4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Sopot. 5.  The applicant was arrested on 24 October 2000 on suspicion of armed robbery. On the same day the Gdańsk District Court remanded the applicant in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed armed robbery. That suspicion was supported by evidence obtained in the course of the investigation. The District Court further held that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would obstruct the investigation and go into hiding. It also had regard to the severity of the anticipated penalty. 6.  Later, several other persons were detained and charged in connection with the same investigation conducted by the Department of Organised Crime of the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor's Office. 7.  On 9 January 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 31 March 2001. It found that the grounds previously relied on were still valid. In addition, it held that the prolongation of his detention was justified by the need to obtain evidence, including expert reports, from many sources. 8.  On 15 March 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 31 May 2001. In addition to the grounds previously invoked, it considered that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would induce the witnesses to give false testimonies. 9.  On 15 May 2001 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with one count of armed robbery which had been committed in an organised armed criminal group. The bill of indictment listed 118 charges brought against 19 defendants, who were all detained on remand. The case file comprised 114 volumes. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from 366 witnesses. 10.  On 17 May 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court ordered that the applicant be detained until 31 October 2001, finding that it was necessary in order to prevent him – and his other 12 detained co-defendants – from evading justice or tampering with evidence. It also referred to the complexity of the case stemming from the number of defendants and the number of witnesses to be heard. 11.  On 16 October 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 31 March 2002, considering that the grounds originally given for remanding him in custody were still valid. In respect of the danger of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses, the Regional Court held, having regard to evidence given by a witness R.G., that some of the defendants had attempted to induce witnesses to give false testimonies. 12.  The trial began on 28 December 2001. However, as of April 2002 the reading out of the bill of indictment by the prosecution had still not been concluded. Initially, the trial court held three hearings per month. 13.  During the hearing held on 30 January 2002 the trial court ordered the removal of the applicant and some other defendants from the court room because of their disruptive behaviour. 14.  Further prolongation of the applicant's detention were ordered by the Gdańsk Regional Court on 27 March 2002 (up to 30 September 2002) and on 26 September 2002 (up to 24 October 2002). In both those decisions, the Regional Court considered that the applicant's detention was the only measure which could prevent him from interfering with the proceedings. 15.  It appears that the applicant refused to participate in the hearing held on 16 September 2002. 16.  Since on 24 October 2002 the applicant's detention had reached the statutory time-limit of 2 years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, further prolongations of the applicant's detention were ordered by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal. The relevant decisions were given on 2 October 2002 (extending his detention until 31 December 2002), 18 December 2002 (prolonging that period until 30 June 2003), 25 June 2003 (extending his detention up to 31 December 2003) and 17 December 2003 (ordering his continued detention until 30 June 2004). In all those decisions the Court of Appeal considered that the original grounds given for the applicant's detention were still valid. It stressed that his detention was the only measure which could secure the proper conduct of the proceedings in that particularly complex case, given the nature of the charges, the number of defendants and the connections between them. In addition, it referred to the volume of evidence to be heard. 17.  In its decision of 2 October 2002 prolonging the applicant's detention, the Court of Appeal considered that holding him in custody was necessary at least until he had been heard. 18.  On 15 January 2003 the applicant and 17 of his co-defendants unsuccessfully challenged the judges and lay members of the trial court. 19.  In its decision of 25 June 2003 extending the applicant's detention, the Court of Appeal observed that the trial could not have been terminated due to obstructiveness on the part of the defendants who filed numerous requests challenging the trial court. It further considered that although the applicant and other defendants were free to make use of their procedural rights, the abuse of those rights had undoubtedly led to delays in the trial. It also noted that the trial court had taken various procedural steps in order to accelerate the proceedings. 20.  In its decision of 29 January 2004 dismissing the applicant's appeal against the decision of 17 December 2003 prolonging his detention, the Court of Appeal held that Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure established a presumption to the effect that the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on the applicant might induce him to obstruct the proceedings[1]. It added that the risk of tampering with witnesses which existed in the present case did not have to be supported by any concrete facts, but resulted from the above presumption. 21.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant made numerous, unsuccessful applications for release, including on the ground that his detention entailed harsh consequences for his family. He appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against refusals to release him and decisions extending his detention. 22.  The applicant's detention on remand ended on 30 June 2004 when the last order prolonging his detention expired. The applicant was released on 31 August 2004 after having served a sentence of imprisonment that had been imposed on him in another set of proceedings. 23.  On 21 March 2005 the Gdańsk Regional Court made a severance order with a view to expediting the proceedings, and thereafter four defendants, who in the meantime had been released, were to be tried separately. 24.  By June 2005 the trial court had held some 135 hearings of the 162 which had been scheduled. It heard more than 400 witnesses. 25.  After 20 June 2005 no hearing was held due to the serious illness of the judge rapporteur. On 21 September 2005 the President of the Criminal Section IV of the Gdańsk Regional Court assigned a new judge rapporteur. Consequently, the trial had to commence de novo. 26.  On 24 November 2005 the trial court made a further severance order and split the case into eleven separate cases. 27.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court. 28.  The applicant's letter to the Court of 10 April 2006 bears a stamp “censored day ... ... year” (cenzurowano dnia ... ... r.) and no signature. The envelope in which that letter was sent bears a stamp confirming that the applicant's letter was received for dispatch by the administration of the Gdańsk Detention Centre on 9 April 2006. However, according to the postage stamp the letter was posted only on 13 April 2006. The envelope also bears a note written in pencil: “D.[etention] on R.[emand] the Sopot District Prosecutor Ds” (T.A. Prok. Rej. Sopot Ds.) and another illegible note also written in pencil. It also appears that the envelope was cut open and subsequently resealed with an adhesive tape.