5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Chişinău. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  The applicant was summoned to appear at a prosecutor's office in Chişinău on 14 June 2004. Upon arrival he was arrested on suspicion of having murdered, in 1993, Mr I.O., whose mother became Speaker of Parliament in 2001. 8.  On 15 June 2004 the prosecutor asked the Buiucani District Court to issue a warrant for the applicant's arrest. In his request the prosecutor alleged that the applicant had committed the crime with which he was charged. 9.  On 17 June 2004 the Buiucani District Court issued an order for the applicant's pre-trial detention for thirty days. The applicant and his lawyer were not given access to the file which had been submitted to the court to justify his arrest. The court gave the following reasons for its decision:
“In initiating the criminal proceedings the procedure was followed. [The applicant] is accused of a serious crime for which the criminal law provides a punishment of deprivation of liberty for more than two years. [The applicant] is unemployed and has a Romanian passport – facts which confirm the existence of a danger of absconding from law-enforcement authorities. Moreover, the accused would be given a real possibility to obstruct the criminal investigation by influencing witnesses if he were to be released. In these circumstances, the accused's detention is at this moment absolutely necessary.”
The applicant did not appeal against that decision. 10.  On 12 July 2004 the prosecutor asked for a prolongation of the applicant's detention, stating that many procedural acts still had to be carried out, such as a confrontation with a co-accused (U.) and a verification of the whereabouts of another person, and that the applicant could abscond. 11.  On 13 July 2004 the Buiucani District Court extended the applicant's detention for a further thirty-day period, based on the reasons given by the prosecution. 12.  In his appeal, the applicant submitted that during the first 30 days of his detention no procedural act had been carried out with his participation, which contradicted the prosecutor's claim that his detention was necessary to enable such acts to be carried out. Moreover, the co-accused with whom a confrontation was planned (U.) had also been detained during that period and yet no confrontation had taken place. The applicant stated that he had a permanent residence in Moldova and three children to support and suffered from a neurological disease requiring specialised medical treatment. 13.  On 20 July 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal. The court found that the lower court had observed the correct procedure and had adopted a lawful decision based on the circumstances of the case. According to the applicant, he and his lawyer had not had access to any part of his criminal file. 14.  On 27 July 2004 the applicant made a habeas corpus request, submitting that there was no reason for his pre-trial detention. The crime he was charged with had been committed eleven years earlier and he could easily have left Moldova had he had anything to do with that crime. He appeared before the investigators in response to their first summons and had always pleaded his innocence. The applicant asked for a milder preventive measure such as bail or house arrest to be ordered in his case, emphasising that house arrest offered virtually the same guarantees against interference with the investigation as did detention. He finally added that he had no criminal record and promised to appear before the investigator at the first request. 15.  On 6 August 2004 the applicant's brother concluded a contract with a second lawyer, Mr V. Nagacevschi, to represent the applicant. According to the applicant, it is standard practice in Moldova for an accused's relatives to conclude a contract with a lawyer when the accused is detained and has no means of finding a lawyer or paying for one. According to the applicant, he intended to sign a contract with Mr Nagacevschi just before the court hearing but he was deprived of that possibility by the authorities' failure to bring him to the hearing. 16.  Also on 6 August 2004 Mr Nagacevschi asked the court to give the applicant's lawyers access to the materials in the criminal file which allegedly proved the need to detain the applicant. He argued that a refusal to grant such access would violate the principle of equality of arms. 17.  On the same day, the Buiucani District Court examined the applicant's habeas corpus request in his absence. The applicant's first lawyer gave additional reasons for releasing his client. He argued that the gravity of the crime with which he was charged could not in itself provide a sufficient basis for detention. No evidence had been made available to him regarding the risk of the applicant's absconding. The applicant's Romanian passport was an insufficient ground for detention since it could be seized by the authorities, along with his Moldovan passport. Moreover, the investigation was already finished and the applicant could therefore not interfere with its course. He finally stressed that detention should be an exceptional measure, yet in practice the Moldovan authorities applied it as a rule. 18.  The court rejected the applicant's lawyer's request for the following reasons:
“The person is accused of a crime for which the criminal law provides a punishment of deprivation of liberty for up to twenty years. [The applicant] could abscond or commit further crimes, and could obstruct the investigation by influencing the [victim's mother] or witnesses. The court considers it premature to replace the applicant's detention with a milder preventive measure.” 19.  In his appeal, the applicant relied on the arguments submitted earlier to the courts, adding that his rights had been further violated when he was not brought to the court hearing, when Mr Nagacevschi was not allowed to plead before the lower court and when the lawyers were not given access to any parts of the criminal file. 20.  On 9 August 2004 the prosecution submitted the case file and the bill of indictment of the applicant to the trial court. Following the expiry, on 14 August 2004, of the court order of 13 July 2004 (see paragraph 11 above), the prosecution made no further requests for extension of the applicant's detention. 21.  On 17 August 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 6 August 2004. 22.  On 29 November 2004 the first hearing before the trial court took place, during which the court decided, inter alia, that the applicant should remain in pre-trial detention, without specifying, however, for how long. 23.  According to the Government, on 3 July 2006 the Rîşcani District Court found the applicant guilty of the crime with which he had been charged. That judgment was upheld by the Chişinău Court of Appeal on 2 October 2006. 24.  The case is pending before the Supreme Court of Justice.