4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Novovoronezh, Voronezh Region. 5.  In 1999 the applicant brought proceedings against the Chief Department of Finance of the Voronezh Region to claim welfare payments to which she was entitled in respect of her child. 6.  On 5 January 2000 the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region awarded the applicant 3,387.87 roubles (RUR). This judgment entered into force on 15 January 2000. 7.  On 10 February 2000 the enforcement order was issued and sent to the bailiff service of the Tsentralnyy District of Voronezh. 8.  On 10 April 2000 the applicant complained to the Department of Justice of the Voronezh Region about the bailiffs’ failure to execute the judgment in her favour. 9.  On 20 April 2000 the Department of Justice of the Voronezh Region informed the applicant that her award would be enforced in accordance with the order of priority set out by the Federal Law on Enforcement Procedure. 10.  On 26 June 2001 the bailiff terminated execution proceedings in respect of the judgment of 5 January 2000, as the debtor had no sufficient funds. The applicant was suggested to bring an action against the Administration of the Voronezh Region. 11.  On 13 February 2002 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Voronezh granted the applicant’s request to resume enforcement proceedings. In this decision the court dismissed the bailiff’s argument that an action against the Administration of the Voronezh Region was necessary to secure execution of the judgment against the Chief Department of Finance. The court found that the judgment of 5 January 2000 could be enforced as it stood. 12.  The sum awarded has not been paid to the applicant.


4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Vienna.
She is the mother of M, L and R, born in wedlock in 1973, 1974 and 1976, respectively. The spouses separated in 1982. Custody of L and M was assigned to the applicant, the custody of R to the father. 5.  In December 1989 M was admitted in a public girls' home as she refused to stay with her mother. She stayed there until January 1992. From December 1989 until September 1995 custody proceedings concerning the temporary transfer of M's custody to the Vienna Youth Welfare Office for the time M had spent at the girls' home were pending before the Austrian courts. 6.  On 3 January 1990 the Vienna Youth Welfare Office, on behalf of M, filed a request with the Floridsdorf District Court that the applicant should pay a monthly contribution to the expenses incurred for M's stay in the girls' home. 7.  The file was later on transferred to the competent Juvenile Court and, in January 1990, the court heard M's parents. 8.  On 8 March 1991 the Youth Welfare Office reduced the amount of the requested monthly contribution. 9.  On 10 April 1991 the President of the Juvenile Court granted the applicant's motion for bias against the competent court clerk (Rechtspfleger). 10.  A hearing scheduled for 25 July 1991 was cancelled due to the applicant's illness. Further hearings scheduled for 2 September 1991 and 11 September 1991 had to be cancelled because the court's attempts to deliver the summons to the applicant were unsuccessful. 11.  On 10 February 1992 the Juvenile Court ordered that the applicant had to pay ATS 2,500 in monthly maintenance for M. The applicant appealed, claiming that she was fit to work to an extent of 75% only. 12.  On 4 March 1992 the case was assigned to another judge as the competent judge had declared himself biased. 13.  On 13 May 1992 the Appeal Chamber quashed the decision and remitted the case back to the Juvenile Court, instructing the latter to take a new decision after having supplemented its proceedings. In particular, it stated that the first instance court ought to appoint a forensic medical expert in order to establish the applicant's fitness to work. 14.  On 20 May 1998 the Juvenile Court ordered the applicant to pay ATS 1,550 in monthly maintenance for M. At that stage of the proceedings, no expert had been heard yet. 15.  Referring to the Appeal Chamber's decision of 13 May 1992, the applicant appealed, again relying on her reduced fitness to work. 16.  On 13 August 1998 the Juvenile Court appointed an expert in forensic medicine to file a report on the question as to which extent the applicant's capacities to earn her living were reduced. 17.  The applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that it no longer made sense to appoint a medical expert, now that the court had already dismissed her request by a decision of 20 May 1998. Further, she claimed that there was no need for a further report as, in this respect, she had already submitted two reports of different medical officers (Amtsarzt). 18.  On 17 and 20 August 1998 the applicant filed motions for bias against the court clerk (Rechtspfleger) I.S., who was dealing with her case, claiming that the appointment of a further medical expert was not justified, that I.S. was handling the case file in a negligent manner, namely that several documents were missing from the file, and that I.S. had been rude to her on the telephone. 19.  On 25 August 1998 the President of the Vienna Juvenile Court (Präsident des Jugendgerichtshofs) dismissed her motion for bias, finding that the mere fact that she had appointed a medical expert was not sufficient to cast doubt upon I.S.' impartiality. He also noted that there were no documents missing from the file. 20.  On 17 September 1998 the Appeal Chamber dismissed the applicant's appeal against the appointment of a medical expert, but granted her appeal against the decision of 20 May 1998. In this respect, it referred the case to the Juvenile Court for supplementing the taking of evidence, namely to comply with its decision of 13 May 1992. 21.  On 21 and 23 March 1999 the applicant requested that, pursuant to Section 91 of the Courts Act (Gerichtsorganisationsgesetz), a time-limit be fixed for the decision on the Youth Welfare Office's application of 3 January 1990. 22.  On 23 March 1999 the applicant filed a motion for bias against I.S., claiming that the latter had not been available to her during office hours and that she had refused to give her information requested over the telephone. 23.  On 29 March 1999 the President of the Vienna Juvenile Court dismissed her motion as being unfounded. 24.  On 30 March 1999 the President rejected her appeal against this decision, as the relevant provisions of the Court Clerks Act (Rechtspflegergesetz) did not provide for such remedy. 25.  On 8 April 1999 the applicant was summoned by the appointed medical expert to undergo a medical examination at the Institute for Forensic Medicine (Institut für Gerichtsmedizin) on 22 April 1999. 26.  It appears that the applicant filed numerous complaints with the President of the Juvenile Court, again claiming that documents were missing from the file and that I.S. as well as various judges of the Juvenile Court were biased. 27.  On 4 May 1999 the President of the Juvenile Court decided to exclude I.S. from the proceedings. He noted that the latter had expressed that she considered herself biased following a telephone conversation in the course of which the applicant had said she would kill her daughter if I.S. continued to harass her. In these circumstances, the President found it advisable that the matter be re-assigned in accordance with the Juvenile Court's rules on the distribution of cases (Geschäftsverteilung). 28.  On the same day, the Juvenile Court dismissed the applicant's requests for a time-limit to be set. Referring to the applicant's numerous requests, complaints and motions for bias filed with the court, it found that there was no indication of a lack of due diligence on behalf of the Juvenile Court, it being rather the applicant who prevented that a decision on the merits had been taken so far. 29.  On 17 May 1999 the Vienna Youth Welfare Office withdrew its request dated of 3 January 1990. 30.  Thereupon, the applicant, on 27 May 1999, withdrew all requests and complaints still pending before the Juvenile Court at that stage. 31.  From 30 July 1990 to 3 September 1990 M stayed with her mother. The latter, on 4 September 1990 filed a request with the Juvenile Court, claiming reimbursement of her expenses incurred during this period. 32.  In September 1990 the Vienna Youth Welfare Office reimbursed the applicant for M's stay with her from 30 July 1990 to 21 August 1990. 33.  On 10 August 1993 the Juvenile Court dismissed the applicant's request for expenses incurred during the rest of the period. 34.  On 30 August 1993 the President of the Vienna Juvenile Court dismissed the applicant's motion of bias against the competent judge. On 30 December 1993 the Vienna Court of Appeal granted the applicant's appeal against this decision and quashed the decision. 35.  On 20 January 1994 the Appeal Chamber of the Juvenile Court again dismissed the applicant's motion for bias. On 6 May 1994 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal. A further appeal to the Supreme Court was to no avail. A further motion for bias against the President of the Juvenile Court was to no avail either. 36.  On 5 January 1995 the Appeal Chamber quashed the decision of 10 August 1993 and remitted the case back to the first instance court. 37.  On 19 April 1998 the applicant requested that, pursuant to Section 91 of the Courts Act, a time-limit be fixed for the decision on her application of 4 September 1990. 38.  On 8 June 1998 the President of the Vienna Juvenile Court ordered the Juvenile Court to decide on the applicant's request no later than on 31 July 1998. 39.  On 5 August 1998 the Juvenile Court dismissed the applicant's request for maintenance payments of 4 September 1990. 40.  The applicant appealed against this decision. 41.  It appears from the documents submitted that the applicant filed several complaints with the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht), claiming that I.S. had not complied with the time limit set by the President of the Juvenile Court because she had gone on holidays, that the competent judicial officer, I.S. was to be found at her office only twice a week and that she had been extraordinarily impolite to her. 42.  Thereupon, the President of the Juvenile Court, on 31 August 1998, informed the applicant that both I.S.'s office hours as well as her right to vacation were in accordance with her assignment. He also expressed his regret that, if, in the course of one of the applicant's numerous telephone calls, I.S. might have acted in a slightly indignant way. However, he emphasised that the applicant's allegations had remained unproved. 43.  On 17 September 1998 the Appeal Chamber dismissed her appeal against the Juvenile Court's decision of 5 August 1998 as being unfounded. Further, it stated that there was no further appeal on points of law in the applicant's case as it did not raise questions of law of fundamental importance (Ausspruch über die Unzulässigkeit der ordentlichen Revision). 44.  Nevertheless, the applicant filed an extraordinary appeal on points of law (ausserordentliche Revision) with the Supreme Court. 45.  Referring to an amendment of Section 14 a of the Non-Contentious Proceedings Act (Ausserstreitgesetz), the Supreme Court on 18 December 1998 remitted the case back to the Vienna Juvenile Appeal Court. According to that provision, instead of filing an extraordinary appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, a party to non-contentious proceedings must now request the Court of Appeal to re-consider its opinion on the admissibility of an ordinary appeal on points of law. The Supreme Court found that, even if in her appeal the applicant had not explicitly requested the Juvenile Appeal Court to declare that a further appeal on points of law be allowed, her appeal should have been understood in such a way. 46.  Thereupon, on 11 January 1999 the Juvenile Appeal Court requested the applicant to remedy procedural defects of her appeal, namely to request that an ordinary appeal in her case be allowed. 47.  As the applicant did not comply with this request, the Juvenile Appeal Court, on 25 February 1999, rejected her appeal.


5.  The applicant was born in 1982 and is now serving a prison sentence in the correctional facility USh/382/10 in the Saratov Region. 6.  On 21 May 2002, at 9 a.m., the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having murdered M., the mother of his girlfriend, and was brought to the Severnoye Medvedkovo police station in Moscow. The arrest record indicated that the applicant had been arrested on suspicion of murder. The applicant countersigned the record, noting that he had been notified of his rights and had understood them. The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended by prosecutors and courts. 7.  According to the applicant, upon arrival at the police station on 21 May 2002, he was placed in the office of Officer Mus. The latter and another officer started beating him up. They hit and kicked him in the solar plexus, on the head, in the kidney area and the groin with a view to extracting a confession to the murder. After their prolonged beatings the applicant was placed in a cell. After a while Officers S. and L. started beating him up again. They hit him on the head, on the body and in the groin, insisting that he confess to the murder. Despite the ill-treatment, he did not confess. Only when they threatened to rape his mother and girlfriend, the applicant’s psychological resistance was broken and he confessed. 8.  On 21 May 2002, at 10 p.m., the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert in the presence of the investigator in charge of the criminal case and two attesting witnesses. The expert detected and noted in the examination record the following injuries on the applicant’s body: a pinkish-bluish bruise on the left ear measuring 1.2 cm, two reddish-purple bruises on the left side of the thorax measuring around 2×2.25 cm and 2.2×0.6 cm and a cut on the back of the left wrist. According to the record, the persons present at the examination were apprised of their right to make declarations and objections in connection with the examination. The applicant made no observations and countersigned the examination record. 9.  On 22 May 2002 the investigator questioned the applicant about the murder but he denied all accusations. Later on the same day he wrote a statement confessing to the murder. He noted that the confession had been made without any “moral or physical pressure” and that he had no complaints about police officers. 10.  On 23 and 30 May 2002 the investigator questioned the applicant in the presence of his two lawyers. The applicant maintained the confession and described in detail how he had committed the murder. He again confirmed the confession while being questioned during a video-recorded inspection of the crime scene where he was also assisted by his lawyers. 11.  At a questioning on 2 August 2002 the applicant retracted his previous statements and submitted that his confession of 22 May 2002 had been extracted from him by force and that he had not murdered M. 12.  On 24 September 2002 the applicant requested the prosecutor’s office to institute criminal proceedings against Officer “Marat” who had allegedly beaten him up on 21 May 2002. 13.  The applicant submitted a written statement by witness A. dated 26 July 2003 which, in its relevant parts, reads as follows:
“...I was detained on 21 May 2002 ... at the [applicant’s] flat... together with [the applicant]....We have been together since 11 a.m. on 20 March 2002...The fact that we had spent that time together can be confirmed by Z., D., A. and K.... All those persons who could have confirmed [the applicant’s] alibi ... had been known to the investigation but were never questioned.... Since we were sleeping in the same flat, I saw [the applicant’s] underwear; there had been no traces of blood on it. Thus, the blood [stains] found on the applicant later could have appeared on his clothes only after we had been separated at the police station. [The applicant] was clam and reacted adequately. I am convinced in his innocence...” 14.  On 2 August 2002 an investigator with the Babushkinskiy district prosecutor’s office of Moscow launched an inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment which he had submitted on the same day (see paragraph 11 above). According to the records of interview submitted by the Government, the investigator questioned Officer Mur. on 19 August 2002, Officer S. on 3 September 2002 and Officers L. and Mus. on 20 September 2002. The investigator also ordered a forensic expert examination of the applicant’s injuries. The examination was carried out on 18 September 2002. 15.  By a decision of 20 September 2002, the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against them for lack of evidence of a criminal offence. The decision was based on the applicant’s forensic medical examination and the statements of Officers Mus., Mur., L. and S. According to the expert’s report, the bruises to the applicant’s chest and ear had been caused by a blunt object two to three days before his arrest on 21 May 2002 and the incised wound on his left hand could have been caused on 19 May 2002, the date when he had allegedly committed the murder. Officers Mus., Mur., L. and S. submitted that the applicant had confessed voluntarily and that they had never forced or threatened him. The applicant was given a copy of the decision in the presence of his lawyers on 11 October 2002. 16.  By a decision of 3 October 2002, the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against Officer “Marat”, because no such person had ever served at the Severnoye Medvedkovo police station. 17.  On 24 September and 9 October 2002 the applicant lodged further complaints with the Moscow City Prosecutor about the alleged beatings. 18.  On 11 October 2002 the applicant complained to the Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow about the prosecutor’s refusal to establish the persons who could have witnessed the victim on the date of the presumed murder. He also complained about the decisions of 20 September and 3 October 2002 refusing to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. In particular, the applicant submitted that the colour of his bruises (rose and blue and not yellow and brown) had indicated that they were freshly inflicted and that the expert’s conclusion as to the date of their infliction had thus been wrong. The applicant further claimed that witness A. could have confirmed that he had not had any bruises on his body before his arrest. On 14 October 2002 the Babushkinskiy District Court disallowed the complaints for lack of territorial jurisdiction. 19.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged similar complaints with the Ostanskinskiy District Court. 20.  On 24 October 2002 the Ostankinskiy District Court dismissed the complaints, finding that the inquiry case file had, at the applicant’s own request, been enclosed in the case file in the criminal proceedings against him and that the criminal case had been sent for trial to the Babushkinskiy District Court. Accordingly, the ill-treatment complaint was to be examined by the trial court. The applicant appealed, alleging that he had not been summoned to the hearing on 24 October 2002. 21.  On 22 November 2002, the Moscow City Court heard the applicant’s counsel and upheld the decision. It found that since the applicant had complained in essence of inadmissibility of evidence in relation to the charge against him, the Ostankinskiy District Court had not been entitled to examine the issue, given that the case had been about to be tried by another court. It further noted that the applicant’s lawyer had been present at the hearing on 24 October 2002 and had submitted arguments on his behalf and that the applicant had never asked to be brought to the hearing. 22.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s criminal case was transferred for trial to the Babushkinskiy District Court. On court hearing days the applicant was allegedly not provided with food. 23.  On 8 December 2004 the District Court found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The judgment referred to statements from twenty-nine witnesses, in particular a person who had found and identified the knives with which the applicant had allegedly stabbed the victim; three post-mortem examinations of the victim, several DNA tests establishing a match between the samples of the victim’s blood and the bloodstains found on the applicant’s clothes; statements from experts, and further material evidence. It did not refer to the applicant’s confession dated 22 May 2002. However, it took into account his statements of 23 and 30 May 2002 and the video record of the crime scene inspection. 24.  The trial court dismissed as unfounded the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. It noted that Officers Mur., Mus.,, S. and L., when questioned in open court, denied having beaten the applicant up. In the same vein, attesting witnesses present during the crime scene inspection and the applicant’s medical examination on 22 May 2002 testified to the court that the applicant had not complained about the alleged ill-treatment in their presence. Furthermore, his submissions were contradicted by statements from independent witnesses A. and N., who had been arrested, brought to the police station and detained there together with the applicant, and who had testified to the court that nobody had beaten him up or threatened him in their presence. According to the forensic examination, the applicant’s injuries had been sustained two to three days before his arrest. Furthermore, the court considered that he had waited for several months before complaining about the alleged ill-treatment and, when questioned about it by the court, made contradictory statements about the circumstances in which he had sustained the injuries. Thus, he alleged once that he could have sustained the ear injury in a scuffle with skinheads prior to his arrest, on another occasion he claimed that nobody had beaten him up. Moreover, witness V. testified to the Court that he had seen the applicant on 19 May 2002 sleeping under a bench at a subway station in a state of intoxication. 25.  According to the applicant, from 9 a.m. on 21 May 2002 until 6 a.m. on 24 May 2002 he was held in a cell at the Severnoye Medvedkovo police station. Throughout his detention there he was not given food or drink and had nowhere to sleep because the cell had no sleeping place. 26.  On an unspecified date an investigator with the Babushkinskiy District prosecutor’s office requested the head of the temporary detention ward of the Losinoostrovskiy police station to provide him with information on, among other things, the date of the applicant’s admission to the ward. In response, the head of the ward certified that on 21 May 2002, at noon, the applicant had been placed in the Severnoye Medvedkovo police station and that on 23 May 2002, at 10.40 p.m., he had been admitted to the temporary detention facility of the Losinoostrovskiy police station. 27.  On 24 September and 9 October 2002 the applicant complained to the Moscow City prosecutor’s office that from the moment of his arrest on 21 May 2002 he had been detained for more than two days at the Severnoye Medvedkovo police station without food or drink. His complaints were left without reply. Complaints in similar terms were raised by the applicant’s relatives in their open letter to the State Duma dated 27 January 2005. 28.  According to the Government, from 21 to 23 May 2002 the applicant was held in the temporary detention facility of the Losinoostrovskiy police station and was brought to the Severnoye Medvedkovo police station for investigative action. On their completion he was brought back to the Losinoostrovskiy police station. 29.  The applicant was detained in Moscow IZ-77/1 remand centre from 30 May 2002 to 28 March 2005. 30.  For most of the period the applicant was held in cell no. 106 measuring around 50 square metres. It had thirty two-tier bunks and accommodated seventy-five to one hundred inmates. Two bunks were always occupied by the inmates’ bags, leaving twenty-eight sleeping places for the inmates. Detainees had to sleep in shifts, on the floor, under the bunks and under the table. Three or more inmates had to share one bunk. The cell space per detainee was reduced to 0.5 to 0.6 square metres. The situation was the same in other cells where the applicant was detained. The administration only once provided him with bedding and even when his relatives brought him bedding the wardens always seized it. 31.  Cell no. 106 had two windows with metal bars and until November 2003 the windows were covered with metal shutters which barred natural light and airflow. The windows were glazed only in winter and sometimes detainees had to stuff them with wet linen, which served as a replacement for glass when it was frozen, permitting them to maintain the air temperature at around 0.5 ºC. The stuffing was routinely removed by the wardens. The lights and TV were on day and night. As there was no ventilation, it was particularly hot in summer. Allegedly, the administration seized the electric fans provided by the detainees’ relatives and then leased them to the inmates for money. 32.  The sanitary conditions in the cells were unsatisfactory. The toilet was 60 cm high. It was separated from the living area by a partition measuring one metre in height and the inmates had to use the bedding supplied by their relatives to secure at least some privacy. The wardens routinely removed their hand-made partitions so that the applicant had to answer the needs of nature in view of other inmates. Moreover, because of the overcrowding the toilet was always occupied and he could not always have access to it in case of need. The toilet was two metres from the table at which the inmates had their meals. The food was of poor quality and had an unpleasant smell. The inmates went on hunger strike several times in protest at the poor quality of the food. 33.  Detainees were allowed to take showers only once every eight to ten days, in a communal shower. Seventy-five to one hundred inmates were at the same time given half an hour for a shower while only ten to twelve taps were working properly. They could not wash themselves or their clothes properly and had to negotiate with wardens who agreed for money to extend the shower time to one hour. 34.  The applicant received no medical treatment, in particular in respect of his acute tooth pain. He was first given dental treatment only when he arrived at the correctional colony in June 2005. 35.  Once a day the applicant was allowed to take a forty-minute walk in a stone courtyard measuring 20-25 square metres, at the same time as up to ninety others. 36.  On many occasions the applicant complained about the conditions of detention to the administration of the remand centre but his complaints were left without reply. 37.  In support of his description of the conditions of detention the applicant produced written statements by Messrs N., D., Po. and Pe. who had been detained in the same remand centre at the relevant time and confirmed his submissions concerning, in particular, overcrowding, lack of individual sleeping places and bedding and inadequate medical assistance. The applicant also submitted sketched plans and photographs of cell no. 106 and the courtyard. He also furnished an article dated 28 December 2005 and published on the internet site newsru.com, summarising the results of the checks carried out by the Moscow City Prosecutor’s office in 2005 and concerning conditions of detention at remand centres in Moscow. With reference to the results of the check-ups, it was stated that although the overall number of inmates held in the six remand centres of Moscow had decreased over a five-year period, it was still twice the design capacity. A considerable number of detainees were not provided with individual sleeping places. 38.  According to the Government, throughout his detention in the remand centre the applicant was held in the following cells:
- cell no. 106 measuring 57.8 square metres, having 34 bunks and accommodating 34 inmates;
- cell no. 118 measuring 32.3 square metres, having 34 bunks and accommodating 35 inmates;
- cell. No.122 measuring 52.7 square metres, having 20 bunks and accommodating 20 inmates;
- cell no. 146 measuring 46.57 square metres, having 22 bunks and accommodating 22 inmates;
- cell no. 238 measuring 21.31 square metres, having 6 bunks and accommodating 6 inmates. 39.  The cells had central heating, water supply and drainage; each cell was equipped with a toilet and a wash basin. The toilet was separated from the living area by a brick partition not less than one metre in height and fully securing the necessary privacy. Depending on their size, the cells had one or two windows with bars; the windows were glazed and permitted the inmates to read and work by natural light. The artificial lighting conformed to the relevant standards and at night its brightness was reduced to a level permitting supervision of the detainees. During the applicant’s detention there had been no artificial ventilation in the cells of the remand centre, but it was introduced subsequently. The air temperature, the humidity level and the quality of water in the applicant’s cells conformed to the relevant standards. 40.  The applicant was properly fed and a medical assistant regularly checked the quality of food and the compliance with the requirements in force as regards its storage. The applicant was regularly examined by the medical staff of the facility and received adequate medical assistance. 41.  The medical unit was equipped with all necessary medications. According to an excerpt of the applicant’s medical record submitted by the Government, he was examined by a dentist on 17 February 2005 and his condition was assessed as satisfactory. He was diagnosed with chronic caries of two teeth but no need for urgent medical intervention was established. Upon arrival at the correctional colony, the applicant was treated for caries of two teeth, which were filled. 42.  To support their submissions, the Government furnished a number of certificates issued by the head of remand centre IZ-77/1 in April 2006 and several excerpts from the applicant’s medical record.


4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Gdynia. 5.  On 21 April 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of armed robbery. On 22 April 1999 the Gdańsk District Court remanded him in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed several offences of armed robbery. 6.  Later, several other persons were detained and charged in connection with the same investigation conducted by the Department of Organised Crime of the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor's Office. In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged several times. 7.  On 13 December 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's and his eight co-suspects' detention until 31 March 2001. 8.  On 7 March 2001 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 31 May 2001. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and the severity of the anticipated penalty. The Court of Appeal further held that the detention on remand was the only measure which could secure the proper conduct of the proceedings given the nature of the charges and the relations between the suspects, who had acted in an organised group. It also considered that the prolongation of detention was justified by the need to obtain DNA evidence in order to corroborate evidence previously obtained. 9.  On 15 May 2001 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with several dozen counts of armed robbery which had been committed in an organised armed criminal group. The bill of indictment listed 120 charges brought against 19 defendants, who were all detained on remand. The case file comprised 114 volumes. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from 366 witnesses. 10.  On 23 May 2001 the Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until 31 October 2001. In addition to the grounds previously invoked, it referred to the complexity of the case, the significant number of defendants and the number of witnesses to be heard in the trial. 11.  On 24 October 2001 the Court of Appeal extended the applicant's detention until 31 March 2002, relying on the same grounds as in its earlier decisions. 12.  The trial began on 28 December 2001. However, as of 22 April 2002 the reading out of the bill of indictment by the prosecution had still not been concluded. Initially, the trial court held three hearings per month. 13.  During the hearing held on 30 January 2002 the trial court ordered the removal of the applicant and two other defendants from the court room. They disrupted the trial by screaming when the prosecutor was reading the bill of indictment, notwithstanding a warning from the presiding judge. Similarly, during the hearings held on 27 May and 14 October 2002 the trial court ordered the applicant's removal on the ground that he had disrupted the trial. 14.  On 13 March 2002 the Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant and his seven co-defendants be held in custody until 30 September 2002. It considered that the trial could be terminated by the last-mentioned date. In addition to the grounds previously invoked, the Court of Appeal found that the prolongation of detention was justified under Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the particular complexity of the case. It further observed that the delays in the trial were partly attributable to some of the defendants who had attempted to disrupt the proceedings and, consequently, had to be removed from the court room. The Court of Appeal instructed the trial court to hold more than 3 hearings per month. Furthermore, it held that no other preventive measure could secure the proper conduct of the trial. In that respect, the Court of Appeal observed that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant and other defendants might interfere with the proceedings, given the nature of the charges, the severity of the anticipated penalty and the fact that such attempts had been made in the course of the investigation. 15.  On 27, 28 and 29 May 2002 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant's requests for the presiding judge to withdraw. 16.  On 11 September 2002 the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's and his nine co-defendants' detention until 31 December 2002. In addition to the grounds previously relied on, it considered that the applicant's detention was justified under Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since that provision established a presumption to the effect that the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on the applicant might induce him to obstruct the proceedings. It also noted that the prolongation of his detention was justified by the volume of evidence to be heard at the trial. 17.  On 18 December 2002 the Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant and his 17 co-defendants be kept in custody until 30 June 2003. It held that the grounds invoked in its previous decisions were still valid. 18.  On 13 January and 31 March 2003 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant's request for the judges and lay members of the trial court to withdraw. On 15 January 2003 the applicant and seventeen of his co-defendants unsuccessfully challenged the judges and lay members of the trial court. 19.  On 13 January 2003 the trial court refused the applicant's request for dismissal of his legal-aid counsel. Similar requests were dismissed on 12 February and 20 March 2003. 20.  On 25 June 2003 the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's and eighteen of his co-defendant's detention until 31 December 2003, relying on the same grounds as given previously. In addition, it observed that the trial could not have been terminated due to obstructiveness on the part of the defendants who had filed numerous requests challenging the trial court. It also noted that the trial court had taken various procedural steps in order to accelerate the proceedings. 21.  In its decision of 30 July 2003 dismissing the applicant's appeal against the decision of 25 June 2003 prolonging his detention, the Court of Appeal held that Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure established a presumption to the effect that the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on the applicant might induce him to obstruct the proceedings[1]. It added that the risk of absconding or tampering with witnesses in the present case did not have to be supported by any concrete facts, but resulted from the above presumption. The Court of Appeal also observed that although the applicant and other defendants were free to make use of their procedural rights, the abuse of those rights undoubtedly led to delays in the trial. 22.  On 1 September 2003 a new legal-aid counsel was appointed for the applicant. The previous counsel was discharged by the trial court from his duties at his own request and following a number of complaints made by the applicant. 23.  Subsequently, the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention on several occasions. The relevant decisions were given on 17 December 2003 (prolonging his detention until 30 June 2004), 23 June 2004 (extending his detention until 31 December 2004), 15 December 2004 (ordering his continued detention until 31 March 2005), 30 March 2005 (prolonging his detention until 30 June 2005) and 22 June 2005 (extending his detention until 30 September 2005). In all those decisions the Court of Appeal stated that the grounds previously given for the applicant's detention were still valid. It also stressed the exceptionally complex nature of the case. 24.  In its decision on the applicant's detention of 23 June 2004, the Court of Appeal observed that up to April 2003 the main reason for the delays during the trial was the obstructiveness of the defendants and the abuse of the rights of the defence. It also observed that the trial could be concluded by the end of 2004 provided that the Regional Court endeavoured to organise the trial efficiently. 25.  On 15 January and 29 July 2004 and 16 and 31 May 2005 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed as unfounded the applicant's requests for various members of the trial court to withdraw. 26.  On 8 March and 24 May 2005 the trial court dismissed the applicant's application for release on health grounds, relying on the report prepared by the experts from the Gdańsk Medical Academy. The applicant was diagnosed with a number of ailments, including a brain tumour. However the experts determined that he could remain and receive treatment in detention. 27.  In its decision of 27 July 2005 dismissing the applicant's appeal against the decision of 22 June 2005 prolonging his detention, the Court of Appeal referred, inter alia, to the presumption established under Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and held that that presumption alone justified the applicant's continued detention. It also held that keeping the applicant in custody was necessary in order to prevent him from interfering with the trial, given the reasonable risk of such interference which flowed from the fact that he had been charged with commission of offences as a member of an organised criminal group. 28.  By March 2006 the trial court had held some 135 hearings of the 162 which had been scheduled. It heard more than 400 witnesses. 29.  During the trial the applicant filed numerous but unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against the decisions prolonging his detention. He maintained that the length of his detention was excessive and that the charges against him lacked a sufficiently strong basis. 30.  On 21 March 2005 the Gdańsk Regional Court made a severance order with a view to expediting the proceedings, and thereafter four defendants (J.N., G.P., Z.S. and Z.C.), who in the meantime had been released from detention, were to be tried separately. 31.  After 20 June 2005 no hearing was held due to the serious illness of the judge rapporteur. On 21 September 2005 the President of the IV Criminal Section of the Gdańsk Regional Court assigned a new judge rapporteur. Consequently, the trial had to commence de novo. 32.  On 20 September 2005 the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 31 January 2006. The applicant appealed against that decision. On 18 October 2005 a different panel of the Court of Appeal quashed the impugned decision and ordered the applicant's release under police supervision. It also imposed on him a prohibition on leaving the country. The Court of Appeal had regard to the fact that the trial had to commence de novo and that the applicant had already spent a few years in pre-trial detention. 33.  The applicant was released on 19 October 2005. 34.  On 24 November 2005 the trial court made a further severance order and divided the case into eleven separate cases. 35.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court.


7.  The applicant was born in 1945 and resides in the city of Donetsk, Ukraine. 8.  The applicant has worked as an English teacher in a secondary school since 1984. 9.  On 23 March 1996 the Ukrainian Parliament adopted a new wording for the Education Act that provided for, in particular, the payment of certain benefits to teachers. 10.  On 2 April 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Leninsky District Court of Donetsk against the Leninsky District Department for Education, claiming entitlement to those benefits. The applicant maintained that he had more than 10 years’ of service and was thus entitled to a 20% increase in his salary as from 1 January 1997. However, the defendant had not paid him this increase. He further maintained that the defendant had not paid him annual bonuses for excellent work and recreation. The defendant stated that the claimed amounts could not be paid because the State budgets for 1997-1999 did not make any provision for such expenditures. 11.  On 5 October 1999 the court found in part for the applicant. The court rejected the applicant’s claim for an excellent work bonus as such a payment required an assessment of the applicant’s work which was outside the court’s competence. The court also rejected the applicant’s claim for unpaid benefits in 1997 and 1998 as being out of time, according to the law on employment disputes. The court further rejected the applicant’s claim for benefits after 1 June 1999 as the Secondary Education Act, adopted in May 1999, had suspended them. The court, however, awarded the applicant the claimed increase in salary for the period between 1 January and 1 June 1999. 12.  The applicant appealed against this decision to the Donetsk Regional Court. 13.  On 4 November 1999 the regional court quashed the decision of the first instance court and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The court noted, in particular, that the Secondary Education Act had entered into force on 23 June 1999; therefore the first instance court had erroneously overlooked the period between 1 and 23 June 1999. 14.  On 24 February 2000 the Leninsky District Court of Donetsk ruled against the applicant. The court found that, under the transitional clauses of the Secondary Education Act, the provision entitling the applicant to benefits would only resume force on 1 September 2001. Thus, at the time of the examination of the claim, there was no legal basis for it. 15.  On 30 March 2000, the Donetsk Regional Court upheld the decision of the first instance court. It observed that the claims of the applicant for the periods prior to the adoption of the Secondary Education Act could not be satisfied, since at the time of the consideration of the case the relevant provisions of the Education Act had been suspended by the Secondary Education Act. This decision was final.


10.  The applicants were born in 1953 and 1994 respectively. The first applicant lives in West Bloomfield (Michigan) and the second applicant lives in Graz. 11.  The first applicant married an Austrian citizen in April 1994. The marriage was concluded in the United States of America, where the couple set up their common residence. On 11 September 1994 their daughter, the second applicant, was born. The family's last common residence was in Michigan. Under the law of the State of Michigan the parents had joint custody over the second applicant. 12.  On 30 October 1995 the first applicant's wife, without obtaining his consent, left the United States with the second applicant and took her to Austria. 13.  On 31 October 1995 the first applicant, relying on the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”), requested the Austrian courts to order the second applicant's return. In these and the subsequent proceedings the first applicant was represented by counsel. 14.  On 3 November 1995 the second applicant's mother filed an application with the Graz District Civil Court (Bezirksgericht für Zivilrechtssachen) for the award of sole custody over the second applicant. 15.  On 20 December 1995 the Graz District Civil Court, after having heard evidence from the first applicant and his wife and the oral statement of an expert in child psychology, Dr. K., ordered that the second applicant be returned to the first applicant at her former place of residence in Michigan. 16.  The court, noting that under Michigan law the first applicant and his wife had joint custody of their daughter, found that the first applicant's wife had wrongfully removed the child within the meaning of Article 3 of the Hague Convention. Moreover, it dismissed the mother's claim that the child's return would entail a grave risk of physical or psychological harm within the meaning of Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention. It considered that the second applicant's return could not be hindered by the fact that the mother was her main person of reference and that returning could cause a massive trauma affecting her development. Otherwise, mothers of small children could easily circumvent the aim of the Hague Convention. As to the mother's allegation that the first applicant regularly masturbated in the presence of the child, the court referred to the expert's statement that such conduct would, in view of the child's tender age, not cause immediate harm. The fact that such conduct, if proved, could in the long run be harmful to the child would have to be assessed in the custody proceedings. Finally, it held that the mother could be expected to return with the second applicant to the United States. 17.  On 19 January 1996 the Graz Regional Civil Court (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen) dismissed an appeal by the second applicant's mother. 18.  The Regional Court confirmed the District Court's assessment as regards the question whether the second applicant's return would entail a grave risk of physical or psychological harm within the meaning of Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention. It noted that the onus of proof was on the person opposing the return, i.e. the second applicant's mother. Further, it noted that the statement of  the expert in child psychology had denied that there was any such risk. That statement had been made on the assumption that the mother's allegations were true. However, the Regional Court emphasised that the truth of these allegations had not been proved and that the District Court had had the benefit of hearing the first applicant and, thus, of forming a personal impression of him. 19.  On 27 February 1996 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) dismissed a further appeal by the second applicant's mother. 20.  On 27 February 1996 the first applicant filed an application for enforcement of the return order of 20 December 1995. 21.  Meanwhile, the first applicant had started divorce proceedings before the Oakland Circuit Court (Michigan). By a decision of 16 April 1996, the court pronounced a default judgment of divorce. Further, it awarded the first applicant sole custody of the second applicant and ordered that the second applicant should reside with the first applicant in the event of her return. 22.  On 7 May 1996 the file arrived again at the Graz District Civil Court. 23.  On 8 May 1996 the Graz District Civil Court ordered the enforcement of the return order under section 19 (1) of the Non-Contentious Proceedings Act (Ausserstreitgesetz). It noted that it was necessary to order coercive measures as there were indications that the mother was obstructing the child's return. She had given an interview to a local newspaper according to which she frequently changed her whereabouts and was determined not to let the child be taken away from her. 24.  In the early hours of 10 May 1996, an attempt to enforce the return order was made in accordance with the terms set out in the order of 8 May. A bailiff, assisted by a police officer, a locksmith and a representative of the Youth Welfare Office, appeared at the house where the second applicant and her mother were living. The first applicant was also present. A search carried out in the house, necessitating the use of force against the second applicant's mother and the forceful opening of several doors, remained unsuccessful. On the occasion of the enforcement attempt the Supreme Court's decision of 27 February 1996 and the enforcement order of 8 May 1996 were served on the second applicant's mother. 25.  On 15 May 1996 the second applicant's mother appealed against the decision of 8 May 1996 and again filed an application for the award of sole custody of the second applicant. 26.  On 29 May 1996 the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, issued an arrest warrant against the second applicant's mother on suspicion of international parental kidnapping. 27.  On 18 June 1996 the first applicant made a further application for enforcement of the return order. 28.  By a decision of 25 June 1996 the Graz District Civil Court, at the request of the second applicant's mother, transferred jurisdiction to the Leibnitz District Court, in the judicial district of which the second applicant had purportedly established her residence. 29.  On 29 August 1996 the Graz Regional Civil Court granted an appeal by the first applicant against the transfer of jurisdiction and, on the mother's appeal, quashed the Graz District Civil Court's enforcement order of 8 May 1996 and referred the case back to it. 30.  Referring to section 19 (1) of the Non-Contentious Proceedings Act, the court found that, in the enforcement proceedings, the child's well-being had to be taken into account in so far as a change in the situation had occurred since the issue of the return order and the taking of coercive measures. However, under Article 13 of the Hague Convention, this question was not to be examined by the court of its own motion but only upon an application by the person opposing the return. Following the service of the enforcement order of 8 May 1996 the mother had submitted, in particular, that she was the second applicant's main person of reference. Because of the lapse of time, the second applicant no longer recognised her father when she was shown his picture. By being taken away from her mother the child would suffer irreparable harm. The court therefore ordered the District Court to examine whether the situation had changed since the return order of 20 December 1995. It also ordered the District Court to obtain the opinion of an expert child psychologist on the question whether the child's return would entail a grave risk of physical or psychological harm and whether coercive measures were compatible with the interests of the child's well-being. 31.  Between May and December 1996 numerous letters were exchanged between the United States Department of State and the Austrian Ministry of Justice, acting as their respective States' Central Authorities under the Hague Convention. The United States Department of State repeatedly requested information as to which steps had been taken to locate the second applicant and to enforce the return order of 20 December 1995. The Austrian Ministry of Justice replied that the first applicant was represented by counsel in the Austrian proceedings and that it was up to him to take all necessary steps to obtain the enforcement of the return order. It also pointed out that there were only rather limited possibilities to locate a child who had disappeared after a return order had been made. 32.  On 15 October 1996 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the first applicant and set aside the enforcement order of 8 May 1996. It noted in particular that the notion of the child's well-being was central to the entire proceedings. When ordering coercive measures under section 19 (1) of the Non-Contentious Proceedings Act, the court had to take the interests of the child's well-being into account, despite the fact that the return order was final, if the relevant situation had changed in the meantime. Having regard to the aims of the Hague Convention, a refusal of coercive measures was only justified if the child's return would entail a grave risk of physical or psychological harm for the child within the meaning of Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention. 33.  The Supreme Court acknowledged that particularly difficult problems arose in cases in which the abductor had created the situation in which the return represented a serious danger to the child's well-being. Where the abductor of a small child was the latter's main person of reference and refused to return with the child, a serious threat to the child's well-being might arise. Nevertheless, Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention made clear that the child's well-being took priority over the Convention's general aim of preventing child abduction. Reasons of general deterrence or, in other words, the aim of showing that child abduction was not worthwhile could not justify exposing a child to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm. 34.  In the present case, the mother had claimed that the child, who was now more than two years old, had become alienated from the father. The child's abrupt removal from her main person of reference and her return to the United States would cause her irreparable harm. The Supreme Court emphasised that the particularity of the case lay in the fact that, in the main proceedings, the courts had denied that there was any risk of psychological harm (as a result of the alleged sexual behaviour of the first applicant) exclusively on account of the child's tender age. In these circumstances, it could not be excluded that the child, who was now more than two years old and had been living solely with her mother for more than a year, would suffer grave psychological harm in the event of a return to her father. Thus, the Regional Court had rightly found that the question whether the return order could be enforced by coercive measures needed further examination, including an opinion by an expert in child psychology. It might also prove necessary to assess  whether or not the mother's allegations were at all true. 35.  In accordance with the Supreme Court's decision, the case was referred back to the Graz District Civil Court. 36.  On 23 April 1997 the Oakland Circuit Court issued a “safe harbour” order, valid until 21 October 1997, which provided, inter alia, that pending determination of custody in expedited proceedings, the first applicant would not exercise his right to sole custody of the child; the second applicant would live with her mother away from the first applicant, who would undertake to cover their living expenses; and the arrest warrant against the mother would be set aside as soon as she and the second applicant boarded a direct flight to Michigan. 37.  On 29 April 1997 the Graz District Civil Court dismissed an application by the first applicant for enforcement of the return order. 38.  In the continued proceedings, the expert on child psychology, Dr. K., had submitted his opinion on 26 March 1997 and the first applicant had been given an opportunity to comment. On the basis of the expert opinion, the court found that since the second applicant's birth her mother had been her main person of reference. However, the first applicant had had regular contact with her until 30 October 1995, the date of her abduction. Thereafter they had had no contact at all. Since the return order had been made, a year and four months had elapsed and the first applicant had become a complete stranger to the second applicant. Given that a young child needed a stable relationship with the main person of reference at least until the age of six, the second applicant's removal from her main person of reference, namely her mother, would expose her to serious psychological harm. Having regard to the considerable lapse of time since the return order had been made on 20 December 1995, the District Court found that there had been a change in the relevant circumstances, in that the second applicant had lost all contact with the first applicant while her ties with her mother and her maternal grandparents had become ever closer. Consequently, her return would expose her to serious psychological harm. 39.  The court noted the first applicant's statement of 28 April 1997 and his offer within the meaning of the “safe harbour” case-law but considered that this offer did not guarantee that the second applicant's relationship with her main person of reference would be preserved in the long run. As this relationship was indispensable for her well-being, the application for enforcement of the return order had to be dismissed. 40.  On 28 May 1997 the Graz Regional Civil Court dismissed an appeal by the first applicant. It shared the District Court's view that the situation had changed fundamentally since the issuing of the return order. At that time the second applicant had been much younger and, given the short time which had elapsed between her abduction and the issuing of the return order, had not yet lost contact with the first applicant. A return of the second applicant accompanied by her mother could not be envisaged either. Apart from the reasons adduced by the District Court, the mother would face criminal prosecution in the United States and the child would, accordingly, be taken away from her. 41.  On 2, 3  and 4 June 1997 the first applicant was granted a couple of hours of supervised access to the second applicant. 42.  On 9 September 1997 the Supreme Court dismissed a further appeal by the first applicant on the ground that it did not raise any important legal issues. 43.  On 29 December 1997 the second applicant's mother was awarded sole custody of the second applicant by the Graz District Civil Court. It noted that Article 16 of the Hague Convention, which prohibited the State to which the child has been abducted from taking a decision on custody while proceedings for the child's return were pending, no longer applied, as the decision not to enforce the return order had become final. Following appeal proceedings the judgment became final on 31 March 1998.


4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Izmir. 5. On 12 December 2003 the Izmir Magistrates’ Court issued an arrest warrant for the applicant on suspicion of assault and attempted murder. 6. On 18 December 2003 the Izmir Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant with the offences of assault and attempted murder. 7. On 6 October 2004 the applicant was arrested. 8. On 9 October 2004 the Antalya Magistrates’ Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. 9. On 1 December 2005 the Izmir Assize Court sentenced the applicant to six years and two months’ imprisonment. 10. On 21 February 2007 the Izmir Assize Court ordered the applicant’s release pending trial, having considered the time spent under detention on remand. 11. On 6 June 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 1 December 2005. 12. Between 12 October 2004 and 1 December 2005, the Izmir Assize Court examined the applicant’s continued detention at the end of every hearing, either of its own motion or upon the applicant’s requests. On each occasion, the court ordered the applicant’s continued detention, having regard to the state of the evidence, nature of the offence, content of the file and the incomplete collection of evidence.


4.  The applicant, Mr Sebastian Kliza, is a Polish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Mikołów, Poland. 5.  The applicant was arrested on 26 January 2001 on suspicion of having committed a series of armed robberies as a member of an organised criminal group. On 28 January 2001 the Tychy District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that he be detained pending the outcome of the investigation. 6.  On 9 April 2001 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) prolonged his detention until 17 July 2001. It referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. It also stressed that his detention was justified by the need to obtain further evidence. 7.  On 9 July 2001 the Katowice Regional Court prolonged his detention until 17 October 2001. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged, which was supported by evidence from witnesses and experts. The court further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation justified holding him in custody. It referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. It also relied on the risk that he might tamper with evidence. 8.  On 8 October 2001 the Katowice Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 17 January 2002. It repeated the grounds previously given for his detention. 9.  On an unspecified date in January 2002, the applicant was indicted before the Tychy District Court. The bill of indictment comprised 44 charges of armed robbery committed by an organised criminal group. The charges in the bill of indictment concerned 4 co-accused. 10.  During the proceedings the applicant's detention was extended on several occasions. On 15 January 2002 the Tychy District Court prolonged his detention until 17 July 2002. On 8 July 2002 the court ordered that the term should be prolonged until 17 October 2002. On 16 October 2002 it ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until 17 January 2003. It referred to the grounds for detention listed in the previous decisions. 11.  On 2 January 2003 the Tychy District Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 26 January 2003. It repeated the grounds that had been given in the previous decisions and added that the case was complex, given the number of accused and victims. It further observed that the trial had not yet begun for reasons beyond the trial court's control. 12.  On 22 January 2003 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny), on an application from the trial court, prolonged the applicant's detention until 26 June 2003. It repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant's detention. It also found that there were no special grounds, as specified in Article 259 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that would justify lifting the detention and imposing a less severe measure. 13.  On 25 June 2003, on an application from the Tychy District Court, the Katowice Court of Appeal extended the applicant's detention until 26 October 2003. The court relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question. The court also considered that, given the severity of the likely sentence and the fact that the applicant had been charged with acting in an organised criminal group, there was a risk that he would obstruct the proper course of the proceedings. It also acknowledged the delay in the proceedings and asked the trial court to expedite the examination of the case. 14.  On 22 October 2003 the Katowice Court of Appeal, on an application from the Tychy District Court, prolonged the applicant's detention until 26 January 2004. It also stated that the proceedings were inordinately lengthy. 15.  Subsequently, on 7 January 2004 the Katowice Court of Appeal, on an application from the trial court, prolonged the applicant's detention until 26 March 2004. On 17 March 2004 the Katowice Court of Appeal, on an application from the trial court, prolonged the applicant's detention until 26 May 2004. It stated that the delays in the proceedings were to a large extent caused by the failure to escort the accused to the court and the lack of discipline on the part of the parties to the proceedings. 16.  In the meantime, the District Court had proceeded with the trial. Hearings listed for 10 May and 3 July 2002 were postponed. A hearing scheduled for 20 August 2002 was adjourned upon the request of one of the lawyers. 17.  Of 17 hearings held between 30 January 2003 and 19 December 2003 10 were adjourned. 18.  From 23 January to 2 April 2004 the court held 7 hearings. One of them was adjourned on account of the absence of one of the lawyers. 19.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant made numerous, unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against refusals to release him and decisions extending his detention. 20.  On 9 April 2004 the Tychy District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 8 years' imprisonment. He appealed. 21.  The applicant's detention was subsequently prolonged on several occasions. 22.  On 11 February 2005 the Katowice Regional Court amended the trial court's judgment, acquitted the applicant of the charge of acting in an organised criminal group and reduced the applicant's sentence to 6 years' imprisonment. 23.  The applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy). 24.  In the meantime, between 13 September 2001 and 10 November 2002 and, subsequently, between 11 June 2003 and 11 November 2003 the applicant served prison sentences which had been imposed on him in other criminal proceedings. 25.  On 1 March 2004 the Court received the applicant's first letter of 8 February 2004. The letter was sent while the applicant was detained in the Zabrze Detention Centre. The envelope bears the following stamps: “Zabrze Detention Centre received on 16.02.2004” (Areszt Śledczy w Zabrzu Wpłynęło dnia 16.02.2004) and “District Court in Tychy, censored” (Sąd Rejonowy w Tychach, cenzurowano), a hand-written sentence: “Z: without censorship” (Z: bez cenzury), a hand-written date: “18.2.4”, and an illegible signature. 26.  On 27 April 2004 the Court received the applicant's application form. The envelope in which the application form was delivered bears the following stamps: “Zabrze Detention Centre received on 8.04.2004” (Areszt Śledczy w Zabrzu Wpłynęło dnia 8.04.2004) and “District Court in Tychy, censored” (Sąd Rejonowy w Tychach, cenzurowano), and an illegible signature.


4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Toronto, Canada. 5.  On 8 August 2000 Mr A. instituted civil proceedings in the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv (“the court”) against the applicant and Mr D. alleging that he had been humiliated by them. He claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 6.  On an unspecified date Mr A. requested the court to secure his claim by prohibiting the Migration Office of the Kharkiv Department of the Ministry of Interior (“the Migration Office”) from issuing the applicant with an authorisation to leave Ukraine to live permanently abroad. On 18 July 2002 the court granted Mr A.’s request. 7.  On 23 and 30 September 2002 the court quashed the ruling of 18 July 2002 and attached the applicant’s flat. 8.  On 31 October 2002 the applicant went to live permanently in Canada. On 13 December 2002 he came back to Ukraine. 9.  On 25 March 2003 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”), following Mr A.’s appeal, quashed the rulings of 23 and 30 September 2002 and remitted the case for a new consideration to the court. 10.  On 21 April 2003 the applicant lodged a counterclaim against Mr A. claiming compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 11.  In May 2003 the applicant waived his permanent residence in Canada in order to restore his right to receive a pension in Ukraine. 12.  In a letter of 2 October 2003 the court explained to the Head of the Migration Office that as on 25 March 2003 the rulings of 23 and 30 September 2002 had been quashed, the Migration Office should abide by the ruling of 18 July 2002. 13.  On 21 July 2004 the applicant again left Ukraine for Canada, where he lives now. 14. Since July 2004 he has been represented by his representative before the domestic courts. 15.  On 22 April 2005 the court rejected Mr. A.’s claim and partly allowed the applicant’s counterclaim. 16.  On 16 December 2005 the Court of Appeal amended the judgment of 22 April 2005 and dismissed the applicant’s counterclaim. 17.  On 23 February 2006 Mr A. appealed in cassation before the Supreme Court. The cassation proceedings are still pending. 18.  According to the documents provided by the Government, in the course of the proceedings some forty-nine hearings were listed by the domestic courts. Nine hearings were adjourned because the judge was involved in other proceedings, one because he was on holiday and one because the judge was ill. Some twenty-four hearings were adjourned because one or more parties to the proceedings or their representatives failed to appear or at their request. From the documents in the case file it cannot be seen that the domestic courts took any steps to ensure the parties’ presence in the court. No hearings were adjourned solely due to the applicant’s failure to appear.


6.  The applicants, a married couple, were born in 1960 and 1957 respectively and live in the village of Prigorodnoye in the Chechen Republic. 7.  The applicants are the parents of Mr Vidzha Umayev, born in 1982. The first applicant is the sister of Mr Timur Mezhidov, born in 1972. The latter is the brother-in-law of the second applicant. 8.  The description of the events below is based on the information contained in the application form and written statements by the first and second applicants, dated 17 and 23 July 2007 respectively.
(a)  The detention of Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov 9.  On 14 July 2006 the first applicant, Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov were travelling in the applicants’ VAZ-2107 vehicle from the village of Nikhaloy to the village of Prigorodnoye. 10.  At the Russian federal forces roadblock located at the entrance point of Shatoy village (hereinafter “the Shatoy roadblock”) Russian servicemen stopped the applicants’ vehicle to carry out a check. At the roadblock the first applicant saw a group of seven to eight servicemen of Chechen ethnic origin, who were standing near a silver-grey four-door Niva vehicle and speaking to each other in Chechen. The first applicant observed them for a while and was able to memorise their faces. She also specifically noticed that, whilst the servicemen from the roadblock who checked the identity papers were Russian, those standing by the Niva vehicle were Chechen. After checking Vidzha Umayev’s and Timur Mezhidov’s identity papers, Russian servicemen entered the relevant information in the roadblock logbooks and allowed them to continue their journey. 11.  The first applicant, Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov then drove through Shatoyskiy District and crossed the border into Groznenskiy District. At the bridge in the vicinity of the entrance point of Yarash-Mardy village they saw three Chechen servicemen from the group they had already seen at the Shatoy roadblock. The servicemen walked towards the vehicle and ordered it to stop. One of the servicemen ordered the driver and the passengers, in Chechen, to get out of the vehicle. Vidzha Umayev, Timur Mezhidov and the first applicant complied with the order and got out of the car. One of the servicemen then ordered Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov to get back into the applicants’ vehicle. They obeyed and got into the back seats. At the same moment two servicemen joined them in the back seat, the third serviceman got into the driver’s seat and the vehicle moved off quickly. Vidzha Umayev shouted in Chechen: “That’s my mother! Don’t leave her alone!” and the first applicant rushed towards the car. However, the car did not stop and the first applicant ran into a bridge barrier and fell to the ground. 12.  The applicants have not seen Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov since.
(b)  The applicants’ search for their missing relatives 13.  On 14 July 2006, shortly after the car with the abductors had left, the first applicant managed to stop a private vehicle, which took her home. Once there she told the second applicant about the abduction, and the applicants immediately left for Shatoy, intending to alert the Shatoyskiy District Department of the Interior (“the ROVD”) to the incident. 14.  On their way, about 2.5 km from the bridge, where the first applicant, her son and brother had been stopped by the Chechen servicemen, the applicants saw their VAZ-2107 vehicle. It was parked about fifty metres from the road, at a dugout in which were two Russian servicemen. In the applicants’ submission, on that day Russian military forces had groups of servicemen stationed at the Shatoy road at about 200 metres distance from each other. The applicants saw that three of the doors of their VAZ-2107 vehicle were open and its headlights were on. Vidzha Umayev’s mobile phone was in the vehicle. The first applicant asked the servicemen how their car had arrived at the dugout. They replied that it had arrived there, followed by a four-door silver-grey Niva vehicle. Two people were taken out of the VAZ-2107 vehicle and put into the silver-grey Niva vehicle, which then left in the direction of the village of Duba-Yurt. 15.  After that the applicants took Vidzha Umayev’s mobile phone and went to the ROVD. From there the second applicant, the head of the ROVD, whom the applicants identified as “Sayd-Akhmed”, and several police officers left for the Shatoy roadblock. The first applicant stayed at the ROVD and lodged a written complaint about the abduction of her son and brother. 16.  On the same day, on arrival at the Shatoy roadblock, the second applicant and Sayd-Akhmed spoke to a senior roadblock officer from the Shatoyskiy District military commander’s office. He confirmed that the servicemen at the roadblock had checked Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov’s identity papers and stated that everything was in order, and that the two men had been let through the roadblock and had left. Meanwhile the first applicant also arrived at the roadblock. While the second applicant was speaking to the officer, a UAZ vehicle with two Chechen servicemen in it arrived at the roadblock. The first applicant identified them as members of the group of Chechen servicemen she had seen at the Shatoy roadblock while the authorities were checking her relatives’ identity papers. The applicants immediately asked those servicemen where the other members of their group were and where they had taken Vidzha Umarov and Timur Mezhidov. The two men laughed and answered that they had not arrested Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov. They also stated that they did not know the other servicemen who had been at the Shatoy roadblock with them. According to the applicants, the head of the ROVD told them that the two Chechen servicemen were from the special Vostok Russian Military Battalion of the Main Intelligence Service (“the GRU”) and that they were called “Yamadayevtsy” after their commander Sulim Yamadayev. The applicants then returned home. 17.  On 15 July 2006 the applicants again complained to various State bodies about the abduction of Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov. They did not keep copies of those complaints. 18.  On 17 or 18 July 2006 a certain Mr I.A., a GRU officer, visited the applicants and told the second applicant that a certain Mr R., a GRU colonel and commander of the 921st regiment, wished to talk to him. 19.  On 23 July 2006 the applicants and Mr I.A. drove to a Russian federal forces base located in the village of Borzoy in the Chechen Republic. The second applicant left his vehicle, with the first applicant and Mr I.A. inside. At the military base checkpoint he was met by two Russian servicemen, one of them a warrant officer and the other a captain. They accompanied the second applicant into the checkpoint building, where Mr R. was already waiting for him. 20.  Mr R. confirmed that the applicant’s son was being held in the military base and said that he “opened his eyes when touched but then rolled them up”. Mr R. then asked the second applicant to write a note for his son, “telling him to answer their questions”. The second applicant asked Mr R. what statement they wanted from his son, but received no reply. The second applicant then handed over to Mr R. medical certificates attesting to his son’s disability. Mr R. looked at them, and from his reaction the second applicant inferred that Mr R. had realised that his servicemen had beaten up a seriously ill person. The second applicant then told Mr R. that he would not write any notes for his son and requested that he be released. Mr R. replied that “they did not have a deal then” and ordered the servicemen to accompany the second applicant to the exit, which they did. The second applicant returned to the car and left the premises with the first applicant. 21.  On an unspecified date in October 2006 the first applicant received a phone call on her mobile phone from a person who whispered “Mother, mother!” and then suddenly the conversation was disconnected. The first applicant inferred that it was Vidzha Umayev and, since the number was displayed, she called back. A woman replied to her in Russian and immediately hung up. When the first applicant dialled the number again, a man’s voice told her not to call that number any more. The first applicant informed the law-enforcement authorities about the call. In the applicants’ submission, at the material time the only company providing mobile communication services in the Chechen Republic was Megafon. The figures 923 indicated that the number from which she had received the call was not a Megafon number but was from another company. In the applicants’ opinion, only Russian army servicemen could have had phone numbers from mobile communication providers other than Megafon. 22.  On an unspecified date in November 2006 Mr I.A. visited the applicants again and offered them information on Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov in exchange for 50,000 Russian roubles (RUB). Two days later the second applicant met Mr I.A. in Prigorodnoye and the latter told him that Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov were not alive. Mr I.A. promised the second applicant that their bodies would be retrieved, and left. 23.  Two days later the second applicant and his relative went to the village of Borzoy to meet Mr I.A. He told the second applicant that there were three mass graves in Borzoy but he did not know in which of them Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov had been buried. He also specified that their bodies were in different graves and that they “had been shot dead by Chechens in the presence of a Russian”. He noted however that he had not witnessed the killings. 24.  On an unspecified date the second applicant contacted a Russian army general whom he knew well and told him about Mr R. The general told the applicant that this was the first time he heard that name and that it must have been a false name. 25.  The Government submitted that on 14 July 2006, on the road between Grozny and Shatoy, near the bridge close to the village of Yarysh‑Mardy, three unidentified individuals wearing camouflage uniforms and carrying automatic weapons had stopped a vehicle in which Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov were travelling, following which the latter disappeared. 26.  It appears that following the applicants’ complaints about the abduction of their relatives the ROVD carried out an inquiry into their allegations. The inquiry was given the number 81. The exact date of the opening of the inquiry remains unclear. 27.  On 25 July 2006 the prosecutor’s office of the Groznenskiy District (“the district prosecutor’s office”) received the inquiry file from the ROVD. 28.  On the same date the district prosecutor’s office instituted a criminal investigation in respect of the abduction of Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was assigned the number 54063. The decision stated that at about 4 p.m. on 14 July 2006 at the bridge near Yarysh-Mardy village, three unidentified armed individuals in camouflage uniforms had stopped the VAZ-2107 vehicle in which Vidzha Umayev, Timur Mezhidov and the first applicant were travelling, and had taken Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov to an unknown destination. 29.  By a letter of 26 July 2006 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic (“the republican prosecutor’s office”) replied to the first applicant that it had examined her complaint about the abduction of Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov and informed her that on 25 July 2006 the district prosecutor’s office had opened a criminal investigation in respect of the abduction of her son and brother. 30.  On 20 September 2006 the first applicant was granted victim status in connection with the proceedings in case 54063. She was informed of that decision on 21 September 2006. 31.  On 28 May 2007 the first applicant wrote to the President of the Chechen Republic. She described in detail the circumstances of the abduction of her relatives and her attempts to find them and asked for assistance in her search for them. 32.  On 15 June 2007 the republican prosecutor’s office replied to the first applicant that on 25 July 2006 the district prosecutor’s office had opened a criminal case in respect of the abduction of her relatives. The letter also stated that on 25 October 2006 the investigation in case 54063 had been suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 33.  On 17 July 2007 the first applicant wrote to the district prosecutor’s office, seeking information on the progress of the investigation in case 54063. She requested that the proceedings be resumed if they had been suspended and sought access to the investigation case file and permission to make copies from it. There is no indication that the applicant’s request was ever replied to. 34.  By a letter of 22 June 2007 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that on 22 July 2007 it had resumed the investigation in case 54063. 35.  In the applicants’ submission, in October 2007 the district prosecutor’s office informed them orally that on an unspecified date the investigation in case 54063 had been suspended again. 36.  The Government refused to submit any documents from criminal case file concerning the abduction of the applicants’ relatives, referring to Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure.
(b)  Information concerning the progress of the investigation of the abduction of the applicants’ relatives 37.  The information about the investigation provided by the Government can be summarised as follows. 38.  On 25 July 2006 the district prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation in respect of the abduction of Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was assigned the number 54063. 39.  On 25 October 2006 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 40.  On 22 June 2007 the investigation was resumed because the investigating authorities had established that serviceman R.D. of military unit 44822 was implicated in the abduction. 41.  On 21 July 2007 Mr R.D.’s name was put on a wanted list. 42.  On 6 June 2008 the investigation of the abduction of the applicants’ relatives was entrusted to an investigating committee of the prosecutor’s office of the Russian Federation in the Chechen Republic (hereinafter “the investigating committee”). 43.  On 8 July 2008 the investigating committee issued a decision to formally charge Mr R.D. with abducting the applicants’ relatives and the criminal case was transferred to the military investigating department with the United Group Alignment of the Military Forces for Counterterrorist Operations in the North Caucasus Region (hereinafter the “investigating department”). The case file was given the number 34/00/0023-08. 44.  It appears that shortly thereafter the investigation was suspended again and that it was resumed on 11 November 2009. 45.  In the Government’s submission the investigation in case 34/00/0023-08 is still pending.
(c)  The findings of the investigation 46.  The Government stated that the findings of the preliminary investigation confirmed the version of events submitted by the applicants. 47.  In the Government’s submission, the preliminary investigation established that Mr R.D. had been doing military service in military unit 44822 of the Vostok special-purpose battalion (previously an infantry battalion) since 10 August 2004. In mid-July 2006 Mr R.D. had colluded with two unidentified individuals with a view to abducting Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov. On 14 July 2006, having acquired information on the route taken by Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov, Mr R.D., armed with an automatic weapon, organised an ambush at the Grozny-Shatoy road near Yarysh-Mardy with a view to arresting and abducting them. At about 4 p.m. on the same day Mr R.D. stopped the VAZ-2107 vehicle with Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov, following which “Mr R.D. and two armed men in camouflage uniforms arrested them and took them to an unknown destination”, leaving the first applicant behind. 48.  In the Government’s submission, the above account of the events was confirmed by the first applicant, who had been granted victim status, and the second applicant, who had been interviewed as a witness. The applicants also informed the investigators that following the abduction they had learnt from Mr I.A. that their abducted relatives had been held at the military base in the village of Borzoy and eventually killed. 49.  The first applicant confirmed those submissions during a check of her statement at the crime scene (проверка показаний на месте совершения преступления) and identified Mr R.D. from a photograph as the person who had abducted her son and brother. 50.  Mr I.A., interviewed on an unspecified date, stated that he had learnt about the abduction of Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov from Z.M. The second applicant had contacted Mr I.A. six months after the abduction, asking the latter to organise a meeting with officers of the military base, following which they had met a serviceman named Volodya, who had asked for RUB 50,000 for information about the applicants’ son and had then informed them that the applicants’ relatives had been killed.
(d)  Information concerning criminal case 68800 51.  On an unspecified date the investigating authorities opened a criminal case against Mr R.D. on suspicion that he had caused serious damage to the health of a third person by shooting at him at the local market in the village of Borzoy on 23 May 2007. The case file was given the number 68800. 52.  On 18 October 2008 case 68800 was transferred for investigation to an unspecified investigating department of an unspecified military unit. 53.  On 22 January 2009 criminal case 6800 was joined to the criminal case concerning the abduction of the applicant’s relatives and the new file was given the number 34/36/0092-08.


5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Gödöllő. 6.  The applicant, married and father of a minor, was arrested on 18 January 2006, because the police found several suspicious spare car parts, car documents and various tools in his vehicle. On the same day he was interrogated on suspicion of attempted aggravated larceny, allegedly committed in respect of a van. 7.  On 20 January 2006 the prosecution proposed the applicant’s pre-trial detention. Relying essentially on the above material evidence, it was of the view that there was reasonable suspicion that the applicant and his accomplice, together with other unknown helpers, were active in the car theft business. 8.  On the same day, the Dunakeszi District Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention, referring to, but not substantiating, the risks of absconding, collusion and repetition of crime. An accomplice was detained as well. 9.  The applicant appealed, challenging the suspicion against him and pointing out that his settled background – he had never been convicted before, had legal income, and supported several family members – rendered unlikely the risks of absconding and repetition of crime. The Pest County Regional Court dismissed the appeal on 27 January 2006, without addressing in detail the applicant’s arguments. 10.  On 13 February 2006 the applicant’s detention was prolonged. The decision referred to eight counts of larceny. In his appeal, the applicant pointed out that the material evidence relating to one of the thefts was in no way capable of connecting him to the vehicle in question, whereas in respect of the remaining seven counts, he had not formally been implicated as a suspect. 11.  On 28 February 2006 the Regional Court dismissed the appeal. Without addressing in detail the defence’s arguments, the court pointed out that it could not assess the evidence at that stage of the proceedings. 12.  On 24 April 2006 the applicant requested his release. He argued that the living conditions of those supported by him had deteriorated. His request was to no avail. 13.  Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was repeatedly prolonged at the statutory intervals. The reasoning in the decisions was largely identical to that in the previous ones, and the discrepancy in the counts of theft with which the applicant was charged persisted. His requests for release were to no avail. 14.  On 10 July 2006 the prosecution again proposed the prolongation of the applicant’s detention. This time, reasonable suspicion was invoked in respect of four counts of car theft. The reasons for the applicant’s proposed detention remained the same. 15.  On 14 July 2006 the District Court held a hearing and sustained the prosecution’s motion, while including in the decision the suspicion of another car theft. The applicant’s appeal and subsequent requests for release were to no avail. 16.  On 29 August 2006 an expert was appointed to examine whether or not the material evidence found in the applicant’s car was capable of connecting him to any car theft. 17.  Further prolongations took place on 19 October and 16 November 2006, with essentially unchanged reasoning. The applicant’s ensuing requests for release or a less stringent measure were unsuccessful. 18.  On 21 December 2006 the applicant was charged with further counts of car theft. 19.  On 15 January 2007 the Pest County Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention. The underlying reasons were the same as before. In his appeal, the applicant complained that the expert opinion had never been communicated to him. 20.  After further prolongations, on 16 May 2007 a bill of indictment was preferred. The applicant was charged with altogether 17 counts of car theft or attempted car theft and one count of forgery of documents. The applicant’s detention was maintained, with reference to the risk of absconding and repetition of crime. 21.  The first hearing took place on 21 November 2007. The applicant’s detention was upheld because, in the trial court’s view, the potential severe sanction gave rise to a risk of absconding. No reason was given as to the risk of repetition of crime. 22.  The applicant’s subsequent requests for release or a less stringent measure were to no avail. 23.  Apart from the one of 10 July 2006, none of the prosecution’s motions to have the applicant’s detention prolonged had made any specific reference to the actual evidence which underlay the alleged risks held against him. The applicant’s lawyer repeatedly complained about having no access to these pieces of evidence – in particular, on 17 July and 20 November 2006 – however, this omission was not redressed; and the courts did not refute the defence’s allegations of having no access. 24.  Of the altogether twenty-four decisions on the applicant’s detention, only one contained separate arguments in respect of each of the two co-detainees. 25.  The authorities prolonging the applicant’s pre-trial detention considered the possibility of applying less stringent measures on 8 May 14 July and 16 November 2006, but eventually they did not avail themselves thereof. 26.  The applicant was finally released on 2 June 2008. A prohibition on leaving his domicile was imposed on him. 27.  On 24 May 2011 the applicant was convicted at first instance. The case is currently in the appeal stage.