5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Sevastopol. 6.  On 29 August 2002 the applicant was detained on suspicion of illegal drug possession and attempted drug smuggling. He was taken to Sevastopol Temporary Detention Centre (“the Sevastopol ITT”), where he was held until his release in December 2005 (see paragraph 24 below). 7.  In August and September 2002 criminal proceedings were instituted against four other persons on similar charges. 8.  On 31 August 2002 the Leninskyy District Court of Sevastopol (“the Leninskyy Court”) extended the applicant’s detention to eight days. 9.  On 5 September 2002, following a hearing in which the applicant’s lawyer participated, the court allowed the prosecutor’s request for the applicant’s detention for two months. It examined the lawyer’s arguments about the applicant’s frail health – second-degree hypertension and cerebral atherosclerosis – but found no indication that this was incompatible with detention. On the other hand, the court noted that if left at liberty the applicant might abscond, obstruct justice or reoffend. 10.  On 25 October 2002, after a hearing in which the prosecutor participated, but at which the applicant and his lawyer were absent, the Leninskyy Court extended the detention to four months at the investigator’s request. It justified the extension with the need to carry out further investigation and the potential risk of the applicant’s absconding. 11.  On 23 December 2002, following a hearing which was also held in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer, but in which the prosecutor participated, the Sevastopol City Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) allowed the prosecutor’s request for an extension of the detention to six months. It justified it with the fact that investigation was yet to be completed, the seriousness of the charges against the applicant and the inherent risk of his absconding. This ruling of the court was final. 12.  On 21 February 2003, following a hearing in which the applicant’s lawyer participated, the Court of Appeal extended, by a final ruling, the applicant’s detention to nine months (until 28 May 2003) at the investigator’s request. The court relied on the same arguments as before. It refused the lawyer’s request for the applicant’s release on health grounds, referring to a lack of evidence that his state of health was incompatible with detention. 13.  On 15 May 2003 the pre-trial investigation was declared complete. 14.  From 19 May to 9 June 2003 the applicant and his lawyer studied the case file. 15.  The applicant complained to the prosecution authorities on a number of occasions that his continued detention after 28 May 2003 had been unlawful, referring to the fact that it was not covered by any decision. His complaints were forwarded to the Leninskyy Court, where they allegedly remained without response. 16.  On 10 June 2003 the charges against the applicant, as well as against the other co-accused, were extended to participation in a criminal organisation and unlawful production, possession and smuggling of drugs and drug precursors by an organised group. 17.  On 12 June 2003 the pre-trial investigation, which had been resumed following the modification of the charges, was declared complete. 18.  From 17 June to 18 July 2003 the applicant and his lawyer studied the case file. 19.  On 30 July 2003 the criminal file was sent to the Leninskyy Court. 20.  On 29 August 2003 the court held a preparatory hearing for the trial, during which the applicant unsuccessfully requested to be released subject to an undertaking not to abscond. He argued that his health was too frail and submitted medical documents to that regard. Furthermore, the applicant noted that he had a family and a permanent place of residence, was of rather advanced age, had only positive character references and no previous criminal record. The case file does not contain a copy of the aforementioned ruling of the court. According to the applicant, it disregarded the issue of his detention altogether. 21.  According to a letter of the Sevastopol City Council of Judges of 31 March 2005 in reply to the applicant’s complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings against him, the duration of these proceedings was caused by: the significant number of lawyers (seven), some of whom had joined the examination of the case late and required additional time to study the case file; the breakdown of a tape recorder after a part of the trial had been recorded on it; and the expiry of the presiding judge’s term of office and the reassignment of the case to a different judge. 22.  On 15 July 2005 the applicant asked the Court of Appeal to review the lawfulness of his detention after 28 May 2003. He noted that after that date his detention had not been covered by any court decision against which he could appeal in compliance with the criminal-procedure legislation. 23.  On 20 July 2005 the Court of Appeal forwarded the applicant’s request to the Leninskyy Court “for a procedural decision to be taken”. 24.  On 22 December 2005 the Leninskyy Court released the applicant subject to an undertaking not to abscond, at his lawyer’s request. The court established that the applicant’s health had deteriorated in detention. It also took note of the fact that his wife was disabled and needed his support. The court noted that the applicant had participated in military operations, for which he had received numerous government awards. It found no indication that he would attempt to obstruct justice or abscond if released. 25.  The criminal proceedings against the applicant remain pending before the first-instance court. According to the information provided by the Government, since the commencement of the trial in July 2003 about fifty hearings have taken place, five of which were in 2003; fourteen in 2004; nine in 2005; fifteen in 2006; and eight in 2007. Overall, the hearings were adjourned on over eighty occasions, with the reasons for about thirty such adjournments (in total for one year and ten months) being unknown. Not a single hearing has been held since the end of 2007, mainly because of the repeated absence of witnesses and the co-defendants’ lawyers. Between 2007 and 2009 the Leninskyy Court issued seven orders for the compulsory presence of witnesses (between eight and eighteen persons) to be ensured by the police. It is not known whether those orders were enforced. 26.  The most recent development in the trial known to the Court is the expiry of the mandate of the presiding judge in November 2009. 27.  Since 1975 the applicant has been suffering from hypertension and cerebral atherosclerosis. In 2000, his condition was diagnosed as “second‑degree hypertension”. 28.  During the period of his detention in the Sevastopol ITT from 29 August 2002 to 22 December 2005 an ambulance was called for the applicant at least fifty times on account of his hypertension. 29.  The ITT administration kept a medical logbook of the applicant’s blood pressure. According to the entries for the period from 9 November 2002 to 28 May 2004 (signed by the acting chief of the ITT), his blood pressure was taken almost on a daily basis. 30.  On 12 December 2002 the chief of the ITT sent a note to the applicant’s lawyer, at the latter’s request, in which he stated that between September and December 2002 the medical attendant of the ITT had examined the applicant and provided him with medical assistance for hypertension on ten occasions. 31.  On 19 December 2002 the applicant was examined by a therapist who diagnosed a hypertensive crisis, prescribed some medication and recommended that he be treated as an in-patient. 32.  On 21 December 2002 the applicant underwent another medical examination – by a leading cardiologist in Sevastopol Hospital no. 1 (“Hospital no. 1”), who confirmed the aforementioned diagnosis and recommendation and provided him with medical assistance. 33.  On 17 January 2003 the applicant was examined in Sevastopol Hospital no. 9. The doctors found that he was suffering from cerebral hypertension of the second degree, ischaemic heart disease, and atherosclerotic cardiosclerosis with heart rhythm disturbances. After the applicant had received medical assistance, he was taken back to the ITT. 34.  On 30 January 2003 the applicant was taken to Hospital no. 1, where he stayed until 6 February 2003 receiving in-patient medical treatment. 35.  On 3 March 2003 he complained to the Sevastopol prosecutor that his medical condition was incompatible with detention. 36.  On 29 August 2003 the Leninskyy Court ordered a medical examination of the applicant in the ITT by specialists of Hospital no. 1; this took place on an unspecified date. 37.  On 19 July 2004 the applicant unsuccessfully requested that the Leninskyy Court order an expert medical examination with a view to establishing whether he was fit for detention. 38.  On 16 December 2005 he underwent another medical examination in Hospital no. 1. The doctors diagnosed him with third-degree hypertension at the crisis stage, ischaemic heart disease, coronary sclerosis and cardiosclerosis and recommended his urgent hospitalisation. 39.  However, the applicant objected to his hospitalisation until the completion of the court hearing scheduled for 22 December 2005. 40.  In its ruling of 22 December 2005 ordering the applicant’s release, the Leninskyy Court noted that his health had deteriorated during detention (see paragraph 24 above). 41.  After his release, the applicant received in-patient treatment for hypertension in Hospital no. 1 from 29 December 2005 to 20 January 2006. 42.  On 8 February 2006 he was examined by the Sevastopol City Medical and Sociological Expert Commission and was recognised as falling into the “third category” of disability (the mildest) indefinitely on the grounds of his “general state of health”. 43.  On 4 December 2009 Mr D., who presented himself as the medical attendant working in the Sevastopol ITT at the time the applicant was detained there, gave written explanations at the Government’s request, following the communication of the application to the latter. According to him, he had closely surveyed the applicant’s medical condition, namely, the level of his blood pressure, and had administered pressure-lowering medication whenever required. In those cases where the medication had not had the necessary effect, an ambulance had been called. 44.  According to the applicant, his hearing started to deteriorate at the beginning of 2003. 45.  On 17 May 2004 an otologist examined and diagnosed him with acute sensorineural hearing loss in both ears and prescribed medication. 46.  In September 2009 the applicant underwent surgery on account of exostosis (formation of new bone on the surface of a bone) of both ear canals.