4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Lublin, Poland. 5.  On 3 January 1996 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 5 January 1996 the Lublin District Prosecutor charged the applicant with homicide and larceny and remanded him in custody. The prosecutor considered that the applicant's detention was necessary because there existed the danger of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses. In addition, the charges laid against the applicant carried a significant danger to society at large. 6.  On 22 February 1996 the applicant applied for release but on 23 February 1996 the prosecutor dismissed it. 7.  On 13 November 1996 the applicant was indicted before the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki). 8.  On 27 October, 8 and 10 December 1997 and 15 January and 25 February 1998 the Lublin Regional Court held hearings in the applicant's case. During those hearings the court extended the applicant's pre‑trial detention. 9.  On 31 March 1998 the Lublin Regional Court delivered a judgment in which it convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years' imprisonment. 10.  The applicant appealed against his conviction and on 13 August 1998 the Lublin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed his conviction and remitted the case to the Lublin Regional Court. 11.  On 15 September and 17 December 1998 the trial court held hearings. On 15 December 1998 the court again prolonged the applicant's detention relying on strong suspicion that the applicant committed the crime and on the gravity of charges. 12.  On 23 March 1999 the Lublin Regional Court extended the applicant's detention. The applicant appealed against this decision but his appeal was dismissed on 14 April 1999 by the Lublin Court of Appeal. The appellate court gave the following reasons for its decision:
“Marek Czarnecki is charged with murder for which Article 148 § 1 of the Criminal Code provides a prison term exceeding 8 years. Therefore, according to Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the pre-trial detention can be justified by the heavy sentence: in those circumstances it is not necessary to give other grounds for the continued pre-trial detention such as the risk of flight or obstructing the proper course of proceedings.
Furthermore, one cannot agree with the accused's submission that the evidence collected in his case does not make it probable that he committed the crime. The Court of Appeal quashed his conviction because there were errors in the proceedings before the court of first instance as a result of which it was impossible to make it 100% certain that the accused had committed the crime. The absolute certainty, which is necessary for a conviction, should be distinguished from a probability that the crime was committed.
The court is of the view that the evidence collected in the case shows that there is a significant probability that the accused committed the crime with which he is charged. Accordingly, the requirement of Article 249 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is fulfilled.
As there are no reasons for release from the pre-trial detention (259 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) it was necessary to decide as in the operative part.” 13.  The applicant appealed against the decision of 14 April 1999 but his appeal was rejected on 10 May 1999 by the President of the Lublin Court of Appeal because it was not provided by the law. The applicant filed a further appeal to the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) but on 18 August 1999 it rejected his appeal for the same reason. 14.  The applicant made a fresh application for release but it was dismissed on 14 September 1999 by the Lublin Regional Court. The court gave the following reasons for its decision:
“Marek Czarnecki is charged with the commission of a crime described in Article 148 § 1 of the Criminal Code. In his application he points to the prolonged criminal proceedings against him and the necessity to provide care for his parents.
The Regional Court is of the view that both arguments submitted by the accused should be dismissed. It is not the Regional Court's fault that the court proceedings are prolonged. Recently, it was the accused himself who torpedoed the proceedings which were to take place during the last hearing.
As for the difficult situation of the accused's parents, it is not that tragic since the accused's brother has recently moved out of their flat and he would not have done it if the situation had been worrying.
It should further be stated that a charge concerning the commission of a crime and a possible heavy prison sentence in themselves constitute grounds for pre‑trial detention.
Taking the above into consideration the Regional Court has not found any grounds for changing the preventive measure.” 15.  On 28 September 1999 the Lublin Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 30 December 1999. The Court gave the following reasons for its decision:
“Marek Czarnecki is charged with the commission of a crime which carries a prison sentence exceeding 8 years. The evidence collected in the case shows that there is a significant probability that the accused has committed the crime with which he is charged. Taking the above into consideration and the lack of the grounds listed in Article 259 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as the necessity to secure the proper conduct of the court proceedings it was decided as in the operative part.” 16.  In 1999 the trial court held several hearings at which it heard witnesses. 17.  On 25 April, 12 September and 28 December 2000 as well as on 25 March, 29 May and 7 August 2001 the Lublin Regional Court further prolonged the applicant's detention repeating reasons for the detention previously given. 18.  The applicant's numerous appeals and applications for release were unsuccessful. 19.  It appears that at the hearing held on 10 September 2001 the prosecutor dropped the charges of homicide against the applicant. 20.  On 10 September 2001 the Lublin Regional Court gave judgment. It acquitted the applicant of homicide, convicted him of larceny and sentenced him to one year and six months' imprisonment. On the same date the applicant was released from the detention. 21.  Between 27 February and 18 May 1997 the applicant served a prison sentence resulting from a conviction in another case.