and granting that lawyer time to prepare defence submissions. 30.  On 12 December 2007 the applicant’s lawyer was present and he once again reiterated his previous submissions. M.A.’s new lawyer applied for additional time to prepare defence submissions and was granted this by the trial court. 31.  At a hearing held on 2 June 2008 the applicant’s lawyer sent a fax to the trial court in which he provided an excuse for his inability to attend the trial. The trial court heard evidence from a defence witness in respect of M.A. in relation to his ill-treatment allegations. M.A.’s lawyer further raised a plea of unconstitutionality in relation to the maximum permissible period of detention. The trial court decided to examine the plea of unconstitutionality raised by M.A.’s lawyer, accepted the applicant’s lawyer’s excuse and granted him additional time to prepare his oral submissions. 32.  At a hearing held on 19 November 2008 the applicant’s lawyer was present and he once again reiterated his previous submissions. M.A.’s lawyer asked the trial court to conduct an additional investigation and hear S.N. as a witness with a view to shedding light on M.Y.’s killing. That lawyer once again asked for additional time to prepare his defence submissions. The trial court dismissed the plea of unconstitutionality, granted M.A.’s lawyer further time to prepare his defence submissions and adjourned. 33.  At the hearing held on 19 December 2008 the applicant’s lawyer was present and he once again reiterated his previous submissions. However, another lawyer for M.A. was present and she applied for additional time to prepare defence submissions. The trial court adjourned and granted her further time. 34.  On 13 February 2009 the Twelfth Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court found the applicant guilty as charged, convicted him under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code of breaking up the unity of the State and seeking to remove part of the national territory from the State’s control, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The trial court listed, among other pieces of evidence, “the statements of the accused throughout the proceedings” in the “evidence” part of its judgment. In the part entitled “assessment of evidence and reasons”, the trial court noted that one of the accused, namely M.Z.Ç., had sent a letter to the court on 12 May 2004 in which he had stated that M.Y. had been abducted and killed by Ma.Y., F.A. and M.H. The trial court concluded that that statement had been corroborated by the autopsy report, a sketch of the scene and a police report establishing that the gun that had been used to kill M.Y. had been the same one that had been used in the demonstration of 20 February 1999. It went on to hold that the defendants’ denial during the trial of their guilt should be dismissed in the light of that evidence. 35.  The trial court also noted that documents of an organisational nature and documents containing descriptions for the construction of bomb mechanisms handwritten by the applicant as well as the invoices of the illegal organisation had been found. In view of that evidence and the statements of the witnesses and the victims, it found it established that co-defendants M.Z.Ç. and Ma.Y. had both on their own and on the applicant’s orders attempted to or collected money on behalf of the illegal organisation through coercion. Taking into account the participation of the applicant, M.Z.Ç. and Ma.Y. in the demonstration of 20 February 1999, and their positions within the illegal organisation, the trial court considered that the killing of M.Y. and the completed acts of extortion should be accepted as being “serious enough”, the material element of the offence set out in Article 125 of the former Criminal Code. 36.  Lastly, in the “conviction” part of its judgment, the trial court held that the applicant had been a member of an illegal organisation, had taken military training in its mountain camps, had participated in the demonstration on 16 February 1999 on behalf of that illegal organisation and had opened fire on a police vehicle, had been involved in the injury of five policemen on 20 February 1999, and that the three bullet casings found in the scene of that incident had been fired from the pistol that the applicant had used to kill M.Y. on 1 June 1999. The trial court did not assess any evidence in that part of its judgment. 37.  The material submitted by the parties to the Court does not contain a copy of the evidence listed either in the “evidence” or in the “assessment of evidence and reasons” parts of the trial court’s judgment. Furthermore, the trial court did not mention any of the defence submissions made by the applicant’s lawyer and merely stated that the applicant had denied the accusations in his defence before the court. Similarly, while twelve out of the fifteen accused that had made incriminatory statements to the police had denied those statements before the trial court, the latter did not conduct any assessment in that regard. 38.  At the end of each hearing, the Istanbul State Security Court, and subsequently the Twelfth Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court, considered the applicant’s detention either of their own motion or following an application by the applicant. Each time, they ordered the applicant’s continued detention pending trial, having regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence with which he was charged, the existence of a strong suspicion that he had committed the offence and the state of the evidence. On two occasions the applicant objected to the assize court’s decisions dated 12 March 2007 and 8 October 2007 regarding his continued detention, specifically on 14 March and 15 October 2007. Both of those objections were rejected by the Thirteenth Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court on 21 March 2007 and 24 October 2007 respectively on stereotypical grounds by way of a non-adversarial procedure. More specifically, the examination was conducted on the basis of the case file alone without hearing the applicant or his lawyer although the public prosecutor was consulted on the matter. Moreover, the opinion obtained from the public prosecutor regarding the applicant’s detention was not transmitted to the applicant. 39.  On 27 April 2010 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.