5.  V.T. was born in 1948; D.T. was born in 1952. Both live in Chişinău. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. V.T. is the director of a commercial bank (“the Bank”); D.T. is a lawyer working for the Bank; they are not related. According to the Bank's Statute, the President is situated below the Directing Committee in the Bank's organisational structure and that Committee takes the final decision on whether or not to make an important loan. 7.  In spring 2005 a private firm owned by N.A. and his brother applied for a loan from the Bank. The loan application was accepted by the Bank's Directing Committee on 27 September 2005. 8.  On 12 October 2005 officers of the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (“the CFECC”) arrested D.T., who was receiving money from N.A., on suspicion of conspiring with V.T. to attempt to take a bribe. 9.  In the arrest report filed an hour later, the officer described the finding of “clear evidence of the crime” on D.T., which was later explained to be 15,000 United States Dollars marked by CFECC for the purposes of proving the bribe-taking from N.A. 10.  At the moment of his arrest, D.T. declared that N.A. had been repaying a debt, as confirmed by a receipt.
When signing the arrest report, D.T. wrote:
“[D]uring my arrest, between 18 and 22 hours on 12 October 2005, my briefcase ... was in the possession of the CFECC officers and the following disappeared from it: USD 4,000 and a receipt signed by N.A. confirming that he had borrowed money from me in the amount of USD 15,800.” 11.  On the same day and less than an hour after D.T.'s arrest, V.T. was also arrested in another part of the city. The reason given in the arrest report was: “a witness can testify that this person has committed a crime”. It appears that no member of the Bank's Directing Committee has been arrested or questioned in relation with the present case. The prosecution later gave details, according to which the money handed by N.A. to D.T. had been specially marked to provide evidence of bribe taking. The money was to be split between D.T. and V.T., but the latter did not obtain his share because of D.T.'s arrest immediately after having received the bribe. 12.  On 14 October 2005 the Buiucani District Court issued a warrant for the pre-trial detention of V.T. The reasons given were:
“V.T. is suspected of having committed a serious crime which is punishable by more than two years' imprisonment; the evidence submitted was obtained lawfully. In view of the gravity of the deed of which the suspect, who presents a high social risk, is accused, the need to protect public order, the risk of his putting pressure on witnesses who will give evidence in the case and who are employees of the bank and subordinates of the accused, the need to prevent the two accused from agreeing on a common position, to exclude the possibility of fabricating evidence, which obviously exists at the beginning of the criminal investigation, as well as the risk of the accused's absconding, which would prevent the normal flow of the investigation, the suspect's isolation is necessary”. 13.  In the case of D.T. on the same date, the court gave almost identical reasons for detention, the differences amounting to a finding of a general risk of influencing witnesses and to a risk of absconding to territories outside the control of the State. 14.  Both applicants appealed, invoking the insufficient reasons given by the Buiucani District Court for their detention. They offered to hand in their passports to assure the court of their intention not to leave the country and submitted that they had no criminal records, had permanent addresses and places of work and had good reputations, V.T. having received several State decorations. In his appeal, D.T. wrote that, from the moment of his arrest, he had not been interviewed, even though he had offered to give explanations; that he had declared since his arrest that N.A. had been repaying his debt when the arrest took place, as confirmed by the receipt signed by N.A.; and that the receipt had disappeared from his brief-case thereafter. 15.  On 21 October 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected their appeals, confirming the Buiucani District Court's finding of a risk of their influencing witnesses working at the Bank, of agreeing on a common position and of destroying or fabricating evidence. 16.  On 22 October 2005 a prosecutor drew up the charges against both applicants. In the absence of a request for prolonging his pre-trial detention, V.T. was released on the same day with the obligation not to leave the country. 17.  On 18 November 2005 the newspaper Timpul published an interview with V.T. in which he stated, inter alia, that he had found out that one of his discussions with D.T., N.A. and C.N., an employee at the Bank, regarding the loan had been secretly filmed by N.A. and that C.N. had been shown the film and had been questioned about the loan. He also stated that a powerful private interest was trying to take over the Bank and had organised the set-up for that purpose.
Based on that interview, the prosecutor questioned C.N. about whether she had talked to V.T. or anybody else about her previous witness statements. She declared that she did not remember whether she had done so, but stated that she had not discussed this with V.T. and had not spoken to him, except for having once greeted him in the hall of the bank. The prosecutor then requested V.T.'s house arrest. 18.  On 22 November 2005 the Buiucani District Court ordered V.T.'s house arrest for 10 days. The court gave the following reasons:
“[T]he court finds that the criminal investigation in the present case is close to an end, but there are still a number of investigative measures which need to be completed, including the questioning of a number of persons. Having analysed the minutes of C.N.'s interview and [V.T.]'s interview in the Timpul newspaper, the court shall not enter into questions of guilt but, having verified all the evidence, finds the presence of certain indicators that the accused may in the future again attempt to prevent the establishment of the truth and the smooth running of the criminal proceedings. This ground for pre-trial detention is expressly mentioned in Article 176 (1) [of the Code of Criminal Procedure]. At the moment, V.T. is the president of [the Bank] and recently a need arose to question some of his subordinates, there being a real probability of pressure on them.” 19.  V.T. claimed, before the Buiucani District Court, that his information had come from other sources and requested that C.N. give evidence in order to prove that she had not talked to him about the investigation and had not been influenced by him. He argued that hearing evidence from that witness was crucial, since the only ground invoked for his latest detention was his alleged pressure on C.N. following his release on 22 October 2005. The court did not react in any way. 20.  On 25 November 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the lower court on procedural grounds and ordered V.T. not to leave the city for thirty days. 21.  On 22 October 2005 the prosecutor asked for the prolongation of D.T.'s detention. He relied, inter alia, on the fact that witnesses had still to be heard. On the same day the Buiucani District Court ordered the prolongation of D.T.'s detention for twenty days, giving the following reasons:
“[D.T.] is accused of a serious crime, the evidence submitted was obtained lawfully, there is a risk of his influencing witnesses, who have not yet given evidence because the accused has not provided information about them; there is an ongoing need to verify all aspects of the accused's statements; there is a risk of his fabricating evidence and of agreeing on a common position with the co-accused. The danger of his absconding from the law enforcement authorities persists for the reasons invoked when first ordering the pre-trial detention.” 22.  On 28 October 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected D.T.'s appeal, giving reasons similar to those in its decision of 21 October 2005. 23.  On 8 November 2005 the court extended D.T.'s pre-trial detention by another twenty days, giving essentially the same reasons as before. The court found, inter alia, that
“there exists a risk that the accused will influence witnesses who have not yet been interviewed because, even though he referred to them during his interview of 22 October 2005, the accused refuses to identify them; there is a need to verify the accused's statements, including the possible existence of a receipt to which he refers, without identifying the place where it could be found, and thus there is a risk of his fabricating evidence. The danger of his absconding from the law enforcement authorities persists for the reasons invoked when ordering the detention. A sufficient ground for prolonging the detention consists of his insistence that there is evidence to exonerate him without offering the possibility for the prosecution or the defence to establish whether that is true.” 24.  D.T. appealed, invoking, inter alia, his right to remain silent and to refuse to divulge information about defence witnesses or other evidence until the trial, as well as the fact that the other co-accused (V.T.) had been released under an obligation not to leave the country. He also complained about a lack of access to most of the materials in the criminal file against him and about a lack of reaction by the prosecution to press coverage of alleged threats made to V.T. by a private person, according to which the latter had promised to organise a set-up and was actually a friend of N.A., the alleged bribe-giver. He finally requested, instead of detention, any other preventive measure which would satisfy the lawful aims of the prosecution but would protect him from illegal pressure while in detention. 25.  On 14 November 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected D.T.'s appeal, finding that
“at the moment there is a risk of his destroying evidence, because of the nature of the crime (the seriousness of the crime of bribe-taking) and because of the extremely difficult character of the proceedings”. 26.  On 28 November 2005 the Buiucani District Court prolonged D.T.'s detention for another twenty days. The court gave the following reasons:
“Having analysed the factual situation at the prosecution's request, the court finds that the criminal investigation in the present case is close to an end, but there are still a number of investigative measures which need to be finished before the case is submitted to the trial court. The court emphasises that, according to Article 20 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 'the criminal prosecution and the trial of criminal cases in which a suspect or accused is detained on remand shall be performed urgently and with priority'. At the same time, weighing all the circumstances in favour of and against prolonging detention, noting the prosecutor's opinion that detention is absolutely necessary and the position of the defence lawyer, the court considers that the grounds which were invoked when pre-trial detention was ordered persist. D.T. is accused of a serious crime which is punishable by over two years' imprisonment, the case is an exceptional one due to the seriousness of the alleged deed. At the moment there persists the danger of his influencing witnesses, destroying evidence and even absconding.” 27.  D.T. appealed, submitting, inter alia, that the criminal investigation was being unnecessarily protracted despite the prosecutor's declaration that it was close to an end and would be finished by 1 December 2005. He further claimed that he did not have access to most materials in the criminal file in order to challenge his continued detention. 28.  On 6 December 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal adopted two decisions. In the first it found that, contrary to Article 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutor had not submitted to the Buiucani District Court the required materials from the criminal file to substantiate the request for prolonging D.T.'s detention on 28 November 2005. In the second decision, the court rejected D.T.'s appeal, finding that
“the [Buiucani District] Court correctly concluded that the circumstances which initially served as grounds for detaining [D.T.] persist. Notwithstanding that the criminal investigation started on 12 October 2005, there persists a danger of his destroying evidence due to the nature of the crime and the extremely complex nature of the proceedings.” 29.  On 21 December 2005 the Buiucani District Court prolonged D.T.'s detention for another twenty-five days, giving reasons similar to those in its decision of 28 November 2005. 30.  On appeal, D.T. complained about the length of the investigation during which almost no investigation measure had been taken with his participation, as well as his detention in a solitary cell for the entire period. He also complained about psychological harassment by CFECC officers in order to obtain his confession, as well as their harassment of his daughter on 16 December 2005, following her visit to him. 31.  On 28 December 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected his appeal, finding that the grounds for keeping him in detention persisted. 32.  On 13 January 2006 the Buiucani District Court prolonged D.T.'s detention for twenty days, giving essentially the same reasons as before and adding that the results of a chemical analysis had not yet been received, based on which further investigative measures could become necessary. 33.  On appeal, D.T. argued that the prosecution had not submitted to the court and to the defence any materials substantiating the continued need to detain him. On 18 January 2006 the Court of Appeal rejected that appeal for the same reasons as before. 34.  On 3 February 2006 the Buiucani District Court prolonged D.T.'s detention for twenty days, giving similar reasons to those given before.