ELCI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 49 someone in the listening room, but the interrogator was alone with the detainee. The interrogator would make notes of the interrogation, on the basis of which questions would be put again in an interview room and a statement typed up. 341. The interrogator would sit at a table with the detainee sitting opposite him, on whom spotlights were trained. The closed circuit television system permitted relevant video recordings to be made, which in the present case were handed to the prosecutor's office of the State Security Court. A hidden microphone hung above the person being interrogated. 342. A prisoner called Abdülhakim Güven, the political representative in prison, was interviewed over a few days and made a statement about PKK activities. The statement (more than 100 pages) was handed to the Chief Public Prosecutor at the State Security Court who then gave instructions to apprehend and interrogate certain people. 343. Some of the applicants immediately accepted having acted unlawfully. Others refused to sign statements. 344. Mr Yedekçi had not participated in the confrontation sessions between the applicants and Mr Güven which had taken place in the interview room. This room was not connected to the closed circuit television system and, therefore, the confrontations were not recorded on video. Mr Hüseyin Gaziankep had signed the confrontation documents in the present case. 345. None of the applicants were blindfolded during interrogations. Nor did any of them allege having been exposed to ill-treatment or threats during interrogation. 346. The interrogator would conduct the interview session when a statement would be typed up following the individual's responses. There was normal lighting in that room and blindfolds were not used. The interrogator had no fear of being identified. That was his job. 347. Murat Kirikçi conducted the applicants' interrogation. The statement procedure did not necessarily occur on the same day as the interrogation, but was based on the interrogator's notes. 348. Mr Yedekçi did not recall the exact reason why Arif Altinkalem was detained on 16 November 1993, the same day as Mr Güven's incriminating statement, even though Mr Altinkalem's name had not featured in that statement. 349. People were usually told when they were apprehended why they were being detained and it had to be recorded in the apprehension report. Although there was no specific mention in any of the applicants' apprehension reports, they must have been informed orally. 350. If people were unaware of the reason for their detention, his staff would tell them. 351. The detention area had two floors, with 20 cells, later reduced to 10 after the CPT's intervention. Each cell had metal doors with slits in the