5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Volgograd. 6.  On 31 January 2003 the applicant was arrested and charged with two counts of theft and the use of stolen and forged identity documents. 7.  On 6 April 2004 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to three years and six months’ imprisonment starting from 31 January 2003. 8.  On 27 July 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 9.  The applicant completed his sentence on 31 July 2006. 10.  On 16 September 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd remanded the applicant in custody on the charge of aggravated murder. It referred to the gravity of the charge and the risk of absconding or interfering with the investigation. 11.  On an unspecified date additional charges of membership of an organised criminal group, robbery, extortion and kidnapping were brought against the applicant. 12.  On 13 November 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 January 2004, referring to the gravity of the charges and the need for a further investigation. 13.  On 24 December 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 April 2004. It found that the applicant might abscond or reoffend, as he had been charged with serious criminal offences and was unemployed. 14.  In April 2004 the investigation was completed and six defendants, including the applicant, were committed for trial before the Volgograd Regional Court. 15.  The defendants asked for trial by jury. 16.  On 20 April 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court fixed a preliminary hearing for 27 April 2004 to examine the request. It further held that the defendants should meanwhile remain in custody. 17.  On 27 April 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court ordered that the defendants be tried by jury and that they remain in custody pending trial. 18.  On 13 October 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 January 2005, referring to the gravity of the charges. 19.  On 12 January 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 April 2005, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk that they might put pressure on witnesses and jurors. 20.  On 7 April 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 July 2005. The Regional Court found that, in view of the gravity of the charges, it was “opportune” to keep the defendants in custody. It rejected their requests to release them under an undertaking not to leave the town, since it could not exclude the risk that they would put pressure on witnesses or jurors. 21.  On 29 June 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 October 2005. It found that the defendants might interfere with the proceedings, as they were charged with serious criminal offences, including the charge of being members of an armed criminal gang. 22.  On 4 October 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 January 2006 for the same reasons as before. 23.  The applicant appealed. He submitted that it was not necessary to extend his detention as he was currently serving his sentence under the judgment of 6 April 2004 and for that reason could not tamper with witnesses or threaten jurors. On 8 December 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the extension order on appeal. 24.  On 22 December 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court examined the prosecutor’s request for a new extension. The prosecutor attended the hearing and asked the court to extend the defendants’ detention for three months, referring to the gravity of the charges. It transpires from the hearing record that the applicant was not brought to the courtroom as he was in hospital receiving treatment for tuberculosis. The judge asked counsel for the applicant whether she had any objections to the hearing being held in the applicant’s absence. Counsel stated that she had no objections. On the same day the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 April 2006. It found that there was a risk that the defendants might intimidate witnesses and jurors as they were charged with particularly serious criminal offences, including membership of an armed criminal gang and murder. 25.  In his appeal submissions the applicant complained that the hearing had been held in his absence. On 4 April 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful and justified. 26.  On 10 April and 5 July 2006 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention for the same reasons as before. 27.  On 2 October 2006 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 January 2007, referring to the gravity of the charges and the defendants’ “characters”. The court also indicated that the purpose of the detention was to eliminate any risk of the defendants’ absconding, reoffending or hampering the court proceedings. 28.  In his appeal submissions the applicant complained that the extension order had been poorly reasoned and had not been supported by relevant facts. The Regional Court had disregarded his arguments that he was suffering from tuberculosis and that his health had deteriorated in detention. He also complained that he had not been given access to the materials submitted by the prosecution in support of their request for extension. 29.  On 28 December 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified. The defendants were charged with serious criminal offences, and they might therefore abscond, reoffend or obstruct the proceedings. The allegedly excessive length of their detention, their poor health or family situation were not sufficient reasons to warrant release. 30.  On 27 December 2006 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 April 2007 for the same reasons as before. 31.  The applicant appealed, referring to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and complaining that his detention had exceeded a reasonable time and the extension order had been poorly reasoned. The Regional Court had already heard all prosecution witnesses and examined the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, therefore he could no longer put pressure on witnesses or interfere with the proceedings in any other way. Referring to his permanent place of residence, positive references and poor health, he asked to be released under an undertaking not to leave the town. 32.  On 28 March 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful and justified. 33.  On 10 April 2007 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 July 2007 for the same reasons as before. 34.  On 9 July 2007 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 October 2007, finding that there was no reason to vary the preventive measure. 35.  On 11 October 2007 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 January 2008, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk of absconding or intimidating the witnesses or jurors. 36.  On 9 January 2008 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 April 2008 for the same reasons as before. 37.  On 8 April 2008 the Volgograd Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request to be released under an undertaking not to leave his place of residence and extended the defendants’ detention until 12 July 2008. The decision reads as follows:
“As the trial has not yet been completed, it is necessary to extend the defendants’ detention.
The court considers that the gravity of the charges justifies applying to the defendants a preventive measure in the form of detention.
However, in addition to the gravity of the charges - namely the organisation of an armed gang ... and commission of assaults on citizens and murders - carrying a sentence of up to twenty years’ imprisonment for each of the defendants, the court also takes into account other factors.
Thus, the court is entitled to believe that ... application to the defendants of an undertaking not to leave the town or other preventive measures will not exclude the possibility of their absconding or exercising pressure on participants to the proceedings and jurors.
The defendants’ argument that their detention has been excessively long is not in itself sufficient to warrant release.
The defendants have not produced any material showing the existence of factors making impossible [sic] their stay in detention facility conditions.
The court is not convinced by the defendants’ argument that they have not been granted access to the materials submitted by the prosecution in support of their requests for extension. The court has at its disposal only the materials from the criminal case file, which had been studied by the defendants.
The court considers that the grounds for the detention of the defendants, who are charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences, are relevant and sufficient. Their detention serves the interest of society, as it prevents the commission of similar criminal offences and ensures high-quality and effective examination of the present criminal case.
The criminal case file contains sufficient evidence against each defendant justifying an extension of their detention...” 38.  On 7 July 2008 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 October 2008, repeating verbatim the decision of 8 April 2008. 39.  On 10 October 2008 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 January 2009, repeating verbatim the decision of 8 April 2008. 40.  The proceedings are still pending before the trial court. The applicant remains in custody.