4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Naro-Fominsk in the Moscow region. He is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Ryazan region. 5.  On 22 July 1995 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. 6.  On 18 August 1995 he was charged with robbery, murder, illegal possession of firearms and false reporting of a crime. On the same date the prosecutor ordered that the applicant be placed in detention. 7.  On 27 June 1996 the prosecution authorities submitted the case file to the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”) for trial. On 3 June 1997 and 4 March 1998, at the request of the applicant’s counsel, the City Court referred the case back to the prosecution authorities for additional investigation on account of serious breaches of procedure. The prosecutor did not challenge those decisions. 8.  On 4 August 1998 the additional investigative measures were completed and the case was submitted to the City Court for trial. However, on 10 August 1999 the City Court granted a request by the applicant’s counsel to remit, once more, the case for additional investigation. It held that the prosecution authorities had failed to implement the instructions given in its decision of 4 March 1998 and that the applicant’s defence rights had been violated during the investigation. On 24 September 1998 the Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal against that decision. 9.  On 20 May 1999 the case was submitted to the City Court for trial, after additional investigation. However, on 3 June 1999 the City Court, at the defence’s request, again referred the case for additional investigation on account of serious procedural breaches. On 22 July 1999 the Supreme Court upheld that decision. 10.  On 24 August 1999 the case was submitted to the City Court for trial and the first hearing was scheduled for 24 September 1999. However, on that date the case was adjourned until 1 November 1999 because the applicant’s counsel and the victims had failed to appear. Several hearings were scheduled for November 1999. Two of them were adjourned at the request of the applicant’s counsel. 11.  On 22 November 1999 the City Court found the applicant guilty of illegal possession of firearms and acquitted him of the other charges. It sentenced the applicant to three years’ imprisonment and ordered that he be released from serving his sentence and consequently from detention, as by that time he had spent more than four years in detention. The applicant was released in the courtroom. 12.  On 13 January 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (“the Supreme Court”) heard the case on appeal. It found, among other things, that the first-instance court had failed to properly assess the evidence in the case. It upheld the applicant’s acquittal on the charge of false reporting of a crime, quashed the remaining part of the judgment of 22 November 1999 and remitted that part of the case for fresh examination to the City Court. 13.  On 28 January 2000 the case was sent to the City Court. The first hearing was scheduled for 5 June 2000. However, on that date the case was adjourned until 1 November 2000 because the judge was involved in unrelated proceedings. The hearings of 1 November 2000 and 28 March 2001 were postponed for the same reason. 14.  The hearing of 26 July 2001 was adjourned because the applicant’s defence counsel was on annual leave until 18 August 2001. The next hearing was scheduled for 8 October 2001. 15.  The City Court heard the case between 8 October and 20 November 2001. During that period, the case was adjourned on three occasions: from 12 to 16 October at the request of the applicant’s counsel, from 26 to 29 October because the witnesses did not appear and from 16 to 19 November at the applicant’s request. The City Court heard evidence from about twenty witnesses and examined several experts’ reports. 16.  On 30 November 2001 the City Court found the applicant guilty of illegal possession of firearms, murder and robbery and sentenced him to thirteen years’ imprisonment with forfeiture of property. 17.  In December 2001 the applicant and his lawyer lodged their grounds of appeal against that judgment. Between January and April 2002 the applicant was reading the record of the court hearings. On 18 April 2002 he lodged additional grounds of appeal. 18.  On 5 June 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 30 November 2001.