4.  The applicant was born in 1990 and lives in Istanbul. 5.  On 28 August 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of child molestation and on the same day he was brought before a judge at the Gaziosmanpaşa Juvenile Court, who placed him in detention on remand. 6.  On 3 September 2007 the applicant filed an objection against the decision on his detention. On 18 September 2007 the Beyoğlu Juvenile Assize Court dismissed his objection on the basis of the case file, without holding a hearing. 7.  On 23 October 2007 and 19 November 2007 the Gaziosmanpaşa Magistrates’ Court prolonged the applicant’s detention ex officio. 8.  On 16 December 2007 the Bakırköy public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Bakırköy Juvenile Assize Court, charging the applicant with child molestation. 9.  On 31 December 2007 the Bakırköy Juvenile Assize Court ordered the continuation of the applicant’s pre-trial detention on the basis of the case file, and decided that it had no jurisdiction ratione loci and that the case should be heard by the Beyoğlu Juvenile Assize Court and referred the case file to the latter. 10.  On 24 January 2008 the Beyoğlu Juvenile Assize Court declared itself incompetent ratione loci as well and sent the case file to the Court of Cassation to render its decision on the conflict of jurisdiction ratione loci. On the same date the court also ordered the continuation of the applicant’s pre-trial detention on the basis of the case file. 11.  On 30 January 2008 the applicant filed an objection against the decision on the continuation of his pre-trial detention. On 14 February 2008 the Bakırköy Juvenile Assize Court dismissed his objection on the basis of the case file, without holding a hearing. 12.  On 23 June 2008 the Court of Cassation gave its decision authorising Bakırköy Juvenile Assize Court over the case. 13.  On 13 August 2008 the trial court held a preparatory hearing and ordered the continuation of the applicant’s detention on the basis of the case file. On 12 September 2008 and 9 October 2008, respectively, the court ex officio examined the applicant’s detention on remand on the basis of the case-file and decided to extend it. 14.  On 30 October 2008 the court held its first hearing, in which both the applicant and his lawyer were present. At the end of that hearing, the court ordered the continuation of the applicant’s detention. 15.  During the hearings held on 21 January 2009, 14 April 2009 and 21 July 2009, at which the applicant was present, the trial court ordered the continuation of the applicant’s detention on remand. Between the hearings, which were held with regular intervals of one month, the court ex officio examined the applicant’s detention on remand on the basis of the case‑file and decided to extend it 16.  On 3 November 2009, at the end of the fifth hearing before the court, the applicant was released pending trial. 17.  According to the latest information in the case file, the criminal proceedings against the applicant were still pending.