5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Moscow. 6.  At the material time the applicant held the post of Vice President of LLC Volga Aviaexpress Airlines (ООО “Авиакомпания Волга‑Авиаэкспресс”). 7.  On 28 July 2003 the applicant left for annual leave in South Africa, where he stayed until 17 September 2003, following which he was in the United Kingdom until 23 September 2003 before returning to Russia. 8.  Meanwhile, on 30 July 2003 the Volgograd Regional Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings under Article 159 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code for fraud involving a Yak-42 aircraft. 9.  On 24 September 2003 the applicant was placed on an international wanted list. 10.  On 26 September 2003 Tsentralniy District Court (Volgograd – “Tsentralniy District Court”) ordered the applicant’s remand in custody on suspicion of fraud. The District Court held as follows:
“... Following the institution of the criminal proceedings [the applicant] absconded from Volgograd and the Russian Federation.
In connection with the establishment of [the applicant’s] whereabouts in South Africa, on 24 September 2003 he was placed on a wanted list.
... Taking into account the fact that [the applicant] is charged with a serious offence, [that he] fled from investigation, has actively obstructed the establishment of the truth in the case, and may continue the criminal activity, the court considers it necessary to choose a measure of restraint in the form of placement in custody.” 11.  According to the applicant, until 29 September 2003 he did not know anything about the criminal proceedings against him. As soon as he knew about them, he went to the investigation department of the Volgograd Regional Prosecutor’s Office, where he was arrested pursuant to the court order of 26 September 2003. 12.  The applicant was placed in a temporary detention facility, where he was kept until 17 October 2003. Throughout this period the applicant’s family was unaware of his whereabouts. The applicant was subsequently transferred to IZ-34/1 remand prison (Volgograd). 13.  In the meantime, on 14 October 2003 Volgograd Regional Court upheld the decision of 26 September 2003 on appeal. 14.  On 28 November 2003 and 15 March 2004 Tsentralniy District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 30 March and 30 May 2004 respectively. On both occasions the court relied on the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the fact that he had been placed on an international wanted list prior to his arrest, which gave the court sufficient grounds to believe that if at large the applicant might obstruct the proceedings. Under these circumstances the court held that the application of a non-custodial preventive measure was not possible. 15.  On 9 December 2003 Volgograd Regional Court upheld the extension order of 28 November 2003 on appeal. The case file contains no information as to whether the applicant appealed against the extension order of 15 March 2004. 16.  On 31 May 2004 the applicant’s case file was remitted to Dzerzhinskiy District Court (Volgograd – “Dzerzhinskiy District Court”) for examination on the merits. 17.  On 30 May 2004 the applicant’s detention ordered by the decision of 15 March 2004 expired. No other decision was made regarding his detention until 14 June 2004. However, the applicant remained in detention. 18.  On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant sought compensation for unlawful detention between 30 May and 14 June 2004. 19.  On 27 March 2006 Tsentralniy District Court acknowledged that the applicant’s detention in the above period had been unlawful and awarded him 5,000 Russian roubles. 20.  The applicant submitted that the above judgment remained unenforced to date. 21.  On 14 June 2004 Dzerzhinskiy District Court fixed a date for a preliminary hearing of the case and held that the preventive measure applied to the applicant and three other co-defendants “should remain unchanged”. 22.  On 26 October 2004 Dzerzhinskiy District Court scheduled the opening day of the trial and ordered that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant and his three co-defendants “should remain unchanged”. The applicant’s request for release was dismissed as follows:
“[The applicant and his three co-defendants] are charged with grave crimes punishable with long-term imprisonment. The custodial measure was applied [to them] during the preliminary investigation after assessment of the defendants’ personalities, their health and the gravity of the crimes [charged against them]. The arguments of the defendants and their representatives about the unlawful application of the custodial measure ... cannot be taken into consideration since this [issue] is not the subject matter of the present hearing. ...” 23.  The applicant appealed against the above decision, in so far as it concerned the preventive measure, to Volgograd Regional Court, arguing that the custodial measure had been applied to him unlawfully and without consideration of his personal circumstances. The applicant’s co-defendants also appealed. 24.  On 25 January 2005 Volgograd Regional Court upheld the decision of 26 October 2004 on appeal. 25.  However, on 14 April 2005 the Presidium of Volgograd Regional Court quashed the appeal decision of 25 January 2005 by way of supervisory review, as it failed to address the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant and his co-defendants by their representatives. 26.  On 19 July 2005 Volgograd Regional Court again upheld the decision of 26 October 2004 on appeal. 27.  In the meantime, on 30 November 2004 Dzerzhinskiy District Court extended the applicant’s and his three co-defendants’ detention for three months, until 28 February 2005:
“The circumstances which prompted the application of the custodial measure did not change. The defendants’ reference to the fact that they cannot exert pressure on witnesses or victims, as the preliminary investigation is over, and that they will not abscond as they have no previous criminal record and are no danger to society, can not be accepted by the court, because at the present moment the trial has not yet started, and the court has not begun the examination of the evidence in the case, including the examination of witnesses and victims ...
In such circumstances the court does not find grounds for altering the custodial measure to a more lenient one ...” 28.  On 25 February 2005 Dzerzhinskiy District Court extended the applicant’s and his three co-defendants’ detention for three months, until 28 May 2005, even though the prosecution considered it no longer necessary:
“The defendants are charged with grave crimes punishable by long-term imprisonment. The custodial measure was applied [to them] after consideration of their personalities, health, family situation, existence of dependents, and the gravity of the crimes [with which they were charged]. No medical certificates indicating that the defendants cannot be detained in the remand prison for health reasons have been provided to the court.
The circumstances which prompted the application of the custodial measure have not changed so far. The defendants’ statements that they cannot exert pressure on witnesses and victims, as the majority of them have already been questioned by the court, and that they will not abscond as they have no previous criminal record and are not a danger to society, cannot be accepted by the court, because at the present moment the trial has not been completed and the court has not examined the evidence in full. The defendants’ maintaining their innocence ... cannot justify changing the custodial measure to a more lenient one, as the court is yet to assess the cumulative evidence and to reach a conclusion as to the defendants’ guilt or innocence ...” 29.  On 27 May 2005, having reiterated its previous reasoning, Dzerzhinskiy District Court extended the applicant’s and his three co‑defendants’ detention for another three months, until 28 June 2005. 30.  On 7 June 2005 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court convicted the applicant of fraud and forgery and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. The pronouncement of the judgment took four hours, from 8.30 p.m. to 00.30 a.m. the following day. The applicant’s and his co-defendants’ request to be allowed to sit down during the pronouncement of the judgment was turned down. 31.  On 4 October 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The court held that the applicant’s sentence should be suspended for two years, and the applicant placed on probation. 32.  On 5 October 2005 the applicant was released. 33.  According to the applicant, on the dates of the hearings he was woken up at 6 a.m., taken from his cell to the “waiting unit” or “assembly cell”, together with other detainees who had a hearing on that day, and later on taken to the convoy area of the court-house. The applicant had to wait in that area for long hours, sometimes until late in the afternoon, until called by the court. At night the convoy transferred him back to the remand prison, and he was again woken up early in the morning the following day to be taken to the court. He received no food on the days of his transfers to the courthouse, either at the remand prison or in the courthouse. 34.  According to the Government, the applicant was taken to the court‑house on the following dates:
Year:
Dates:
Scheduled time of hearings:
2004
21, 22, 25 and 28 June
10 a.m.
 
5 July
10 a.m.
 
14, 20 24, 27 and 28 September
10 a.m., 10 a.m., 11 a.m., 11 a.m. and 11 a.m. respectively
 
4, 19, 25, 26 October 2.30 p.m., 12 p.m., 11.30 a.m. and 12 p.m. respectively
 
9, 22 and 30 November
10 a.m., 11 a.m. and 11 a.m. respectively
 
20 December 10.30 a.m.
2005
31 January
10 a.m.
 
7, 8, 14 and 25 February
11 a.m., 3 p.m., 3 p.m. and 2 p.m. respectively
 
18, 28 and 29 March
11 a.m., 3 p.m. and 1 p.m. respectively
 
8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 April 12.20 p.m., 2 p.m., 12 p.m., 11 a.m., 11 a.m., 11 a.m., 10.30 a.m., 11 a.m. and 11 a.m. respectively
 
11, 12, 13, 17, 20, 27 May
12 p.m., 10.30 a.m., 12 p.m., 11.30 a.m., 12 p.m. and 11 a.m. respectively
 
3, 6 and 7 June 35.  The Government submitted that on the days of the applicant’s transfers to the court-house the applicant was woken up as usual at 6 a.m. As a rule, he was returned to the remand prison before 10 p.m. On the rare occasions when the applicant was returned to the remand prison after 10 p.m. he was allowed to sleep at any time during the next day. The Government were unable to submit information as to the exact time of the applicant’s arrivals at the remand prison from the court-house because the relevant documentation had been destroyed in 2006 and 2009 due to the expiry of the retention period, but they affirmed that the court’s working hours were from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. 36.  According to the Government, on the dates of the applicant’s transfers to the District Court he received dry rations (bread or dry biscuits, tinned first and second courses, sugar, tea, a plastic spoon and a plastic cup), in compliance with the applicable legal norms. In the “waiting unit” of the remand prison and the convoy area of the court the applicant was provided with hot water if he requested it. In support of their submissions the Government provided a certificate issued by the governor of IZ-34/1 on 12 October 2010 accompanied by two invoices (накладные) from the applicant’s remand prison record, dated 11 May and 20 May 2005 on provision of fifty-two dry rations and one dry ration respectively to detainees transported to the court-house on those dates.