4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Saki. 5.  On 31 March 1994 the local prosecutors instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of military service evasion. On 20 January 1995 he was arrested. He remained in detention in the SIZO for three months. The applicant states that he was beaten and ill-treated by inmates and that, despite his cardiac diseases, he was not provided with proper medical examination while in detention. 6.  According to the documents provided by the Government, on 17 November 2001, following two remittals of the case for additional investigations, the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued. 7.  On 30 April 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Saki Court (“the court”) against the local prosecutors and the military enlistment office, seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to him by the allegedly unlawful prosecution. 8.  Between 10 January 1999 and 5 September 2001 the proceedings were suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. 9.  On 15 November 2001 the court discontinued the proceedings in part of the applicant’s claim for compensation for pecuniary damage as, pursuant to the legislation then in force, he should have sought compensation directly from the prosecutors, and rejected as unsubstantiated his claim in part of compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 10.  On 19 August 2002 the Crimea Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld the above judgment. 11.  On 10 October and 25 November 2002, respectively, the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation against the above decisions and a request for the renewal of the procedural time-limits for lodging it. 12.  Between 26 June 2003 and 8 April 2004 the case file remained in the Court of Appeal for unspecified reasons. 13.  On 29 April and 4 May 2004, respectively, the court renewed the procedural time-limits and sent the applicant’s appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court, which on 7 November 2006 rejected it as unsubstantiated. 14.  In the course of the proceedings one hearing was adjourned due to the applicant’s absence. Four times the courts requested the applicant to lodge his appeals in accordance with the procedural requirements. This delayed the proceedings by approximately four and a half months.