5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and is currently in Aachen Prison. 6.  Since 1981 the applicant has been convicted seven times of offences including assault and dangerous assault, theft, joint serious robbery, coercion and sexual coercion. He was notably found guilty in 1984 of assaulting in a humiliating manner and over a period of several days another man locked up in the same cell, and of forcing him to take part in oral sex. 7.  On 22 July 1991 the Duisburg Regional Court convicted the applicant of dangerous assault combined with joint coercion, with sexual coercion, with joint extortion and coercion and with attempted sexual assault committed in 1990. It sentenced him to six years' imprisonment and ordered his preventive detention under Article 66 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 22-23 below). The Regional Court found that the applicant, partly acting jointly with others and acting with diminished criminal responsibility due to drug consumption, had assaulted a man who had allowed the applicant to share his apartment using objects including shoes, belts, scissors and cigarettes, had forced him to let the applicant masturbate into his mouth, to eat rubbish and grass and to withdraw money from his account for the applicant. Moreover, the applicant had beaten up another prisoner locked up in the same cell several times and had attempted to force the other man to perform sex acts on him. Having consulted a medical expert, the Regional Court found that the applicant, acting with full criminal responsibility, had a tendency to commit offences against the physical integrity and property of others by violence and was therefore dangerous to the public. 8.  The applicant served his full prison sentence. He was then placed in preventive detention, for the first time, on 4 January 1997; he had thus served ten years in preventive detention by 3 January 2007. The continuation of the applicant's preventive detention was ordered by the Arnsberg Regional Court in 1999, 2002 and 2004. Since March 2006, the applicant's preventive detention is executed in Aachen Prison. 9.  On 25 October 2006 the Arnsberg Regional Court ordered the continuation of the applicant's preventive detention beyond ten years. It found that there was still a risk that the applicant, owing to his criminal tendencies, might commit serious offences resulting in considerable psychological or physical harm to the victims if released (Article 67d § 3 of the Criminal Code; see paragraph 27 below). 10.  Relying on the report submitted by a psychiatric expert, M., the Regional Court found that on account of his psychotherapeutic treatment, the applicant had made progress in the course of his detention. He no longer attempted to solve conflicts by violence and now abused alcohol and drugs less than before. He now had a stable heterosexual identity and felt guilty about his offences. However, he still lacked social skills, including the capacity to resolve conflicts himself, and had no social contacts outside prison. He was therefore liable to commit further thefts, robberies and dangerous assaults if released. He first had to be prepared for release through relaxations in the conditions of his detention. 11.  By a decision of 19 December 2006, which the applicant received on 8 January 2007, the Hamm Court of Appeal, endorsing the reasons given by the Regional Court, dismissed the applicant's appeal. It added that, contrary to the applicant's view, his continued preventive detention for a period exceeding ten years on the basis of Article 67d of the Criminal Code, as amended in 1998, was constitutional. 12.  On 31 January 2007 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court. He argued that the continuation of his preventive detention beyond ten years, resulting from the application of the amended Article 67d § 3 of the Criminal Code, which had entered into force after he had committed his offences, violated his right to liberty and the prohibition of retrospective punishment under Article 2 § 2 and Article 103 § 2 of the Basic Law and Article 5 § 1 and Article 7 § 1 of the Convention. 13.  On 20 February 2007 the Federal Constitutional Court, without giving further reasons, declined to consider the applicant's constitutional complaint (file no. 2 BvR 270/07). 14.  On 16 October 2008 the Aachen Regional Court ordered the continuation of the applicant's preventive detention as, owing to his criminal tendencies, he was still liable to commit serious offences resulting in considerable psychological or physical harm to the victims. The psychiatric expert which the court had consulted and the conclusions of whom the court had endorsed, had found that the applicant no longer suffered from a serious personality disorder and that there was no longer a high risk that the applicant committed further sexual offences. However, prior to a successful completion of relaxations in the conditions of his detention, the applicant was still liable to commit serious offences. 15.  On 1 June 2010 the Aachen Regional Court refused to declare the applicant's preventive detention terminated in view of the Court's findings in the case of M. v. Germany. It found that the courts responsible for the execution of sentences had to apply Article 67d § 3 of the Criminal Code, being the law in force which could not be interpreted in compliance with the Convention, and that it was for the legislator to execute the Court's judgment. 16.  On 30 July 2010 the Cologne Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against the Regional Court's decision of 1 June 2010, endorsing the reasons given by the Regional Court and referring to the reasons given in its own decision of 14 July 2010 (file no. 2 Ws 428/10; see paragraph 30 below). 17.  On 13 September 2010 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to terminate the applicant's preventive detention by way of an interim order (file no. 2 BvR 1940/10). It found that the applicant's constitutional complaint was not manifestly ill-founded and would have to be examined on the merits. Weighing the consequences of granting an interim order against those of refusing such an order, it found that the public interest in security outweighed the applicant's interest in his liberty, having regard to the seriousness of the offences the applicant was liable to commit if released. 18.  The applicant is currently still in preventive detention.