5.  The applicant, a former military unit commander, was born in 1963 and lives in Vladivostok. 6.  On 28 May 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud. 7.  On 30 May 2008 he was released having given an undertaking not to leave his place of residence. 8.  On 1 July 2009 the Military Court of the Vladivostok Garrison (the Garrison Court) convicted the applicant of fraud committed in abuse of position and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment with a dishonourable discharge. The applicant was arrested in the courtroom and placed in a remand prison. 9.  On 29 January 2010 the Military Court of the Pacific Fleet (the Fleet Court) quashed the conviction on appeal and ordered a retrial. The court held that the custodial measure applied to the applicant should remain unchanged until 1 April 2010 in view of the seriousness of the charges against him, and the risk of his absconding and threatening witnesses, a risk confirmed by the statements of Sh., a witness. 10.  On 15 February 2010 the Garrison Court rejected the applicant’s application for release, including in its reasoning the seriousness of the charges and the risk of the applicant absconding and exerting pressure on witnesses. The decision mentioned that it could be appealed against within a three-day time-limit to the Fleet Court. The applicant appealed. 11.  However, on 26 March 2010 the Fleet Court discontinued the appeal proceedings against the decision of 15 February 2010. Relying on Article 355 § 5 (2) of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, the court held that the refusal of an application for release was not amenable to a separate appeal before the final decision in the case, as it was not in breach of the applicant’s right to access to a court and his right to have the case heard within a reasonable time, and did not delay the progress of the proceedings. 12.  In the meantime, on 22 March 2010 the Garrison Court extended the applicant’s detention until 1 July 2010. The court again mentioned the seriousness of the charges against the applicant in its reasoning. It further held, with reference to a medical report, that the applicant’s state of health allowed him to participate in the proceedings, and that his judge-ordered removal from the courtroom until the end of the proceedings due to unacceptable behaviour gave sufficient grounds to believe that, if released, he might influence the witnesses and abscond from justice. 13.  On 25 March 2010 a copy of the extension order of 22 March 2010 was handed over to the applicant after the three-day time-limit for lodging an appeal against it had expired. 14.  On 27 March 2010 the applicant lodged his appeal against the extension order of 22 March 2010. 15.  On 8 April 2010 the Garrison Court renewed the time-limit for the applicant to lodge his appeal against the extension order of 22 March 2010. 16.  On 21 April 2010 the applicant’s appeal was submitted to the Fleet Court for examination. On the same day the Fleet Court scheduled the hearing for 23 April 2010, to be held by video link, and sent notification to the remand prison where the applicant was being held. 17.  On 23 April 2010 the applicant was informed of the examination of his appeal before the Fleet Court. He requested an adjournment of the hearing because of the late notification. The applicant also asked the Fleet Court to ensure his physical presence at the examination of the appeal as a hearing impairment condition prevented him from following effectively the examination of his appeal by video link. 18.  On 23 April 2010 the Fleet Court granted the applicant’s request and adjourned the examination of his appeal against the custody order of 22 March 2010 until 30 April 2010. 19.  On 29 April 2010 the Garrison Court convicted the applicant of nine counts of fraud committed in abuse of office and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment with a dishonourable discharge. 20.  On 30 April 2010 the Fleet Court upheld on appeal the custody order of 22 March 2010. 21.  On 2 December 2010 the Fleet Court discontinued the appeal proceedings against the judgment of 29 April 2010 as the applicant had withdrawn his request for reconsideration.