On 6 April and 21 April 2010 the applicant again requested the court to assist him. On 19 May 2010 he again complained to the Ombudsman about his difficulties in enjoying his access rights.

In   particular, he alleges that he was tortured by the police during his stay in police custody and that his allegations of torture were not duly examined, that the authorities did not provide him

In this connection he complains, firstly, that they harassed him and treated him unprofessionally, and, secondly, that they failed to organise his education in a manner corresponding to his special educational

The following day, however, officers of the border police went to his flat and accompanied him to the Hungarian border.

The applicant also stated that the courts paid no attention to the evidence submitted by him and his related arguments, including that his arrest had been triggered by his filming of police ill-treatment

The reason for the transfer was, allegedly, his refusal to make a statement that the police had not used any force on him.

According to the applicant, his lawyers were systematically obstructed in obtaining meetings with him for frivolous reasons.

He also stated that he had been a narcotics user for some time and that the narcotics found on him and in his home were for his personal use.

, and that the actual purpose of arresting, ill-treating and convicting him was punishing him for his journalistic work and deterring him from doing this work.

to a different city (Erzurum) immediately after reinstating him to his position in Istanbul.

On 18 May, 4 and 8 June 2010 the applicant and his lay defenders requested the District Court to release him from custody.

These detainees engaged in a groundless conflict with the applicant and, having pulled his jumper over his head, hit him in his stomach with a hard object.

They hit his head against the wall, twisted his arms, punched his neck and kicked him in the groin. The beatings alternated with admonitions to him to confess.

against him, and that his detention in police custody lasted too long.

His detention was extended on a number of occasions in view of the gravity of the charges against him.

consequently the said amount could not be considered to have been generated by the various stages of the trial and was rather a success fee paid by him to his lawyer.

In his statements taken with the assistance of an interpreter, the applicant agreed with his lawyer’s request and continued to deny all allegations against him.

  In the first place the applicant alleges irregularities in the course of his arrest. It seems that one of the arresting police officers hit him in the stomach and made insulting remarks.

Various attempts to move him to the ordinary prison were unsuccessful, as his condition deteriorated whenever he was transferred.