5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and before his conviction lived in the Volgograd Region. 6.  On 28 March 2003 the Novoannenskiy District Court of Volgograd (“the District Court”) convicted the applicant of theft and robbery. The applicant was given a suspended sentence of four years’ imprisonment, conditional upon three years’ probation. 7.  On 1 December 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and manslaughter. 8.  On 3 December 2003 the District Court held that the applicant should be detained on remand. The court held as follows:
“The applicant is charged with two crimes, one of which is a grave crime representing a high risk of public danger. [He] had previously been convicted of a grave crime, and had not completed his sentence. All these crimes were committed by [the applicant] in a state of alcoholic intoxication. [The applicant] has no family, does not work, and abuses alcohol. [He] has no means of subsistence, which may result in his committing other crimes.
Having regard to the circumstances of the case, and the [applicant’s] personality, the court has grounds to believe that if not detained [the applicant] may continue his criminal activity, and abscond from the investigation and the court ...” 9.  On 27 December 2003 the pre-trial investigation was completed and charges were brought against the applicant under Articles 161 § 2 and 109 § 1 of the Criminal Code. 10.  On 1 January 2004 the Novoannenskiy District Prosecutor (“the District Prosecutor”) approved the bill of indictment. 11.  On 18 January 2004 the applicant applied to the District Court seeking to have the custodial measure replaced by an undertaking not to leave his place of residence. 12.  On 2 February 2004 the District Court, having repeated the reasoning applied on 3 December 2003 and having noted the absence of any grounds for altering the preventive measure, dismissed the applicant’s request. On 6 April 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the decision of 2 February 2004 on appeal. 13.  On 17 May 2004 the applicant’s criminal case was sent to the District Court for trial. 14.  On 1 June 2004 the District Court scheduled the opening date of the trial and ordered that the preventive measure should remain unchanged. 15.  On 15 June 2004 the District Court referred the case to the District Prosecutor in order to enable the applicant, his co-accused and the victims to study the case file. The court further held that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant should remain unchanged. 16.  On 28 June 2004 the District Prosecutor resubmitted the case to the District Court for trial. 17.  On 12 July 2004 the District Court scheduled the opening date of the trial and held that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant should remain unchanged. 18.  On 23 July 2004 the applicant submitted a written waiver of his right to legal representation. 19.  On 4 August 2004 the District Court convicted the applicant of robbery and manslaughter and, having taken into account the applicant’s previous sentence of 28 March 2003, sentenced him to four years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed. 20.  On 18 January 2005 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 4 August 2004 in so far as the charges of robbery were concerned, upheld the rest of the judgment on appeal and reduced the sentence to four years and one month’s imprisonment. 21.  Later the applicant brought proceedings seeking to have his conviction of 4 August 2004 reviewed in the light of newly-discovered circumstances. However, on 25 December 2007 the Regional Court in the final instance dismissed his request. 22.  On 11 July 2008 the District Court convicted the applicant of robbery and illegal possession of firearms and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment, conditional upon four years’ probation. 23.  The applicant appealed, but later withdrew his appeal. His subsequent attempt to have the judgment reviewed by way of supervisory review was unsuccessful. 24.  Following a request from the applicant, on 27 November 2007 the District Court recognised the applicant’s right to inherit after his mother’s death.