4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Jelgava. 5.  On 4 October 1999 two bodies (male and female) were found in a lake in Garkalne parish, near Rīga. 6.  On 8 October 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. Several other persons, namely, V.U., A.V. and A.C. (“the co-accused”), were arrested in connection with the same criminal proceedings. They were released on 11 October 1999 on an undertaking not to change their places of residence. 7.  On 9 October 1999 the applicant was questioned by the police and he provided his version of the events. 8.  On 11 October 1999 a judge of the Rīga District Court (Rīgas rajona tiesa) authorised the applicant’s detention for two months. 9.  On 9 November 1999 the applicant was repeatedly questioned and maintained his version of the events. In addition, he confessed to having murdered the male victim but not the female. 10.  On 6 December 1999 the same judge extended the applicant’s detention until 31 January 2000. 11.  On 27 January and 22 March 2000 another judge of the Rīga Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 31 March and 31 May 2000 respectively. 12.  On 27 April 2000 the preliminary investigation was completed and the applicant started to acquaint himself with the case materials. He finished on 17 May 2000. 13.  On 18 May 2000 the final charge was brought against the applicant and the co-accused and the case was sent to the Rīga Regional Court, where it was received the next day. 3.  The applicant’s detention between 24 May 2000 and 15 September 2003 (the trial stage)
(a)  The detention between 24 May 2000 and 1 November 2002 14.  On 24 May 2000 the applicant and the co-accused persons were committed for trial and the first hearing was scheduled for November 2001. The preventive measures – the applicant’s detention and the co-accused’s undertaking not to change their places of residence – remained unchanged, as the judge considered them to have been duly applied in view of the severity of the crimes and the personalities of the accused. The applicant was not brought before the court. 15.  During this period the order for applicant’s detention was not reviewed.
(b)  Detention between 1 November 2002 and 15 September 2003
(i)  On the basis of the court order of 1 November 2002 16.  In view of the forthcoming amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure to the effect that detention beyond one year and six months following committal for trial was not allowed save for in exceptional circumstances (see Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 63, ECHR 2006‑III (extracts)), the Rīga Regional Court forwarded the case to the Senate of the Supreme Court to decide on the issue of the applicant’s further detention. 17.  On 1 November 2002 in a preparatory meeting the Senate extended the applicant’s detention until 30 April 2003 on the ground that he was accused of having committed an especially serious crime with violence and in order to ensure that the proceedings would not be hindered. The applicant was not brought before the court. 18.  In the meantime, on 18 October 2002, the applicant applied to the Rīga Regional Court with a view to being released given the fact that he had already been detained for more than two years and four months (following his committal for trial) and the trial date had not yet been scheduled. He asked for the preventive measure imposed on him to be changed from detention either to an undertaking not to change his place of residence or to police supervision. 19.  On 6 November 2002 the judge of the Rīga Regional Court replied to the applicant in a letter that there were no grounds for his release. The judge merely referred to the amended section 77, paragraph 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to the fact that on 1 November 2002 the Senate of the Supreme Court had extended his detention until 30 April 2003. No other reasons were given.
(ii)  On the basis of the court order of 13 March 2003 20.  On 13 March 2003 the Senate, following an application lodged by the Rīga Regional Court, extended the applicant’s detention until 15 November 2003. In its relevant part, the decision reads:
“The criminal case was received at the Rīga Regional Court on 19 May 2000 and [the applicant] was committed for trial on 24 May 2000; the preventive measure – detention – remained unchanged. With the decision of 1 November 2002 taken by the Supreme Court in its preparatory meeting [the applicant’s] detention was extended until 30 April 2003. The judge of the Rīga Regional Court has submitted an application, which shows that the first-instance court will not be able to examine the case by that date because [the applicant] was ordered to undergo a forensic psychiatric and psychological examination. The judge is asking for an extension of his detention until 15 November 2003.
Having examined the case materials and the judge’s application, the Criminal Department of the Senate confirms that, exceptionally, it is possible to extend [the applicant’s] detention. [The applicant] is accused of having committed an especially serious crime with violence. There are no guarantees that the applicant, if released, will not evade the trial or continue illegal activities. Therefore, on the above-mentioned grounds and in accordance with section 77, paragraph 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Criminal Department of the Senate decides: to extend the applicant’s detention until 15 November 2003. No appeal can be lodged against this decision.” 21.  On 14 March 2003 the Criminal Department of the Senate of the Supreme Court informed the applicant that his detention had been extended until 15 November 2003 and that no appeal lay against that decision. 22.  In reply to a letter from the applicant with unspecified contents, on 30 July 2003 the judge informed that he had replied on 6 November 2002 to the applicant’s request for release. 23.  In reply to several letters from the applicant with unspecified contents, on 19 August 2003 another judge of the Rīga Regional Court informed the applicant that he could not receive copies of his letters to that court under the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the same time, she sent the applicant a copy of her colleague’s letter of 6 November 2002 (see paragraph 19 above). 24.  On 15 September 2003 the Rīga Regional Court, acting as a court of first instance, convicted the applicant (see paragraph 30 below). 25.  In the meantime, on 25 May 2000 the applicant confessed that he had stolen a car in January or February 1999. Another set of criminal proceedings against the applicant were opened in that connection. 26.  On 10 November 2000 the preliminary investigation was completed and on 25 November 2000 the final charge was brought against the applicant in that regard. On 30 November 2000 the case was sent to the Rīga Regional Court for adjudication. 27.  On 4 December 2000 the applicant was committed for trial and the first hearing was scheduled for November 2001. No preventive measure was ordered for the applicant as he was already detained for the purposes of the criminal proceedings concerning the murder charge. The judge noted in the decision that the criminal proceedings concerning the theft charge would be joined to the first proceedings at a later stage. 28.  The criminal proceedings concerning the murder and theft charges were joined on 24 February 2003. 29.  On 21 and 24 February 2003 the Rīga Regional Court held the first hearings in the applicant’s criminal case. On the latter date the criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s murder and theft charges were joined. On the same date the court ordered the applicant to undergo a forensic psychiatric and psychological examination. 30.  On 15 September 2003 the Rīga Regional Court convicted the applicant of aggravated murder on two counts and aggravated theft on two counts and sentenced him to life imprisonment. One of the co-accused, V.U., was convicted of aggravated murder on one count. 31.  On 13 February 2004, on an appeal by the applicant, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld and re-qualified his conviction to one count of aggravated (double) murder and upheld the conviction of aggravated theft on two counts. The applicant’s sentence was reduced to twenty-one years of imprisonment. 32.  On 25 October 2004 the applicant’s appeal on points of law was rejected in a preparatory meeting of the Criminal Department of the Senate of the Supreme Court.