5.  The applicant was born in 1992. 6.  On 8 May 2013 he was arrested on suspicion of sexual abuse and indecent behaviour towards two children. 7.  On 10 May 2013 an investigating judge of the Z. County Court (Županijski sud u Z. –“the County Court”) ordered his pre-trial detention under Article 123 § 1(2) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of collusion and reoffending). 8.  On 17 May 2013 the applicant appealed. On 21 May 2013 a three-judge panel of the County Court dismissed his appeal as ill-founded, upholding the decision of the investigating judge. 9.  On 6 June 2013 the investigating judge extended the applicant’s detention under Article 123 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending) on the grounds that he might commit the same offences against the victims again if at large. 10.  The applicant appealed on 12 June 2013, arguing that there was no reason to suspect that he had committed the offences at issue and alleging numerous procedural flaws when his pre-trial detention was extended. 11.  On 14 June 2013 a three-judge panel of the County Court dismissed the appeal as ill-founded, endorsing the view of the investigating judge. The decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 26 June 2013. 12.  On 5 July 2013 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the decision of 14 June 2013, challenging the decisions on his pre-trial detention. He argued, in particular, that they lacked the relevant reasoning, and that the procedure for ordering and extending pre-trial detention had not been duly complied with. 13.  On 8 July 2013 the applicant was indicted in the Z. Municipal Criminal Court (Općinski kazneni sud u Z. –“the Municipal Court”) on charges of sexual abuse and indecent behaviour towards two children. 14.  On the same day a three-judge panel of that court extended his pre-trial detention under Article 123 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending). The decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 15 July 2013. 15.  On 10 July 2013 the applicant challenged the decision by lodging an appeal with the County Court, arguing that it lacked the relevant reasoning and alleging procedural flaws in the Municipal Court’s conduct. 16.  On the same day the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaint of 5 July 2013 (see paragraph 12 above) inadmissible, on the grounds that a new decision on his detention had since been adopted (see paragraph 14 above) and he was no longer being detained in connection with the decision complained about. 17.  The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 18 July 2013. 18.  On 19 July 2013 a three-judge panel of the County Court, in its examination of the applicant’s appeal of 10 July 2013 (see paragraph 15 above), quashed the decision of 8 July 2013 extending the applicant’s pre-trial detention and remitted the case to the Municipal Court for re-examination. 19.  On 22 July 2013 a three-judge panel of that court released the applicant from detention, imposing a number of conditions on his release.