5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Moscow. At the time of his arrest he was a high-ranking police officer, working in the Central Police Division for the Fight against Organised Crime. 6.  On 4 May 2001 the applicant was summonsed to the Moscow prosecutor's office for questioning. Following that interview he was arrested on suspicion of incitement to bribery and fraud and placed in the temporary confinement ward of the Moscow police department. 7.  Three days later a deputy Moscow prosecutor authorised the applicant's detention on remand. The detention order indicated that the applicant had been remanded on suspicion of having promised Mr A. that he would discontinue criminal proceedings against N. and to obtain his release from custody in exchange for a bribe. It was alleged that the applicant could re-offend, abscond or obstruct justice. 8.  On 11 May 2001 the applicant was transferred to detention facility no. 77/1 in Moscow. According to the applicant, police officers visited him on several occasions and pressed him to confess. After he refused to admit his guilt, he was placed in a punishment cell for six days. 9.  On 19 June 2001 the acting prosecutor of Moscow issued a new order, extending the applicant's detention until 3 September 2001.  The detention was subsequently extended on 27 August 2001 until 25 October 2001. The prosecutor provided similar reasons for both extensions: the applicant was charged with serious criminal offences and, if released, he could abscond and pervert the course of justice. 10.  In August 2001 the applicant was charged with abuse of position committed with the use of force and weapons. In October 2001 he was additionally charged with unlawful possession of weapons and aggravated bribery. 11.  On 16 October 2001 a deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation extended the applicant's detention until 25 December 2001. The grounds for the extension were similar to those in the detention orders of 19 June and 27 August 2001. 12.  On 8 October 2001 the applicant petitioned the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow for release. He argued that he had positive references, had received awards, had permanent residence in Moscow, was employed and had to take care of his mother, who was seriously ill. He did not intend to abscond or pervert the course of justice and his continued detention was therefore unnecessary. 13.  On 20 November 2001 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's request for release. The District Court held that, in view of the applicant's personality and the seriousness of the criminal offences with which he had been charged, his arrest and detention had been lawful. 14.  The decision of 20 November 2001 was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 18 December 2001. The City Court endorsed the District Court's reasoning. 15.  On 17 December 2001 the Prosecutor General authorised the applicant's detention until 4 April 2002, giving the same reasons as in the previous detention order of 16 October 2001. 16.  A week later the applicant complained to the Preobrazhenskiy District Court that the extension had been unlawful. He petitioned for release. 17.  On 31 January 2002 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court held that the extension order of 17 December 2001 had been lawful, taking into account “the seriousness of the offences with which the applicant was charged, his personality and the particular circumstances of the case”. There were no procedural violations and therefore no grounds for the applicant's release. 18.  On 20 March 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 31 January 2002. 19.  On 20 March 2002, having regard to the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the necessity to carry out certain investigatory activities, the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation extended the applicant's detention until 4 June 2002. 20.  The applicant appealed against the extension order to the District Court. 21.  On 10 April 2002 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court held, that having regard to the applicant's personality and the seriousness of the charges against him, the extension order had been lawful. 22.  The applicant appealed against that decision on the following day. 23.  On 28 May 2002 the Moscow City Court quashed the decision of 10 April 2002 because the applicant had not been served with the Prosecutor General's decision of 20 March 2002. The City Court remitted the matter for a fresh examination. 24.  On 6 June 2002 the applicant complained to the Preobrazhenskiy District Court that his request for release had not been considered. On 17 June 2002 he submitted the same complaint to the Moscow City Court. 25.  On 1 July 2002 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court discontinued the proceedings concerning the detention matter on the ground that the new Code of Criminal Procedure had entered into force.  On 4 July 2002 the District Court notified the applicant of its decision of 1 July 2002. 26.  On 22 May 2002 the applicant was informed that on 29 April 2002 the Prosecutor General had extended his detention until 4 August 2002. On the same day he lodged an appeal with the Preobrazhenskiy District Court. The applicant claims that he was twice brought to the District Court but the hearings were adjourned. 27.  According to the Government, the Preobrazhenskiy District Court listed two hearings which were adjourned because the applicant's lawyer defaulted. They further submitted that no decision on the merits of the applicant's complaint had been taken, but that on 1 July 2002 the District Court had discontinued the proceedings concerning the detention matter because the new Code of Criminal Procedure had entered into force. 28.  On 28 June 2002 the case was referred to the Moscow City Court for trial. 29.  On 12 July 2002 the Moscow City Court held a preliminary hearing and declared that the applicant's detention “should remain unchanged”. 30.  On 2 August 2002 the Moscow City Court returned the case to the prosecutor for correction of procedural defects in the bill of indictment. The City Court held that the applicant's detention “should remain unchanged”. 31.  The Moscow prosecutor and the representatives of the victims appealed against that decision to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.  At the same time the applicant's lawyer asked the Supreme Court to uphold the decision of 2 August 2002 in the part concerning the correction of procedural defects but to have the applicant released. 32.  On 9 October 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 2 August 2002, remitted the case to the Moscow City Court for trial and ordered that the applicant's detention “should remain unchanged”. The Supreme Court indicated that there were no grounds for release. 33.  On 28 November 2002 the Moscow City Court listed a preliminary hearing for 19 December 2002. The City Court, without indicating any reason or setting a time-limit, held that the applicant should remain in detention. 34.  That decision was quashed on appeal by the Supreme Court on 18 March 2003 due to certain procedural violations. The Supreme Court held that the applicant should remain in detention. No reasons were given. 35.  On 27 December 2002 the Moscow City Court extended the applicant's detention until 28 March 2003. The court held that he had been charged with extremely serious criminal offences and his detention should therefore be extended. 36.  The applicant appealed on the following day. On 18 March 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the Moscow City Court's decision. It held that, given that the applicant had been charged with serious offences and that the authorised period of his detention had expired, the Moscow City Court had made the correct decision. 37.  On 17 March 2003 the Moscow City Court held that the applicant's detention should be extended until 28 June 2003 because the applicant had been charged with serious offences. 38.  Two days later the applicant appealed against that decision. 39.  On 14 August 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the decision, finding that the applicant had been charged with serious criminal offences and that there were insufficient grounds for his release.
 6.  Request for release on 13 May 2003 40.  On 13 May 2003 the Moscow City Court held a preliminary trial hearing. At that hearing the applicant asked for release. The Moscow City Court listed the first trial hearing for 17 June 2003 and dismissed the request for release. The City Court noted that the applicant had been charged with serious offences and “the circumstances of the case suggested that he could pervert the course of justice”. 41.  On 23 May 2003 the applicant appealed against that decision. 42.  On 13 August 2003 the Supreme Court upheld that decision, noting the seriousness of the charges against the applicant as the reason for the dismissing the request for release. 43.  On 24 June 2003 the Moscow City Court held that, in view of the complexity of the case and the seriousness of the charges, the applicant's detention on remand should be extended until 28 September 2003. 44.  On 4 July 2003 the applicant appealed. 45.  On 4 September 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the Moscow City Court's decision, finding that the applicant had been charged with serious offences and that his arguments were not sufficient to secure his release. 46.  On the days of the hearings the applicant was usually woken up at 4.00 a.m. and taken to the courthouse, where he was kept for the entire day and then returned to the detention facility late at night. According to the applicant, he was not given any food or drink on such days. 47.  On 18 August 2003 the Moscow City Court found the applicant guilty of aggravated abuse of position, acquitted him of the other charges and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment. The applicant was prohibited from holding positions in State law enforcement bodies for three years. 48.  On 25 November 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment of 18 August 2003. 49.  On 30 December 2003 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant's release on licence.