4.  The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in Istanbul. 5.  On 19 September 2007 the applicant left Uzbekistan for fear of being subjected to ill-treatment while under criminal investigation. The applicant submitted that the investigation had been initiated on account of his political activities. 6.  On 13 December 2007 the Uzbek prosecuting authorities issued an international warrant for the applicant’s arrest. 7.  On an unspecified date the applicant arrived in Turkey. 8.  On 9 September 2009 the applicant was arrested in Turkey. According to the arrest and search reports, he was arrested and searched because “he was wanted by Interpol”. 9.  On 10 September 2009 the Bakırköy Magistrates’ Court ordered that the applicant be kept in provisional detention for forty-five days. The court based its decision on the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Civil, Commercial and Criminal Matters between the Republic of Turkey and the Republic of Uzbekistan. 10.  On 17 September 2009 the applicant appealed against his detention but on 20 October 2009 the magistrates’ court dismissed his objection. 11.  On the same day the applicant applied to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“the UNHCR”) and the Ministry of the Interior for recognition as a refugee. 12.  On 15 October 2009 the Turkish authorities received a formal extradition request from the Uzbek authorities. 13.  In a judgment dated 23 October 2009 the Bakırköy Assize Court ordered the applicant’s extradition and that he be kept in detention, on the basis of Article 18 § 7 of the Criminal Code. 14.  On 16 April 2010 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 23 October 2009 on procedural grounds. It noted, in particular, that the first-instance court had failed to attach a photograph of the applicant to his case file for identification purposes, to keep a record of the last hearing in the case file, to inform him of his legal rights, in breach of Law no. 5271, and to obtain final defence submissions from the applicant before ruling. The Court of Cassation also noted that the assize court had failed to enquire whether the applicant had been convicted in Uzbekistan or whether there was a case pending against him before ruling on the merits. Lastly, the Court of Cassation noted that the first-instance court had ordered the applicant’s extradition, whereas it should merely have declared the extradition request admissible, given that extradition could only be ordered by the Cabinet of Ministers. 15.   The Court of Cassation’s decision was received by the first-instance court on 12 May 2010. 16.  On 3 June 2010 the Bakırköy Assize Court asked the opinion of the Bakırköy public prosecutor as to whether the applicant could continue to be detained under Articles 100 and 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The public prosecutor replied on the same day that the applicant could be kept in detention under Article 100. 17.  On 7 June 2010 the Bakırköy Assize Court re-started its examination. It annulled its previous detention order, given on the basis of Article 18 § 7 of the Criminal Code, and ordered the applicant’s detention under Articles 100 and 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It took account the nature of the offences, the state of the evidence, the content of the case file, the existence of a strong suspicion that he had committed the offences in question and the risk that he might abscond. 18.  On 1 July 2010 the Bakırköy Assize Court decided to find out whether the applicant had been convicted or whether there was a case pending against him in Uzbekistan. To that end, the president of the court sent a letter to the Uzbek authorities via the Ministry of Justice. 19.  On 4 November 2010 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent the documents that had been requested, which had been obtained through the Turkish Embassy in Tashkent, to the Ministry of Justice. On 10 November 2010 the Ministry of Justice sent them to the Bakırköy public prosecutor’s office. 20.  On 14 December 2010 the Bakırköy public prosecutor submitted the documents to the Bakırköy Assize Court. They showed that there was neither a criminal conviction nor a case pending against the applicant in Uzbekistan. 21.  Between 1 July and 27 December 2010 the assize court adjourned the proceedings six times as it awaited information from the Uzbek authorities. 22.  On 27 December 2010, at the eighth hearing, the trial court asked the applicant to submit observations in response to the documents received from the Uzbek authorities and adjourned the hearing. 23.  In the meantime, on 23 December 2010 the UNHCR had sent a letter to the Ministry of the Interior. It advised the authorities to grant the applicant subsidiary protection status and to refrain from extraditing or deporting him to Uzbekistan pending proceedings before the UNHCR. The UNHCR also informed the authorities in its letter that it had rejected the applicant’s application for refugee status since he did not qualify for that status but that he should nevertheless not be removed to Uzbekistan in the light of the non-refoulement principle and the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the UNHCR’s decision not to grant him refugee status. 24.  On 7 January 2011 the Bakırköy Assize Court decided to ask the Ministry of the Interior to submit a certified copy of the UNHCR’s letter to it and adjourned the hearing. 25.  The Ministry of the Interior submitted the document requested at a hearing on 4 February 2011. The court also decided to await the outcome of the applicant’s appeal against the UNHCR’s decision not to grant him refugee status. 26.  The proceedings were adjourned between 4 February and 30 March 2011 as the assize court waited for a response from the UNHCR but on the latter of those dates it decided to annul its previous decision on the grounds that the UNHCR’s examination of the applicant’s appeal could take a long time. 27.  At the thirteenth hearing in the case, held on 27 April 2011, the Bakırköy Assize Court asked the applicant to make his defence submissions. On 23 May 2011 the court once again adjourned the proceedings as one of the applicant’s lawyers failed to attend the hearing and the other lawyers had not submitted their defence submission. 28.  On 1 June 2011 the Ministry of the Interior granted the applicant subsidiary protection status and a temporary permit to reside in Sakarya. 29.  By a letter dated 2 June 2011, the Ministry of the Interior provided information about the applicant’s new status to the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Istanbul and Sakarya governors’ offices and the police’s Interpol‑Europol department attached to the General Police Headquarters. The Ministry of the Interior asked the Ministry of Justice to take the necessary measures to prevent possible extradition of the applicant to Uzbekistan because he had been granted a permit to reside in Sakarya. On 15 June 2011 the Ministry of the Interior’s letter was submitted to the Bakırköy Assize Court by the Bakırköy public prosecutor’s office. 30.  On 20 June 2011 the Bakırköy Assize Court once again admitted the request for the applicant’s extradition. In its judgment the court noted that there was an ongoing investigation into the applicant in Uzbekistan and that the offence with which he had been charged had nothing to do with military or political matters. The court noted that the applicant was under investigation for establishing a criminal organisation and causing bodily harm. 31.  On the same day the court ordered that the applicant be kept in detention under Article 18 § 7 of the Criminal Code. 32.  On 20 July 2011 the applicant applied to the Bakırköy Assize Court for release. He noted, in particular, that he could not be extradited because he had been granted subsidiary protection status. He asked the court to consider measures other than detention such as a prohibition on leaving the country, release on bail or an obligation to report to a police station. His application was rejected. 33.  On 2 August 2011 the applicant appealed against the judgment of 20 June 2011. He once again stressed that he had been granted subsidiary protection status and that therefore he could not be extradited. 34.  On 6 December 2011 the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation asked the high court to quash the judgment of 20 June 2011. He argued that the first-instance court had ruled without having made an examination of the case in the light of Article 3 of the Convention and the relevant provisions of other human rights treaties. 35.  On 8 March 2012 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 20 June 2011. 36.  On 4 May 2012 the Ministry of Justice sent a letter to the Bakırköy public prosecutor’s office, stating that the applicant could no longer be extradited as a result of his subsidiary protection status and that therefore his detention should be reviewed by the court. 37.  On 9 May 2012, at the request of the Bakırköy public prosecutor, the Bakırköy Assize Court ordered the applicant’s release from prison on the grounds that he had been granted subsidiary protection status. He was then placed in a foreigners’ removal centre, where he was detained for one day. 38.  On 10 May 2012 the applicant was released from the removal centre on the basis of his residence permit. 39.  On 10 September 2012 the applicant acquired Turkish nationality. 40.  Between 7 June 2010 and 23 May 2011 the Bakırköy Assize Court ordered the applicant to be kept in detention owing to the nature of the offences in question, the state of the evidence and the fact that he was not a permanent resident of Turkey. The applicant asked to be released several times. He also appealed against the orders for his continued detention. In particular, in petitions and oral submissions to the trial court starting from June 2011 the applicant argued that he had been granted subsidiary protection status, that he could not be extradited and that therefore he should be released.