5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Moscow. 6.  On 24 May 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of child trafficking and the organisation of a criminal enterprise. Two days later a deputy prosecutor in Moscow authorised the applicant's placement in custody on the grounds that he was charged with serious criminal offences and was liable to pervert the course of justice. The extension order indicated that the applicant had been remanded on suspicion of having assisted several pregnant Russian women to obtain visas and to travel to the United States where they had given birth and put their babies up for adoption in exchange for 100 US dollars (USD). The applicant had allegedly received between USD 10,000 and USD 15,000 for each child. 7.  In June 1999 the applicant's lawyer appealed to the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow against the detention order of 26 May 1999. 8.  On 15 July 1999 the District Court dismissed the appeal, having regard to the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the risk of his absconding or obstructing the examination of the case if released. It noted that an appeal lay to the Moscow City Court. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer lodged an appeal. 9.  According to the applicant, the investigation authorities searched his flat and offices a number of times and seized his personal belongings, including a computer and documents. 10.  On 20 July 1999 the Moscow City Prosecutor extended the applicant's detention until 23 November 1999, noting the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the fact that he did not have a permanent place of residence or work. 11.  On 17 September 1999 the Tverskoy District Court dismissed the appeal by the applicant's lawyer against that order. It held that the investigators had grounds to extend the applicant's detention, having regard to the following considerations: the applicant's character, in particular, the fact that he did not have a fixed place of residence or work and had no previous convictions; the gravity of the charges; the sentence he was facing and the (unspecified) circumstances of the case. The applicant did not appeal. 12.  On 8 September 1999 a deputy prosecutor general of the Russian Federation authorised a further extension of the applicant's detention until 24 November 1999 on the ground that it was necessary to take certain investigative measures and that the gravity of the charges and the applicant's character warranted the extension. 13.  The applicant's appeal against the detention order of 8 September 1999 was dismissed on 1 November 1999 by the Tverskoy District Court, which held that the competent prosecutor had authorised the extension in compliance with the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It took into account the applicant's character, the gravity of the charges against him, “the particular circumstances of the criminal offence” and the need to take additional investigative measures and procedural steps. The decision of 8 September 1999 was not appealed against and became final. 14.  On 16 November 1999 and 14 February 2000 a deputy prosecutor general extended the applicant's detention until 24 February and 24 May 2000 respectively. The reasons for both extensions were similar: the seriousness of the offences, the need to take additional investigative measures and the applicant's character. 15.  On 16 May and 22 August 2000 the acting Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation authorised extensions of the applicant's detention until 24 August and 24 November 2000 respectively. He gave the same reasons for the extensions as those that had been given in the previous orders. At the same time, while noting that it was necessary to take certain procedural steps, he indicated that the extensions were also necessary to allow the applicant to study the case file, which comprised thirty volumes. 16.  The applicant did not appeal against any of the above-mentioned orders. 17.  In November 2000 the Moscow City Prosecutor asked the Moscow City Court to extend the period of detention for an additional six months because the applicant needed additional time to read the case file. The applicant objected to the extension, claiming that he had waived his right to study the case file and that he should be released because the maximum eighteen-month period of his detention had expired. 18.  On 23 November 2000 the Moscow City Court accepted the prosecutor's request and granted the extension until 24 May 2001. The relevant part of its decision which also concerned a co-defendant reads as follows:
“The defendants [need to] study the materials of the criminal case file which comprises fifty-two volumes. It will be impossible for them to finish reading the case file before the expiration of the maximum authorised period of detention.
[The court] does not find any ground for a change in the preventive measure to which the defendants are subject. The criminal offences with which they stand charged are included in the category of serious and particularly serious offences. In view of the circumstances of the case, taking into account the information about the co-defendants' character and the materials in the case file, [I] consider that, if released, the defendants ... will be liable to resume their criminal activities, to pervert the course of justice and to abscond or evade justice.
Having examined the arguments of the defendants and their lawyers, who insisted that there was no basis for extending Mr Pshevecherskiy's detention... [I] find their arguments unsubstantiated.
[The court] cannot accept that the refusal of the defendant, Mr P., and his lawyer to study the materials in the criminal case file complies with the requirements of Article 201 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, because the action under Article 201 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure is an investigative measure which has to be taken by an official authorised by law and recorded in a register.
The record presented at the hearing shows that after the case file was given to Mr P. for studying he, in the presence of his lawyer Mr Po., ... refused to study it because his second lawyer, Ms L., was not present; [the court] cannot conclude that this action constituted a general waiver by the defendant of his right to study the case file.
The court reaches the same conclusion with respect to Mr Pshevecherskiy's refusal to study the case file on 16 November 2000 when his rights as an accused before the termination of the pre-trial investigation were explained to him.
Article 201 of the RSFSR Code on Criminal Procedure lays down that an investigator must provide an accused with the entire case file. The record of 22 November 2000 indicates that when the case file was given to the co-defendant, Mr Pshevecherskiy did not refuse to study it, but refused to participate in that investigative phase in the absence of his lawyer.
The present circumstances allow of the conclusion that the defendants did not comply with the procedure for stating their refusal to study the case file. This conclusion is supported by the fact that at the present hearing the defendants expressed their wish to study the evidence in the case file, in particular, the expert opinions, which make up 14 volumes of the case file.” 19.  The applicant and his lawyer appealed. In their grounds of appeal they argued that the applicant should be released because the maximum eighteen-month period for which his detention during the investigation was permitted had expired. 20.  On 6 February 2001 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the detention order of 23 November 2000. The relevant part of the Supreme Court's decision reads as follows:
“The submitted materials show that Mr P. and Mr Pshevecherskiy were arrested on 24 May 1999 in compliance with Article 122 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, and on 26 May 1999 their placement in custody was authorised. Subsequently, the acting Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation lawfully extended the detention of Mr P. and Mr Pshevecherskiy for 18 months, that is until 24 November 2000. On 16 November 2000 the defendants were informed that the pre-trial investigation had ended and the requirements of Article 201 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure had to be fulfilled.
By virtue of Article 97 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, when a defendant and his lawyer are unable to complete the examination of the materials in the case file before the expiration of the maximum authorised period of detention, the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, a prosecutor of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation ... is entitled to ask a judge, no later than five days before the expiration of the period, ... to extend it.
The Court finds that in asking the city court to extend the period of detention of the defendants, Mr P. and Mr Pshevecherskiy, to 24 months – until 24 May 2001 – the prosecutor acted within his powers and in compliance with the requirements of the above mentioned law on criminal procedure...
As the case file shows, on 22 November 2000 Mr Pshevecherskiy ... was given the materials in the case file for examination, and ... refused to participate in that investigative act without his lawyer.
The judge lawfully indicated in his decision [of 23 November 2000] that the refusal of the defendants, Mr P. and Mr Pshevecherskiy, to study the materials in the case file in the absence of their counsel did not mean that that they did not wish to study the case file in the presence of their counsel either.
As the record of the court hearing indicates, the co-defendants, Mr P. and Mr Pshevecherskiy, wished to study the expert opinions which made up some 14 to 16 volumes of the case file.
In these circumstances the Court cannot agree that ... the defendants Mr P. and Mr Pshevecherskiy refused to read the case file.
Having regard to the substantial size of the case file, which comprises 52 binders, and to the fact that the defendants and their lawyer will not be able to complete their examination of it before the expiration of the maximum period of detention..., the extension of their detention is lawful.
The city court correctly concluded that there were no grounds for changing the measure of restraint to which the defendants, Mr Parshutkin and Mr Pshevecherskiy, are subject. As it is rightly stated in the decision, they have been charged with particularly serious criminal offences and are liable to abscond, evade justice or obstruct the examination of the case.” 21.  On 11 May 2001 the applicant finished reading the file and on 24 May 2001 the case was committed for trial in the Moscow City Court. The applicant remained in detention. It appears that his detention was extended at regular intervals. However, he did not challenge any of the detention orders in the court. 22.  On 14 December 2001 the Moscow City Court remitted the case to the Moscow Prosecutor's Office for further investigation. 23.  On 4 April 2002 the applicant was released on a written undertaking not to leave the city. 24.  On 30 December 2003 a senior investigator of the Tsentralniy District Prosecutor's Office of Moscow discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant because his conduct could not be characterised as a criminal offence. The investigator also released the applicant from his written undertaking and explained his right to rehabilitation. Although he possessed a right of appeal to a prosecutor or court, the applicant did not appeal.