5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Lublin 6.  On 2 October 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of acting in an organised and armed criminal group, deprivation of liberty, extortion and incitement to murder. On 4 October 2001 the Lublin District Court remanded him in custody, having regard to the severity of the likely penalty. It also held that the application of that measure was necessary in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings and to prevent the applicant from interfering with witnesses. 7.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged on 18 December 2001 and 26 March 2002. The court referred to the complexity of the investigation and relied on the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. 8.  On 11 June 2002 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment against the applicant with the Lublin Regional Court. The applicant was charged with acting in an organised and armed criminal group, incitement to murder, deriving profits from prostitution, extortion and unlawful possession of a firearm. The bill of indictment concerned seven other persons. The trial court appointed a legal-aid counsel for the applicant. 9.  On 14 June 2002 the Lublin Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 September 2002, referring to the severity of the anticipated penalty. 10.  On 3 September 2002 the Regional Court ordered that the applicant and his co-accused be kept in custody until 3 February 2003. It stated, inter alia, that:
“Evidence obtained in the case, namely statements of G.S., statements of witnesses I.K., S.C., M.I. and statements of anonymous witnesses, indicates that the accused committed the acts with which they were charged.”
The court also relied on the gravity of the charges. It added that, having regard to the nature of the charges and the personal characteristics of the accused, their detention on remand was the only measure which could secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. 11.  On 16 September 2002 the applicant appealed against that decision. In a further letter he complained that in its decision of 3 September 2002, the court had expressly stated that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged. 12.  On 16 October 2002 the Lublin Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 3 September 2002. The court considered that it was not its task to assess evidence at this stage of the proceedings. It was sufficient to establish that the evidence gathered in the case confirmed the strong suspicion of the applicant’s involvement in the offences he had been charged with. 13.  The applicant on several occasions challenged the presiding judge, alleging that he had infringed the rights of the defence by refusing his requests to admit evidence. On 22 October 2002 and 13 May 2003 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s challenge. 14.  The first hearing was held on 17 June 2003. 15.  On 18 June 2003 the Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention for a further unspecified period. 16.  On 24 September 2003 the Lublin Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 2 January 2004. It invoked the gravity of the charges and the severity of the anticipated penalty. The Court of Appeal also had regard to the particular complexity of the case related to the volume and nature of the evidence, which included anonymous witnesses. 17.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended by the Court of Appeal on 30 December 2003 (until 19 March 2004) and 17 March 2004 (until 5 June 2004). In the latter decision, the court found that hearings had been held regularly and that the case was particularly complex. 18.  On 2 June 2004 the Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 5 September 2004. Having regard to the organised character of the alleged criminal activities, it held that the applicant’s detention was necessary in order to prevent him and the other co-accused from interfering with the proceedings. 19.  On 11 August 2004 the Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant be held in custody until 5 December 2004. It relied on the same grounds as previously. 20.  During the trial the applicant filed numerous unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against the decisions prolonging his detention. 21.  The trial court held about 59 hearings. On 3 December 2004 the Lublin Regional Court delivered a judgment. It convicted the applicant of acting in an organised and armed criminal group, deriving profits from prostitution and extortion. It acquitted him of the charges of incitement to murder and unlawful possession of a firearm. The court sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment and a fine. 22.  The applicant’s legal-aid counsel and the prosecution appealed against the first-instance judgment. The applicant also filed his own appeal. The applicant remained in detention pending appeal. 23.  On 4 October 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the Regional Court’s judgment in part. It remitted the case in respect of the two charges of which the applicant had been acquitted (incitement to murder and unlawful possession of a firearm). 24.  On 16 December 2005 the written reasons for the judgment of the Court of Appeal were served on the applicant’s counsel. On 22 December 2005 the counsel wrote to the Court of Appeal and the applicant that he had found no basis to prepare a cassation appeal in the case.