5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Chişinău. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  On 12 October 2005 the applicant was arrested and charged with assisting the President of a commercial bank in extorting a bribe from a company in order to give it a loan. 8.   On 16 January 2006 the applicant was transferred to the remand centre of the Ministry of Justice no.29/13 (also known as Prison no. 13, former Prison no. 3) in Chişinău. 9.  On 3 February 2006 the Buiucani District Court prolonged the applicant's detention for a period of twenty days. The court found that
“... the criminal investigation is in its final phase; the final charges are to be submitted and the accused is to have access to the file. Taking into account the serious nature of the crime of which he is accused, the damaging effect of the deed and that, once aware of the contents of the file, the applicant could influence witnesses, destroy evidence and abscond from law enforcement authorities and the court, the court considers justified the prosecutor's request for prolonging the period of detention and rejects the lawyer's request for bail.”
On 9 February 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld that decision. 10.  The applicant made a separate complaint regarding the initial period of his detention, until 3 February 2006 (the case of Ţurcan and Ţurcan v. Moldova, application no. 39835/05). In the present application, he relies on the events subsequent to that date. 11.  On 20 February 2006 the case file was submitted to the trial court. On 6 March 2006 the first hearing took place, during which the applicant submitted a habeas corpus request. He relied on Article 186 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 15 below) and on the cases of Baranowski v. Poland (no. 28358/95, ECHR 2000‑III) and Ječius v. Lithuania (no. 34578/97, ECHR 2000‑IX), and claimed that, following the referral of the case to the trial court on 20 February 2006, his detention did not have a legal basis. He also complained about the inhuman conditions of his detention in Prison no. 13 and referred to the findings of the European
Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in respect of that remand centre. 12.  The Buiucani District Court rejected his request because
“[the applicant is] accused of a serious crime and the court does not find at the present time any ground for changing or annulling the preventive measures”. 13.  On 28 September 2006 the Buiucani District Court accepted the applicant's request for release, relying on new relevant circumstances of the case, namely that most evidence had already been examined in court or recorded by the prosecution and that the applicant's health had worsened, and surgery was needed. On 31 October 2006 the same court gave the applicant permission to undergo medical treatment abroad.