5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Moscow. 6.  Until his arrest he was working as a lawyer in a private law office located in Moscow. 7.  On 19 May 1997 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of involvement in drug dealing. His car was searched. According to the applicant, his personal effects and 300 US dollars disappeared from the car after the search. 8.  On the same day the applicant was taken to the police station for interview and remanded in custody pending the investigation. 9.  On 18 December 1997 the Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty of drug dealing and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. On 21 April 1998 the Moscow City Court upheld the conviction on appeal. 10.  In May and June 1998 the applicant was being transported from Moscow to a correctional facility in the Irkutsk Region where he was to serve his sentence. 11.  On 3 March 1999 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed both the judgment of 18 December 1997 and the appeal decision of 21 April 1998, by way of supervisory review, and remitted the charges for fresh examination. The Supreme Court established, in particular, that the conviction had been based on insufficient evidence and that the courts had failed to examine all the relevant circumstances. 12.  On 5 May 1999 the Savelovskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for release, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk that he would interfere with the investigation or abscond. The decision was issued in the absence of the parties. 13.  On 17 May 1999 the applicant was transported to Moscow for a new trial. 14.  On 25 May 1999 the applicant was placed in remand centre no. 48/3 in Moscow where he remained until 13 July 2000. 15.  On 28 June 1999 the District Court dismissed a request for the applicant’s release lodged by his counsel, reproducing verbatim the reasoning of the decision of 5 May 1999. 16.  On 25 November 1999 the District Court disallowed the applicant’s appeal against the decisions of 5 May and 28 June 1999 on the grounds that they had been introduced outside the time-limit. 17.  It appears that the District Court subsequently issued further extension orders, copies of which were not submitted to the Court. 18.  On 9 March 2000 the District Court found the applicant guilty of drug dealing and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. 19.  On 27 June 2000 the Moscow City Court upheld the conviction on appeal. 20.  On 13 July 2000 the applicant was transported from Moscow to the Irkutsk Region where he was to serve his sentence. On 28 July 2000 he arrived at a correctional facility in the Irkutsk Region. 21.  On 19 September 2002 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 9 March and the appeal decision of 27 June 2000 by way of supervisory review and remitted the charges for fresh examination. It noted, in particular, that the lower courts’ findings of fact were based on inconclusive and contradictory evidence. The court did not indicate whether the applicant should remain in custody or be released. 22.  The applicant claims that he asked the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Irkutsk to release him but received no response. 23.  On 17 October 2002 the Savelovskiy District Court scheduled the opening date of the trial and ordered that the applicant remain in custody. The applicant was neither present, nor represented. On 5 December 2002 the Moscow City Court rejected the applicant’s appeal. 24.  On 24 October 2002 the applicant was brought to Moscow for a new trial. On 11 November 2002 the applicant arrived at remand centre no. 77/2 where he remained until his release from custody on 12 January 2004. 25.  On 13 March 2003 the applicant applied to the Savelovskiy District Court for release. Citing the gravity of the charges, the court rejected his request. It also noted that there was no certainty that the applicant would not abscond or would discontinue his criminal activities if released. 26.  On 29 April 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision on appeal. It noted that the circumstances had not changed since the applicant’s arrest and, accordingly, there were no grounds for his release. 27.  On 26 March 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint alleging that his detention was unlawful and asked the court to release him. 28.  On 14 April 2003 the Savelovskiy District Court granted the prosecutor’s request and extended the applicant’s detention until 14 July 2003. In the same decision it dismissed the applicant’s complaint of 26 March 2003. The court referred solely to the gravity of the charges against the applicant. 29.  On 17 July 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 14 April 2003 indicating that there were no circumstances which would justify the applicant’s release. 30.  On 9 June 2003 the District Court again dismissed the applicant’s request for release. 31.  On 14 July 2003 the Savelovskiy District Court, at the request of the prosecutor, extended the applicant’s detention until 14 October 2003. It referred to the gravity of the charges and to the applicant’s failure to submit evidence showing that he had a permanent residence in Moscow. 32.  On 11 September 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 14 July 2003. 33.  On 13 October 2003 the Savelovskiy District Court granted the prosecutor’s request and extended the applicant’s detention until 13 January 2004. It noted the gravity of the charges and stated that there were no new circumstances which would have rendered the applicant’s release possible. 34.  On 17 November 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 13 October 2003 on appeal, noting that the applicant was charged with a particularly serious offence and the criminal proceedings against him were still pending. 35.  On 12 January 2004 the Savelovskiy District Court dismissed the prosecutor’s request for a further extension of the applicant’s detention. The applicant was released but ordered to remain within the town. 36.  On 5 February 2004 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision. 37.  On 1 December 2005 the Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty of involvement in the preparation of drug trafficking and sentenced him to six years and seven months’ imprisonment. The term of imprisonment was calculated as having started on 19 May 1997, the date when the applicant had been arrested and placed in custody. The sentence imposed on the applicant was therefore considered as having already been served. 38.  On 24 May 2006 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment and it became final.