5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Comyshany, Ukraine. 6.  On 24 May 2006 the applicant was arrested in Chişinău on charges of possession of false identity papers. After a search of his girlfriend’s apartment, where he lived, the police discovered, inter alia, false identity papers with the applicant’s and his girlfriend’s photos and blank identity papers. Later, as the criminal investigation progressed, the applicant was also charged with the offence of being a member and head of a criminal gang specialised in the forgery of documents and trafficking in persons and the police identified approximately thirty different cases of forged documents and trafficking. 7.  The applicant was placed in detention and was periodically taken to a court where his detention was extended for periods of thirty days until 7 January 2007. The reasons for keeping the applicant in custody were that he was accused of a serious offence and there was a risk of him absconding because he was a foreigner who had no permanent residence and no family in Moldova. Moreover, there was a risk that he might tamper with the investigation of the case and re-offend. All his habeas corpus requests based on the lack of evidence and reasons in support of detention were dismissed. 8.  On 7 January 2007, upon the expiry of the period of his detention provided for in the latest detention order, the applicant requested to be released but to no avail. On 9 January 2007 the applicant was taken to a court where a judge extended his detention for ninety days. The applicant challenged the court order and on 17 January 2007 the Court of Appeal quashed the lower court’s decision and ordered the applicant’s release. The court found that the reasons for the applicant’s continued detention were still valid; however, in view of his detention contrary to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention between 7 and 9 January 2007, he was to be released. 9.  On 9 February 2007 during a hearing in the criminal proceedings, the prosecutor requested again that the applicant be remanded in custody in view, inter alia, of the risk of his absconding. The court upheld the prosecutor’s request and ordered the applicant’s detention. According to the applicant, he challenged that decision on the same day. According to the stamp applied by the court on the appeal application, the decision was challenged three days later. 10.  On 16 February 2007 the applicant’s appeal was scheduled to be examined by the Court of Appeal. However, the panel of judges in charge of the case decided to withdraw from the case on grounds of lack of objective impartiality in view of the fact that they had previously examined the applicant’s appeal and had ordered his release. A new panel of judges was appointed. 11.  On 21 February 2007 the new panel of judges of the Court of Appeal ruled on the applicant’s appeal, quashed the decision of the lower court and ordered the applicant’s release. After his release the applicant fled Moldova, allegedly for Ukraine, and has not returned to date. 12.  During his detention the applicant was held in three detention facilities: between 24 May and 2 August 2006 and between 23 August and 6 September 2006 in the detention facility of the General Directorate for Fighting Corruption and Organised Crime of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“GDFOC”), between 2 and 23 August 2006 and between 6 September 2006 and 17 January 2007 in Prison no. 13 and between 9 and 21 February 2007 in the detention facility of the Chişinău General Police Department. The applicant states that the cells in all the detention facilities were overcrowded, infested with vermin, the food was of poor quality, the inmates were allowed to take showers only once a week for two minutes and had walks of 15-20 minutes two or three times per week. The Government disputed the applicant’s allegations about the poor conditions of his detention. 13.  On 15 June 2007 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to seventeen years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal against the sentence and alleges to have learned about it from the Government’s observations.