4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and is currently detained in Simferopol pre-trial detention centre (the “Simferopol SIZO”) awaiting his extradition to Belarus. 5.  The applicant has already been convicted twice in Belarus for drug-related offences. The second time, in 2004, he was sentenced to four years' and three months' imprisonment. After having served part of his sentence, he was granted early release. 6.  On 1 April 2006 the Sovetskyy District Police Department of Minsk instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion that he had illegally purchased a psychotropic substance (Section 328 § 1 of the Belarus Criminal Code). 7.  On 12 June 2006 the Belarus authorities issued an international arrest warrant for the applicant. 8.  On 29 September 2008 the Head of the Sovetskyy District Police Department of Minsk sent a request to the Crimea Police Department for the applicant to be arrested and detained pending extradition to Belarus. 9.  On the same day the applicant was arrested by officers of the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Police Department of Simferopol. 10.  On 30 September 2008 the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Simferopol (the “District Court”) ordered the applicant's detention for forty days pending his extradition to Belarus. 11.  On 17 October 2008 the Deputy General Prosecutor of Belarus requested the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine to extradite the applicant to Belarus. The request contained the following assurances: that the applicant would not be prosecuted for a crime committed prior to extradition without the consent of the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine; that he would not be removed to a third country without the consent of the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine; that he would not be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; that after the termination of the criminal proceedings or after serving his sentence, if one was imposed, the applicant would be free to leave Belarus; and that the applicant would not be prosecuted for political, racial, religious or ethnic reasons. 12.  On 26 October 2008, during a meeting with his lawyer, the applicant signed a power of attorney for the purpose of bringing his case to the Court. 13.  On 28 October 2008 the applicant was questioned by the assistant prosecutor of the Zheleznodorozhnyy Prosecutor's Office as to whether he or his lawyers had made any claims or complaints to the State authorities or institutions alleging violation of his rights and freedoms. The applicant replied that his lawyer had told him to ask for an authority form and explained that he would be further defended by the Kharkiv group of lawyers, which intended to lodge a complaint with the “European Commission on Human Rights”. He said that he had signed no other documents and made no complaints or petitions to any other institutions. If his lawyers had done so, he would learn about it later. The minutes of this interview also mentioned that the applicant was informed of his right to remain silent under Article 63 of the Constitution. 14.  On the same date, 28 October 2008, the President of the Chamber indicated to the Ukrainian Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that they should not extradite the applicant to Belarus. 15.  On 7 November 2008 the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine informed the Government's Agent that no decision on the applicant's extradition would be taken prior to the examination of his case by the Court. 16.  The same day the District Court ordered the applicant to be detained pending his extradition to Belarus, without indicating any time-limit for such detention. 17.  On 20 November the Crimea Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 7 November 2008, stating that the applicant had been lawfully detained pending his extradition. 18.  On 26 December 2008 the District Court rejected the applicant's lawyer's request to change the preventive measure in respect of his client. The applicant appealed against this decision. By letter of 16 January 2009, the Deputy President of the Crimea Court of Appeal replied to the applicant that the appellate court had previously examined his appeal concerning lawfulness of detention and would not examine the same issue again. The applicant is still in detention.