7.  On 17 August 1999 a burglary was committed and, among other items, a television and a video recorder were stolen. 8.  A preliminary investigation was opened against two other suspects on 17 August 1999 and against the applicant on 28 August 1999. On the same day the applicant confessed to having committed five burglaries with his accomplices between 29 January and 20 August 1999. 9.  On 31 August 1999 the applicant was charged with committing burglary on 17 August 1999 with his accomplices. 10.  The applicant gave another four statements to the investigator confessing to the other burglaries and providing additional information on how they had been perpetrated. 11.  On 17 September 1999 the preliminary investigation into the burglary of 17 August 1999 was joined to the preliminary investigations into the other four burglaries. 12.  On 7 October 1999 the charges against the applicant were amended to include the other four burglaries. 13.  The preliminary investigation was concluded on 15 October 1999 and on 21 December 1999 the Pazardzhik district public prosecutor’s office issued an indictment against the applicant and his two accomplices for the five burglaries. 14.  The Pazardzhik District Court conducted eleven hearings in the case, the last of which was held on 30 September 2004. 15.  The Court has not been informed of any subsequent developments in or of the outcome of these proceedings. 16.  On 26 August 1999 the police, with the approval of the public prosecutor’s office, searched the apartment in which the applicant and one of his accomplices had been living. The applicant had been renting the said apartment under a lease dated 2 March 1999. 17.  The search and seizure protocol indicates that the search was conducted in the presence of two witnesses. Various items were seized including three cameras, a hi-fi system, a dining set, gloves and a wrench. 18.  On 28 August 1999, under an order issued by an investigator and approved by the public prosecutor’s office, the applicant was arrested and detained for twenty-four hours beginning at 5 p.m. The grounds for his detention were that he was suspected of having committed the burglary on 17 August 1999 because the stolen television and a wrench that had allegedly been used to perpetrate the offence had been found in his apartment, and he had attempted to abscond. 19.  On 29 August 1999 the public prosecutor’s office extended the applicant’s preliminary detention for another two days until 5 p.m. on 31 August 1999. 20.  The applicant was placed in pre-trial detention as part of the decision of 31 August 1999 to charge him and his accomplices with the burglary on 17 August 1999 (see paragraph 9 above). That decision was issued by an investigator and was confirmed later in the day by the public prosecutor’s office. In ordering the applicant’s pre-trial detention, the investigator referred to his alleged lack of a permanent address, the fact that he had committed a number of other burglaries and, in general terms, the risk that he might abscond, re-offend or obstruct the investigation. 21.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was confirmed in the decision of 7 October 1999 to amend the charges against him (see paragraph 12 above). That decision was issued by an investigator without any indication that it was subsequently confirmed by the public prosecutor’s office. In ordering the applicant’s pre-trial detention, the investigator referred to the lack of a permanent address, the fact that he had committed a number of other burglaries and, in general terms, his personality, the gravity of the offences and the risk that he might abscond. 22.  The report of 15 October 1999 concluding the preliminary investigation (see paragraph 13 above) indicated that the applicant was in pre-trial detention. 23.  In his submissions to the Court, the applicant stated that he had appealed against the decision to order pre-trial detention on 8 October 1999. In his appeal, he had argued, inter alia, that there was no risk of him obstructing the investigation as it had effectively been completed, that he had made a full confession, that he had a permanent address and that his detention had not been ordered by a court, in violation of the Convention. In his submissions to the Court, the applicant further claimed that, because of a delay in scheduling a hearing for the examination of his appeal, on 18 October 1999 he had filed a complaint to that effect with the Supreme Judicial Council and the Ministry of Justice. This purportedly led to a hearing being scheduled for the very next day, 19 October 1999, to which the applicant was summoned at very short notice, while his counsel had found out about it only by chance and had not had time to prepare for the hearing or to call witnesses. 24.  The Government, on the other hand, presented the Court with a copy of the applicant’s appeal dated by the Pazardzhik District Investigation Service as having been deposited only on 18 October 1999. 25.  On 19 October 1999 the appeal was examined by the District Court, which dismissed it on the grounds, inter alia, of the applicant’s prior criminal record and lack of employment, the gravity of the offences and the fact that he did not appear to have a permanent address, as he had been living in rented apartments in different cities and could not provide the permanent address of his next of kin. 26.  On 5 November 1999 the applicant filed another appeal against his detention and requested that bail be set. He maintained that his continued detention was in violation of the Convention, that he had a permanent address and that there was no risk that he would abscond, obstruct the investigation or re-offend. 27.  A report from the Pazardzhik Prison governor dated 9 November 1999 was presented to the District Court which certified that the applicant had thus far been detained for a period of two months and twelve days calculated from 28 August to 10 November 1999. 28.  The District Court examined the applicant’s appeal on 10 November 1999. At the hearing the applicant presented a copy of his rental agreement and called a witness, who informed the court that he would put the applicant up and pay his bail. Taking this into account, the District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered his release on bail of 400 Bulgarian levs. The release was to be effected once a recognizance had been provided. In reaching its decision the court referred, inter alia, to the fact that the applicant had been rehabilitated in respect of his previous convictions, that he had an address at which he could be contacted and that there was insufficient evidence that he might abscond, obstruct the investigation or re-offend. As evidenced by a bank receipt, the recognizance was deposited on 22 December 1999. 29.  The indictment of 21 December 1999 (see paragraph 13 above) indicated that the applicant had been in pre-trial detention since 31 August 1999 and that recognizance had still not been provided. 30.  A communiqué from the Pazardzhik Prison governor, dated 27 December 1999, was sent to the District Court to certify that the applicant had been released on 21 December 1999. However, the original text of the communiqué indicated 22 December as the release date which had been changed to 21 December by hand. 31.  The applicant said that he had been detained at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility from 28 August to 31 October 1999 where the cells were small, overcrowded and below street level. There was no natural light or fresh air and a strong, unbearable smell in the cells. Quite often there were rodents and cockroaches. A bucket was provided for sanitary needs. There was no hot water or soap. The applicant was not allowed out of his cell for exercise. The food provided was of insufficient quantity and substandard. The applicant was not allowed to read newspapers or books.
(b)  Pazardzhik Prison 32.  The applicant stated that he was detained at the Pazardzhik Prison for about two months from 1 November 1999 onwards where the conditions were slightly better than in the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility. Similarly, though, the food was insufficient and of the same inferior quality; the cells were small and overcrowded; the light was poor and a bucket was provided for sanitary needs. Limited exercise was provided in the prison yard.
(c)  Declaration 33.  The applicant’s description of the conditions at the above facilities is corroborated by the signed declaration of another detainee, Mr R. Dobrev. 34.  On 18 April 1998 the applicant was arrested in a block of flats in the town of Montana where a burglary had been committed. He was questioned by the police and released. 35.  At the time, the applicant was living in Montana and so was able to give the authorities his address in that town. In the summer of 1998 he moved to Plovdiv. 36.  On 11 February 1999 the authorities opened a preliminary investigation against the applicant in relation to the burglary in Montana. 37.  On 15 October 1999 the authorities charged the applicant with the burglary in Montana and ordered that he be placed in pre-trial detention. The decision was issued by an investigator and confirmed later in the day by the public prosecutor’s office. In ordering the applicant’s pre-trial detention, the investigator referred to his “personality”. As the authorities were unable to find the applicant at his Montana address, an arrest warrant for his detention was issued on the same day, 15 October 1999. 38.  The preliminary investigation in relation to the burglary in Montana was suspended on 18 October 1999. 39.  On 23 May 2000 the applicant was arrested in Plovdiv on the basis of the Montana arrest warrant. He was then transferred to the Montana Regional Investigation Service. 40.  The preliminary investigation in relation to the burglary in Montana was resumed on 29 May 2000. It is unclear when the applicant was formally charged. 41.  The preliminary investigation was completed on an unspecified date and on 5 June 2000 the investigator in charge forwarded the case file to the public prosecutor’s office with a recommendation for the applicant to be indicted for the burglary in Montana. 43.  In a decision of 22 June 2000 the Montana Regional Court found in favour of the applicant and released him on condition that he did not leave his place of residence without the authorisation of the public prosecutor’s office. The decision became final and the applicant was released on 26 June 2000. 44.  On 11 September 2000 the Montana district public prosecutor’s office discontinued the preliminary investigation against the applicant in respect of the Montana burglary for lack of evidence. The restriction imposed on the applicant not to leave his place of residence without the authorisation of the public prosecutor’s office was also lifted. 45.  The decision of the public prosecutor’s office was confirmed by the Montana District Court on 21 September 2000. 46.  The applicant was detained at the Montana Regional Investigation Service detention facility from 23 May to 26 June 2000. 47.  He described the cells as overcrowded and lacking natural light and fresh air. The food was of insufficient quantity and substandard. He was not allowed to read newspapers or books or to go out of his cell for exercise.