4.  The applicant, Mr Andrey Gabdrakhmanovich Karimov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in the Yastrebki village, the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea (the “ARC”). 5.  On 11 December 1996 the Prosecutor of the Chervonogvardiysky District of the ARC (the “Prosecutor of the ARC”) initiated a criminal investigation after the discovery of a corpse of an unidentified person near the Chervonogvardiysky village of the ARC. Subsequently, that person was thought to be someone called Sasha. 6.  On 14 December 1996 the Chervonogvardiysky District Prosecutor's Office (the “CDPO”) detained the applicant on suspicion of having murdered Sasha. 7.  On 17 December 1996 the Chervonogvardiysky District Prosecutor charged the applicant with murder. He also decided to detain the applicant on remand as there was a risk of him absconding and impeding the investigation in the case. 8.  On 25 December 1996 the jurisdiction over the investigation into the murder was transferred to the Nyzhnyogirsky District Prosecutor's Office (the “NDPO”). 9.  On 7 March 1997 the Nyzhnyogirsky District Prosecutor issued a bill of indictment against the applicant charging him with murder under the influence of alcohol. 10.  On 7 April 1997 the case was remitted to the court for examination on the merits of the charges brought against the applicant. 11.  On 2 June 1997 the Nyzhnyogirsky District Court of the ARC (the “Nyzhnyogirsky Court”), composed of the President of that court judge K., sentenced the applicant to eight years' imprisonment following his conviction for murder. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against this decision with the Supreme Court of the ARC. 12.  On 17 July 1997 the Supreme Court of the ARC quashed the judgment of 2 June 1997 and remitted the case for additional investigation due to a lack of corroborating evidence of the applicant's guilt. It also ruled that the applicant, who suffered from mental retardation (oligophrenia) was not legally represented in the course of criminal investigation brought against him. 13.  On 10 November 1997 the person called Sasha re-appeared and was questioned by the NDPO. 14.  On 20 November 1997 the NDPO released the applicant on condition that he did not leave his place of residence. 15.  On 28 November 1997 the prosecution was terminated due to the absence of corpus juris delicti in respect of the applicant's acts. The investigation also revealed that the applicant stole two ducks from Ms M. (a private person) for a total value of UAH 30. The investigation into theft of private property was also terminated due to the “change of circumstances”. 16.  On 10 March 1998 the NDPO stayed the criminal investigation in the case due to their inability to identify the person who had committed the murder. 17.  On 21 February 2000 the Deputy Prosecutor of the ARC quashed the decisions of 28 November 1997 and 10 March 1998 and remitted the case to the CDPO for a preliminary investigation in accordance with the territorial jurisdiction. It also resolved that the applicant should be involved in the proceedings as being suspected of murder. 18.  On 22 February 2001 the Prosecutor's Office of the ARC terminated the criminal investigation due to the absence of any corpus juris delicti in respect of the applicant's acts. 19.  On 21 January 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Nyzhnyogirsky Court seeking compensation for damage caused by his unlawful prosecution, detention and conviction. 20.  The Government alleged that on 23 June 1998 the President of the Nyzhnyogirsky Court (judge K.), who also heard the applicant's criminal case and convicted the applicant on 2 June 1997 (see paragraph 12 above) requested the applicant to provide a certified copy of the resolution terminating criminal investigation in his case and information with regard to his salary from the last place of employment. 21.  On 26 June 1998 the court informed him of the initiation of the proceedings in the case. 22.  On 5 July 1999 a judge P. of the Nyzhnyogirsky Court assumed jurisdiction over the applicant's claims. It also ordered the Prosecutor's Office that dealt with the applicant's criminal case to provide a number of documents to it. 23.  On 28 October and 4 December 1999 the applicant increased the amount of compensation claimed and requested the court to order the State Treasury, local Departments of Finance of the Nyzhniogirsky and Chervonogvardeysky State Administrations to appear as respondents in the case proceedings. 24.  On 5 July and 19 November 1999, 17 April and 18 May 2000 the court ordered the prosecution to transfer the applicant's criminal case file to it. The prosecution partly complied, providing copies of certain documents from the case file. Some of the materials were provided on 3 August 2000 only. 25.  On 21 February 2000 the prosecution resumed the investigation of the case (see paragraph 17 above). 26.  On 24 February 2000 the President of the Supreme Court of the ARC instructed the President of the Nyzhnyogirsky District Court to ensure that the case proceedings were expedited. 27.  On 2 June 2000 the compensation claims were transferred to a different judge (judge Ku.) within the same first instance court. 28.  On 6 June 2000 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court requested the President of the Nyzhnyogirsky District Court to expedite examination of the applicant's case. 29.  On 9 June 2000 the court invited the parties to a meeting about the case. However, the Chervonogvardiysky District Prosecutor failed to appear. 30.  On 23 June 2000 the Acting President of the Supreme Court of the ARC requested the President of the Nyzhniogirsky Court to ensure that the proceedings in the applicant's case were conducted without any delays. 31.  On 5 and 24 July 2000 the court requested the prosecution to provide it with the information concerning the criminal investigation into the circumstances of the case. 32.  On 28 July 2000 the prosecution informed the court that the criminal investigation was still pending. 33.  On 31 July 2000 the President of the Supreme Court of the ARC ordered the President of the Nyzhniogirsky Court to transfer the case-file to the Dzhankoy Court. 34.  As a result, on 7 August 2000 the Nyzhnyogirsky Court suspended the compensation proceedings, pending the outcome of the criminal investigation against the applicant. On 27 September 2000 the Supreme Court of the ARC upheld this decision. 35.  The applicant requested the Supreme Court to remit the case to a different court, alleging that the Nyzhnyogirsky Court judges, who were subordinate to judge K., who in 1997 heard the criminal case brought against the applicant and convicted him (see paragraph 11 above), manifested bias in examining his claims. 36.  On 15 August 2000 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court instructed the President of the Supreme Court of the ARC, in view of the applicant's allegations of bias, to transfer the case to a different court for examination on its merits. On 23 August 2000 the Supreme Court of the ARC instructed the Nyzhnyogirsky Court to remit the case to Dzhankoy Court for examination as to the merits. 37.  On 28 November 2000 the case-file had been returned from the Supreme Court of the ARC to the Nyzhnyogirsky Court. 38.  On 12 December 2000 the Dzhankoy Court received the case to rule on the jurisdiction over it. The case-file was again returned to the Nyzhnyogirsky Court for further examination. 39.  The case-file was again remitted to the Dzhankoy Court where it was received on 28 April 2001. Hearings were scheduled for 24 May, 18 and 19 June, 10 and 27 July, 9 and 30 August 2001. However, none took place, since the Prosecutor's Office (still one of the respondents in the case) failed to appear before the court or to send its representative. 40.  On 28 September and 9 October 2001 the Dzhankoy Court postponed the hearings in the case due to the failure of the respondents to appear before it. On 28 September 2001 the court held that the Crimean authorities of the State Treasury, the Prosecutor's Office and the Department of Justice should be respondents in the case. 41.  On 12 and 28 December 2001 the applicant failed to appear before the court. On 28 December 2001 the court terminated examination of the case due to the applicant's failure to appear before it. That decision was quashed by the Court of Appeal of the ARC and the case had been remitted for a new examination to the same court on its merits. 42.  On 1 October 2002 the applicant changed the respondents in his case to the State Treasury in the ARC, the ARC's Prosecutor's Office and the Department of Justice in the ARC. 43.  On 14 October 2002 the case was remitted to the Central District Court of Simferopil, due to a change of jurisdiction because of the modification in the respondents, who were all situated in this district. 44.  Hearings were scheduled for 2 and 20 December, 15 January, 17 and 25 February 2003. However, the representative of the Department of Justice of the Crimea failed to appear before the court and therefore the hearings were postponed. 45.  The hearings on 17 and 25 February 2003 were ignored by the Prosecutor's Office, as was the hearing on 15 January 2003 by the Department of Justice. As a result, the consideration of the merits of the case was postponed again. 46.  On 25 February 2003 the representative of the Department of Justice informed the applicant that it considered the State Treasury to be a respondent in the case. 47.  On 5 March 2003 the applicant informed the Court that the next hearing was scheduled for 20 March 2003. 48.  On 25 March 2003 the court allowed the requests for rectification of the respondent to the State Treasury of Ukraine from the Main Department of the State Treasury in the ARC. 49.  On 24 April 2003 the court again changed the respondent in the case from the Main Department of Justice in the ARC to the State Judicial Administration of the ARC. 50.  The proceedings in the case were adjourned on 19 May and 9 June 2003 due to the change of the respondents. 51.  On 9 June 2003 the Central District Court of Simferopil allowed the applicant's claims for compensation. In particular, the court found that the law enforcement authorities acted unlawfully in the course of criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant. Furthermore, the court ruled that the applicant had been unlawfully detained and sentenced for a serious offence. It awarded the applicant UAH 12,000 in compensation. 52.  The applicant did not agree with the amount of compensation awarded to him and on 20 June 2003 lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal of the ARC by which he sought UAH 1,000,000 in compensation. 53.  On 25 July 2003 his appeal had been rejected and the applicant was allowed to rectify the shortcomings in his appeal. 54.  On 16 September 2003 the court of appeal adjourned the hearing to 6 October 2003. 55.  On 3 November 2003 the Court of Appeal of the ARC allowed the applicant's appeal in part and awarded him UAH 50,000 in compensation. 56.  On 24 December 2003 the Pechersky District Bailiffs' Service of Kyiv issued a check to the applicant for an amount of the award and thus the judgment given in the applicant's favour had been enforced.