5.  The applicant is a Romanian citizen of Hungarian origin who was born in 1971 and was detained at the date of lodging the application in Jilava Prison in Bucharest. 6.  On 20 October 2003 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court arrested the applicant on suspicion of aggravated homicide and robbery. On 22 October 2003 the Bucharest County Court granted the prosecutor’s office’s application for pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant, holding that the applicant was suspected of having stabbed a couple to death in order to take 13,000 US Dollars in cash from their house. The county court further held that the applicant represented a danger to the public order in the light of the severity of the crimes he was accused of and the punishment set by law for the respective crimes. 7.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was successively extended by court order until he was convicted of aggravated homicide and robbery and sentenced to twenty three years’ imprisonment by a judgment of the Bucharest County Court rendered on 23 September 2005. On 23 December 2005 the Bucharest Court of Appeal upheld the Bucharest County Court’s judgment of 23 September 2005. By a final judgment of 12 May 2006 the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law and upheld the previous judgments. 8.  The reasoning for the extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention remained unchanged in each order, namely the fact that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the crimes for which he was on trial and that the severity of the crimes implied that the applicant was a danger to the public order. 9.  The applicant appealed against many of the orders extending his pre‑trial detention, submitting that there was not enough evidence from which to infer a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the crimes, that he had a clean criminal record, that he had been open and honest during the proceedings and that there was no proof that, if set free, he would be a danger to the public order. He also repeatedly complained that his continuing detention without specific reasons based on his particular situation breached his rights under the Convention. His appeals were consistently rejected as without merit, the courts considering that the reasons for his initial pre-trial detention still existed without analysing the applicant’s specific arguments. 10.  In a judgment issued on 30 September 2004 on the applicant’s appeal against the order to extend his pre-trial detention of 14 September 2004, the Bucharest Court of Appeal, quoting the Court’s decisions in the cases of Amuur v. France and Tomasi v. France, held that the lower court had correctly decided that the reasons for the initial pre-trial detention still existed. The court further stated that pre-trial detention was regulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to ensure the good progress of trials. Finally, the court decided that the evidence admitted to date in the case allowed the inference that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the crimes and this justified the extension of his detention.