4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Krasnoyarsk. 5.  The applicant was prosecuted for drug dealing and running a criminal syndicate, together with seven co‑defendants. He was first arrested on 12 October 2005 for selling heroin but released two days later on the undertaking to appear. 6.  On 11 November 2005 the applicant was remanded in custody. Subsequently, the criminal case against the applicant was joined with a number of other investigations into drug dealing. On 8 June 2006 the charges against the applicant were re‑formulated. He was charged with creating and operating a criminal syndicate, twelve counts of drug dealing, three counts of attempted drug dealing and money laundering. 7.  The facts concerning the applicant’s pre-trial detention are summarised in the table below.

Decisions
1st instance court 
2nd instance court
1st detention order (pre-trial stage) 11.11.2005 Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
No information
Reasons
Risks:
Specific factual circumstances:
Conduct of the proceedings: not specified.
Alternative preventive measures: not analysed (“It is impossible to apply another preventive measure”).
Other aspects: The court noted that the applicant was an individual entrepreneur and a Russian citizen. The court did not specify the authorised period of the applicant’s detention.
2nd detention order (pre-trial stage) 22.12.2005 Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
No information
Reasons
Risks:
Specific factual circumstances:
Conduct of the proceedings: The court noted that the investigation was not finished.
Alternative preventive measures: not analysed (“No reasons to lift or change the preventive measure”).
Other aspects: The court noted that the applicant was an individual entrepreneur and a Russian citizen, that he was married and had no criminal record. The court did not address the applicant’s argument that being at large he had not absconded and had appeared before the investigator on his requests.
3rd detention order (pre-trial stage) 16.03.2006 Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
No information
Reasons
Risks:
Specific factual circumstances:
Conduct of the proceedings: The need to conduct investigative actions referred to by the investigator which were: to detect and question other suspects; to obtain results of chemical, psychiatric and phonoscopic examinations; to identify the members of the criminal organisation; to formulate final charges against six co-defendants; to question them, to have them study the expert examination reports; to attach to the case file audio tapes of telephone conversations; to question witnesses; to have the co-defendants and their advocates study the case file, to prepare the bill of indictment; to conduct other investigative action which may prove necessary.
Alternative preventive measures: not analysed (“No reasons to lift or change the preventive measure”).
Other aspects: The court noted that the applicant had no criminal record and that he was married. It did not address the applicant’s argument that being at large he had not absconded and had appeared before the investigator on his requests. The court also did not address the applicant’s argument that the charges against him were ill-founded.
4th detention order (pre-trial stage) 27.04.2006 Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
No information
Reasons
Risks:
Specific factual circumstances:
Conduct of the proceedings: The court established that the investigator had conducted a considerable number of procedural actions: he interrogated 123 witnesses and 8 co‑defendants; he conducted 24 chemical forensic examinations, 4 narcological forensic examinations of the co-defendants, 2 biological forensic examinations, 2 dactyloscopic forensic examinations; he ordered psychiatric examinations of six co-defendants and medical examination of witness K.; he carried out 8 face-to-face confrontations between the co-defendants and witnesses, 6 searches in homes of the co-defendants, he examined audio records of telephone conversation between co-defendants and ordered their phonoscopic examination, he issued charging documents against eight co-defendants, he obtained character references for the co-defendants etc. The court noted that additional time was needed to have the co-defendants and their advocates study the case file.
Alternative preventive measures: not analysed (“No reasons to lift or change the preventive measure”).
Other aspects: The court noted that the applicant had no criminal record, had a Russian citizenship and that he was married. The court did not address the applicant’s argument that the charges against him were ill-founded.
5th detention order (pre-trial stage) 17.07.2006 Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
No information
Reasons
 
Risks:
Specific factual circumstances:
Conduct of the proceedings: The court established that the investigator had conducted a considerable number of (unspecified) procedural actions. It noted “the need to obtain results of psychiatric and phonoscopic examinations, to have the co-defendants and their advocates study the expert reports and the case file, to bring final charges against five co-defendants and to question them, to admit as evidence audiotapes of telephone conversations; to sever the case against an unidentified accomplice, to prepare the bill of indictment, to conduct other investigative action which may prove necessary”.
Alternative preventive measures: not analysed (“No reasons to lift or change the preventive measure”).
Other aspects: The court noted that the applicant had no criminal record and had a Russian citizenship. It did not address the applicant’s arguments that being at large he had not absconded and had appeared before the investigator on his requests, that he had a family, a permanent place of residence and that the charges against him were ill-founded.
6th detention order (pre-trial stage) 17.10.2006 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
No information
Reasons
Risks: not specified.
Specific factual circumstances:
Conduct of the proceedings: The court noted that eight co‑defendants, including the applicant and their advocates, were studying the case file and additional time therefore was necessary.
Alternative preventive measures: not analysed (“no reasons to change the preventive measure”).
Other aspects: The court noted that the applicant had no criminal record and had a Russian citizenship. It did not address the applicant’s arguments that being at large he had not absconded and had appeared before the investigator on his requests, that he had a family, a permanent place of residence and that the charges against him were ill-founded. The court used “the circumstances did not change” formula.
7th detention order (trial stage) 28.12.2006 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
No information
Reasons
Risks:
Specific factual circumstances:
Conduct of the proceedings: The court noted that it had received the case for adjudication on 13 December 2006. (On 28 December 2006 the court ordered remittal of the case to the prosecution to remedy some shortcomings of the investigation.)
Alternative preventive measures: not analysed.
Other aspects: Collective detention order in respect of 6 co‑defendants. The court used “the circumstances did not change formula”.
8th detention order (pre-trial stage) 11.09.2007 Supreme Court of Russia
Reasons
Risks: not specified.
Specific factual circumstances:
Conduct of the proceedings: The courts stated that eight co‑defendants, including the applicant and their advocates, were studying the case file and that additional time therefore was necessary.
Alternative preventive measures: not analysed (“No reasons to change the preventive measure”).
Other aspects: The Regional Court noted that the applicant had no criminal record and had a Russian citizenship. The courts did not address the applicant’s arguments that being at large he had not absconded and had appeared before the investigator on his requests and that the charges against him were ill-founded. The courts used “the circumstances did not change” formula. The appeal court stated that it was not its task to assess the evidence against the applicant and decide whether the charges against him were well-founded. It noted the complexity of the case (eight co‑defendants, case file in 29 volumes).
9th detention order (pre-trial stage) 12.09.2007 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
No information
Reasons
Risks:
Specific factual circumstances: gravity of the charges.
Conduct of the proceedings: The court noted that the defence was studying the case file and that additional time therefore was necessary.
Alternative preventive measures: not analysed.
Other aspects: The court found no change in the reasons for detaining the applicant since the first detention order. It noted that the applicant had a job as a security guard at a private company, a permanent place of residence in Zheleznogorsk (Krasnoyarsk Region), that he had no criminal record, and was married.
10th detention order (pre-trial stage) 10.12.2007 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
No information
Reasons
Risks: not specified.
Specific factual circumstances:
Conduct of the proceedings: The court noted that eight co‑defendants, including the applicant and their advocates, were studying the case file and additional time therefore was necessary.
Alternative preventive measures: not analysed (“No reasons to change the preventive measure”).
Other aspects: The court noted that the applicant had a Russian citizenship and no criminal record. It did not address the applicant’s arguments that being at large he had not absconded and had appeared before the investigator on his requests, that he had a family and a permanent place of residence and that the charges against him were ill‑founded.
11th detention order (trial stage) 11.03.2008 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
No information
Reasons
Risks:
Specific factual circumstances:
Conduct of the proceedings: The court noted that it had received the case for adjudication on 27 February 2008. (On 14 April 2008 the court ordered remittal of the case to the prosecution to remedy some shortcomings of the investigation.)
Alternative preventive measures: not analysed (“No reasons to lift or change the preventive measure”).
Other aspects: The court noted that the applicant had a Russian citizenship and no criminal record. 8.  On 25 August and 26 November 2008 and on other dates the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court granted further extensions of the authorised detention period. 9.  According to the information submitted by the Government, on 29 April 2010 the Zheleznogorskiy District Court convicted the applicant who remained detained until that date.