4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Simferopol. 5.  On 16 March 2005 the prosecutors started criminal investigations against her on suspicion of fraud. 6.  On 5 October 2005 she was arrested and placed in a cell in the Simferopol Kyivskyy District Police Station. According to the applicant, the conditions of her detention were degrading. In particular, she was not provided with medical aid, food, or a place to sleep. 7.  The applicant alleges that during her first questioning, on 6 October 2005, she was not assisted by a lawyer. 8.  On 7 October 2005 the Kyivskyy District Court of Simferopol ordered the applicant’s release subject to an undertaking not to abscond. 9.  On 23 July 2007 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopol (“the Tsentralnyy Court”) convicted the applicant of several counts of fraud and sentenced her to five years’ imprisonment with confiscation of all her property. The court also ordered the applicant’s placement in custody pending the entry into force of its judgment. 10.  On the same day the applicant was placed in the Simferopol Temporary Investigative Isolation Unit no. 15 (“the SIZO”). 11.  The applicant maintains that the findings of the first-instance court concerning her responsibility for the crimes of which she had been convicted on 23 July 2007 were subsequently relied upon by the same court in a judgment of 30 November 2007 concerning a similar case against another person. She provided no further details of the latter case. 12.  On 20 December 2007 the Crimea Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the judgment of 23 July 2007 and remitted the case to the Tsentralnyy Court for fresh consideration. At the same time, it ordered the applicant to remain detained, without providing reasons or a time-limit for her continued detention. 13.  In the course of the new consideration of the case by the Tsentralnyy Court, the charges against the applicant were changed to one count of fraud. 14.  On 6 February 2008 the court rejected the applicant’s request for release stating in particular that there were no grounds for the release, whereas a quashing of the judgment was not a reason for changing a detention order as such. 15.  On 20 August 2008 the court changed the applicant’s preventive measure in view of the new charges against her and her state of health. It ordered the applicant’s release subject to an undertaking not to abscond. 16.  In a judgment of 27 August 2008 it convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced her to thirteen months’ imprisonment. The court further held that the applicant was not required to serve her sentence, as she had been detained for the same period of time in the course of the proceedings. By the same judgment, the court ordered the destruction of certain items in evidence, which, according to the applicant, included some of her personal belongings seized in the course of the investigations. 17.  The applicant did not appeal against that judgment. 18.  She unsuccessfully lodged a number of complaints with the prosecutors, courts, and the Council of Judges, accusing the investigators and judges of falsification of the case materials and of various procedural violations. She also raised allegations that some of the witnesses against her had made false statements, but to no avail.