7.  On 9 December 1998 a woman was raped in the city of Pazardzhik. She lodged a complaint on the same day and identified the applicant as the perpetrator. 8.  A search of the room where the applicant’s uncle lived, which was purportedly the place where the applicant had had sexual intercourse with the victim, was performed on an unspecified date. 9.  The applicant was arrested on 10 December 1998. 10.  On 11 December 1998 a preliminary investigation was opened against the applicant for the offence of rape perpetrated by the use of force and after threatening the victim, an offence for which he had already been convicted. He was also placed in pre-trial detention. 11.  On 14 December 1998 the applicant was charged with one count of rape and remanded in custody. 12.  The applicant’s uncle was questioned on 15 December 1998. 13.  On 1 April 1999 the district prosecutor’s office entered an indictment against the applicant with the Pazardzhik District Court on one count of rape. 14.  It is unclear how many hearings were conducted before the District Court. 15.  On 1 January 2000 amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974 (“the CCP”) regarding the detention regime entered into force. 16.  On 17 February 2000 the District Court remitted the case to the investigation stage. It found that it could not render a judgment because it had established that the applicant had had sexual intercourse with the victim on two separate occasions on the day in question and that the case could therefore involve two counts of rape rather than one. However, the indictment against the applicant concerned only one count of rape and it was apparently unclear to which instance of sexual intercourse it referred. The District Court considered that this ambiguity in the indictment might violate the applicant’s right to mount a proper defence and remitted the case to the investigation for correction of this discrepancy. 17.  The applicant contended that no investigative procedures were conducted after 2003. The Government did not dispute that contention. 18.  On an unspecified date a revised indictment was entered against the applicant with the District Court. 19.  As at the date of the applicant’s last communication to the Court of 15 July 2006 the case was still pending before the District Court. 20.  The applicant was arrested at 5.30 p.m. on 10 December 1998 and detained for twenty-four hours. 21.  He was placed in pre-trial detention on 11 December 1998 by an order issued by an investigator. The applicant’s detention was confirmed later on the same day by the Pazardzhik district prosecutor’s office, which extended the period of preliminary detention to three days. 22.  On 14 December 1998, by an order issued by an investigator and confirmed by the Pazardzhik district prosecutor’s office, the applicant was charged with one count of rape and remanded in custody. When remanding the applicant in custody the investigator cited, inter alia, his previous convictions and the ongoing investigation against him. 23.  On 21 December 1998 the applicant lodged his first appeal against his detention. It was dismissed by the District Court on 28 December 1998 on the ground, inter alia, that the applicant was charged with a serious offence and, more generally, that he might abscond, obstruct the investigation or reoffend. 24.  On 17 February 1999 the Pazardzhik regional prosecutor’s office extended the deadline for completing the preliminary investigation by thirty days and confirmed the applicant’s pre-trial detention without citing any grounds. 25.  On 30 September 1999 the applicant lodged another appeal against his detention, which the District Court dismissed on 8 November 1999, citing, inter alia, the nature of the perpetrated offence, the applicant’s personality and his purported criminal tendencies. 26.  On 18 February 2000 the applicant petitioned the district prosecutor’s office seeking his immediate release due to the expiration of the statutory maximum period of pre-trial detention, which in his case was one year. He claimed that with the entry into force of the amendments to the CCP and the decision of the District Court to remit the case, he had spent more than one year in pre-trial detention and should therefore be released immediately as required by the amended CCP. 27.  In a decision of 21 February 2000 the district prosecutor’s office refused to release the applicant. It found that the statutory maximum period of pre-trial detention, which in the applicant’s case was one year, had not expired and considered that only the period from 14 December 1998 to 31 March 1999 should be considered as pre-trial detention because the remaining period of his detention had been during the trial phase of the proceedings. On that basis the district prosecutor’s office considered that the applicant had been in pre-trial detention only three months and seventeen days, which did not warrant his release. 28.  On appeal on an undetermined date, the decision of the district prosecutor’s office was upheld by the regional prosecutor’s office, also on an unspecified date. 29.  On 22 February 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal with the District Court against his detention. He claimed that it had exceeded the statutory maximum period of pre-trial detention and requested that the measure for securing his appearance in court be amended. 30.  In a decision of 24 February 2000 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against his detention as it found that his detention had not exceeded the statutory maximum period of pre-trial detention, as this did not include the time during which the case had been pending before the domestic courts. It also referred to the fact that the applicant had a previous conviction for the same offence, which justified his continued detention. On 25 February 2000 the applicant appealed against that decision. 31.  In a decision of 2 March 2000 the Pazardzhik Regional Court dismissed the appeal by the applicant against his detention and upheld the lower court’s decision on grounds similar to those of the District Court. 32.  On 9 March 2000 the applicant again petitioned the district prosecutor’s office for his immediate release due to the expiration of the statutory maximum period of pre-trial detention. 33.  In a decision of 16 March 2000 the district prosecutor’s office refused to release the applicant on grounds similar to those in its decision of 21 February 2000. On the same day the applicant appealed against the decision to the regional prosecutor’s office and requested that the measure for securing his appearance in court be amended. 34.  In a decision of 30 March 2000 the regional prosecutor’s office found partially in favour of the applicant. It considered that in calculating whether the statutory maximum period of pre-trial detention had been exceeded, the whole period of the applicant’s detention should be taken into account. Accordingly, the regional prosecutor’s office found that in the case of the applicant that period had been exceeded as, at that time, he had already been in detention for more than fifteen months as of 14 December 1998. However, the regional prosecutor’s office did not order the applicant’s immediate release but changed the measure for securing his appearance in court to bail in the amount of 1,500 Bulgarian levs (BGN) (approximately 760 euros) and ordered that he be released subject to the provision of a recognizance. 35.  On 6 April 2000 the applicant appealed against the decision of the regional prosecutor’s office. He contended that the prosecutor’s office, upon establishing that the statutory maximum period of pre-trial detention had been exceeded, should have ordered his immediate release and that it did not have the power to subject it to the provision of a recognizance. In addition, the applicant claimed that the amount of the bail was too high and that his lack of income and assets had not been taken into account. 36.  On 13 April 2000 the Plovdiv appellate public prosecutor’s office found partly in favour of the applicant. It took into account that he and his parents lacked sufficient assets and lowered the bail to BGN 1,000 (approximately 505 euros). However, the appellate public prosecutor’s office did not order the applicant’s release as it found that his continued detention, pending the provision of a recognizance, was lawful. 37.  Both the applicant and the district prosecutor’s office appealed against this decision. The applicant’s appeal was received by the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office on 2 May 2000. 38.  In response to the appeal lodged by the district public prosecutor’s office, the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office gave a decision on 17 August 2000 upholding the decision of the appellate public prosecutor’s office of 13 April 2000. 39.  The Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office never responded to the appeal lodged by the applicant. Therefore, on 12 September 2000 the applicant lodged a request with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office for the public prosecutor’s office to examine and respond to his appeal of 2 May 2000. He received no response to his request. 40.  In the meantime, following the decision of 16 March 2000 of the district public prosecutor’s office, the applicant lodged an appeal with the District Court on 22 March 2000 against his detention. He once again argued that his detention had exceeded the statutory maximum period of pre-trial detention and requested that the measure for securing his appearance in court be amended. 41.  In a decision of 28 March 2000 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as it found that his detention had not exceeded the statutory maximum period of pre-trial detention because this did not include the time during which the case was pending before the courts. In addition, it considered that there was still a danger that the applicant might abscond or reoffend but did not cite any specific evidence in that respect. 42.  On 29 September 2000 the applicant lodged another appeal with the District Court against his detention and requested that it order his release due to the expiration of the statutory maximum period of pre-trial detention. He maintained that his continued detention was unlawful, that the set bail was unreasonably high – as evidenced by his inability to deposit it for more than six months – and that there was a danger that his detention could, as a result, continue indefinitely. 43.  On 5 October 2000 the District Court rejected the applicant’s appeal. It found that his appeal lacked legal grounds in so far as there was no longer an order for the applicant’s detention, but bail had been set. The court argued, therefore, that the applicant had nothing to appeal against and considered his continued detention as irrelevant to the proceedings before it. 44.  On 9 October 2000 the applicant appealed against the decision of the District Court. He relied, inter alia, on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention and argued that the courts had an obligation to rule on his appeal against his continued detention. 45.  On 12 October 2000 the Regional Court rejected the appeal on grounds similar to those of the District Court, whereby it found that in so far as the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been changed to bail it could no longer examine an appeal against his detention. It considered that only the public prosecutor’s office was competent to rule on the question of his continued detention. 46.  On 3 November 2000 the applicant was released on bail after entering into the required recognizance. 47.  Between 10 December 1998 and 4 March 1999 the applicant was detained at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility. From 4 March 1999 to his release on 3 November 2000 he was detained at the Pazardzhik Prison. 48.  The applicant contended that he was held in four different cells during his detention in the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility. The first, in which he spent two days, measured ten square metres and had four wooden beds, only one of which was occupied. The second, where the applicant was held for about fifteen days, was the same size but had only three wooden beds. In both cells there was insufficient fresh air and natural light. The third and fourth cells measured approximately six square metres. The applicant remained in the third cell until approximately twenty days before his transfer to the Pazardzhik Prison, when he was moved to the fourth cell. Both of these cells were without windows and lacked fresh air. 49.  The bed sheets in the cells were dirty, old and torn. There were no mattresses. Often there were lice, fleas, cockroaches and mice. 50.  The applicant had to use a bucket for his sanitary needs, the contents of which were thrown away each morning and evening. As a result, the air was stale and there was a strong stench. 51.  The applicant was allowed to wash for five minutes in the morning and evening. He bathed and shaved once a week, usually with cold water. 52.  Every twenty-four hours the applicant was given five hundred grams of bread which was often gnawed by mice. The food was insufficient and substandard. No cutlery was provided and the food was served in dirty plastic dishes. 53.  The applicant was not allowed out of his cell for exercise, nor could he read newspapers, books, magazines, listen to the radio or maintain active correspondence. 54.  Following his transfer to the Pazardzhik Prison, the applicant was placed in a cell with seven wooden beds, measuring twenty-four square metres. There were electric radiators in the cell, but it was still very cold in winter because the two windows, each fifty centimetres by a hundred centimetres, were badly insulated. Sometimes there were mice and cockroaches in the cell. There was a separate toilet in the cell with running water, but its windows were broken and it was very cold in winter. 55.  Initially, the food was of the same inferior quality as that in the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility. Sometime in 2000 the food improved somewhat even though the daily bread ration remained the same, which the applicant considered insufficient. At the same time, the daily exercise in the prison yard was increased from an hour and fifteen minutes to two hours. 56.  The applicant had access to newspapers, but not to radio or television. Access to a phone was provided and the applicant could maintain active correspondence. Visits by relatives of the applicant were permitted twice a month and he could meet with his lawyer. 57.  The applicant maintained that the medical services provided in the Pazardzhik Prison were inadequate; that he had heart-related complaints which were incorrectly treated by a psychiatrist rather than being referred to a specialist; and that he suffered from a broken arm which was improperly diagnosed and treated. 58.  Following his release on 3 November 2000 the applicant was hospitalised between 6 and 11 November 2000 with heart-related complaints. He was diagnosed with an “ischemic heart condition”. 59.  The applicant’s contentions in respect of the conditions of detention at the above detention facilities are corroborated by a signed statement from another detainee, Mr B.B. The latter was detained at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility during February 1999 in a cell separate from that of the applicant. He was later transferred, on an unspecified date, to the Pazardzhik Prison where he shared a cell with the applicant.