9.  The applicant, Mr Vladimir Ivanov Hristov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Plovdiv. 10.  The applicant was arrested on 10 September 1993 on charges that he had used forged documents in order to obtain unlawfully an excise tax refund in the amount of 15,855,800 Bulgarian levs (the equivalent of 615,175 US dollars at the relevant time). The applicant had acted in concert with three other persons all of whom later submitted applications raising complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention (see Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001, and the cases of Mihov v. Bulgaria, no. 35519/97, and Al Akidi v. Bulgaria, no. 35825/97). 11.  The charges preferred against the applicant were based on Article 212 § 4 of the Penal Code, which provided for a sentence of ten to twenty years’ imprisonment. The accusations concerned alleged false certification of fictitious exports of consignments of cigarettes which in reality had been sold in the country. 12.  On 5 April 1994 the preliminary investigation was completed and an indictment was submitted to the Plovdiv Regional Court. The prosecution relied on 33 witnesses and voluminous documentary material. 13.  The Plovdiv Regional Court sat as a chamber of three judges: a president who was a professional judge and two lay judges. 14.  The first hearing took place on 12 and 13 May 1994 when the Regional Court heard the four co-accused and several witnesses. Some of the witnesses did not appear. The prosecutor and the defence lawyers requested leave to submit further evidence. The court adjourned the hearing. On 16 May 1994 the court, sitting in private, appointed a graphology expert. 15.  Several times during the proceedings the Regional Court had to wait for the case file to be returned by the Supreme Court in Sofia, where it had been sent for the examination of the appeals submitted by the applicant and his co-accused against the Regional Court’s refusals to release them on bail. In practice, whenever such an appeal was submitted, the Plovdiv Regional Court transmitted the case file together with the appeal and a prosecutor’s opinion. 16.  The case file was sent to the Supreme Court on 28 May 1994 for one of the co-accused’s appeal against detention to be examined and was returned on 30 June 1994. 17.  The Regional Court did not deal with the case until 13 September 1994, when the presiding judge ordered the production of a piece of evidence. 18.  The trial resumed on 6 October 1994. The court heard several witnesses and adjourned the hearing as the prosecutor insisted on the examination of other witnesses who had not appeared and in order to enable the accused persons to submit further evidence. Some of the witnesses who had not appeared were ordered to pay fines. 19.  The next trial hearing took place on 29 and 30 November 1994. The financial expert appointed by the court stated that he had been denied access to certain documents and therefore had not finalised his report. The court ordered a bank and the customs office to provide access to the documents in question. Two additional financial experts were also appointed. Both the prosecution and the defence sought to adduce additional evidence. The hearing was adjourned. 20.  Between 20 January and 21 February 1995 the case file was in Sofia at the Supreme Court for the examination of appeals against detention. 21.  The hearing listed for 19 April 1995 was adjourned as the presiding judge was ill. 22.  The next hearing, scheduled for 9 June 1995, was adjourned as one of the lay judges had been taken ill. 23.  On 12 July 1995 the court sitting in private ordered an expert report. 24.  The hearing listed for 21 September 1995 was adjourned owing to the illness of the lawyer of one of the co-accused. The court also observed that several witnesses had not been summoned properly and that others, albeit summoned, had not appeared. 25.  Between 3 October and 6 November 1995 the case file was in Sofia at the Supreme Court, which was examining appeals against detention. 26.  The next hearing, listed for 12 January 1996, had to be adjourned as both lay judges were ill. 27.  After learning that the lay judges were prevented by illness from further participation in the proceedings, on 19 February 1996 the Plovdiv Regional Court recommenced the examination of the case with two new lay judges. On that date the court appointed two additional experts. 28.  The new chamber of the court held a hearing on 26 and 27 March 1996. It heard several witnesses and experts. The hearing was adjourned as some of the witnesses had not been summoned due to an omission on the part of the court’s clerk and because the parties sought to adduce further evidence. The court fixed the date for the next hearing to 7 and 8 May 1996. 29.  On 7 and 8 May 1996 the court heard several witnesses and an expert. The hearing was adjourned as further evidence had to be obtained. 30.  Between 9 and 28 May 1996 the case file was at the Supreme Court in Sofia in connection with appeals against detention. 31.  The hearing scheduled for 16 and 17 September 1996 was adjourned to 29 and 30 October 1996 as a lay judge had broken his leg and was unable to attend. 32.  The hearing of 30 October 1996 was further adjourned, because the medical experts considered that one of the co-accused was not in a condition to participate in the hearing as he was on a hunger strike. 33.  Between 19 November and 4 December 1996 the case file was in Sofia at the Supreme Court in connection with appeals against detention. In its cover letter to the Supreme Court, the Regional Court drew attention to the fact that a hearing had been listed for 19 December 1996 and called for the return of the case file before that date. 34.  The hearing resumed on 19 December 1996. One witness and the experts were heard. As other witnesses had not appeared, the court accepted the requests of the defence lawyers and the prosecutor for a further adjournment. 35.  The Regional Court throughout the proceedings sought police assistance to establish the addresses of witnesses and bring them before the court. One of the witnesses was suspected of seeking to evade service of the summonses. 36.  The last hearing before the Plovdiv Regional Court took place on 28‑31 January 1997. The court heard witnesses and the submissions of the parties to the criminal case and examined other evidence. 37.  On 31 January 1997 the applicant was found guilty of having forged tax documents with a view to obtaining an unlawful gain for himself and others and of having suborned a witness. He was sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment. His accomplices were also convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment of between ten and thirteen years. 38.  The court reserved the reasoning of its judgment. It was prepared on an unspecified date at least three months following the delivery of the judgment. 39.  On 11 February 1997 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation against his conviction and sentence. 40.  The case was listed for a hearing on 26 September 1997. On that date the prosecutor appointed to act before the Supreme Court of Cassation declared that he had known one of the convicted persons and that he wished to withdraw. The examination of the case could not proceed and the hearing was adjourned. 41.  The hearing was held on 23 January 1998. 42.  By judgment of 16 March 1998 the court upheld the applicant’s conviction and sentence. 43.  On an unspecified date the applicant submitted a petition for review (cassation). 44.  On 10 June 1998 the Supreme Court of Cassation held a hearing in the review (cassation) proceedings. As one of the co-accused joined the proceedings at that moment, the court adjourned the hearing to enable him to make the necessary submissions, which he did on 22 June 1998. 45.  The hearing resumed on 9 December 1998. 46.  On 22 March 1999 the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the petitions for review of the applicant and the other accused persons. 47.  At all stages of the proceedings the applicant was legally represented. 48.  The applicant was arrested on 10 September 1993. 49.  On 12 October 1993 he appealed to the Plovdiv Regional Court against the Public Prosecutor’s decision to detain him pending trial denying the charges and stating that he had no criminal record, and that he had a family and a permanent address. On 3 November 1993 the Regional Court granted bail and the applicant was released. 50.  On 15 February 1994 the applicant was charged under Article 293 § 1 of the Penal Code with having suborned a witness and was detained on the same day in connection with the proceedings relating to the main offence and to the new charges. 51.  In March 1994 five persons who had been heard as witnesses in the criminal proceedings against the applicant and his accomplices were charged with perjury. Separate proceedings were brought against them. 52.  On 15 July 1994 the applicant submitted a request for release on bail. 53.  On 19 September 1994 the applicant renewed his application for release on bail submitting a medical report according to which he was developing a kidney disease. 54.  On 6 October 1994 the Regional Court dismissed the applications for release filed by all co-accused stating that the charges carried a penalty of ten or more years imprisonment and that there were “no grounds to consider it established that the defendants would not abscond or commit a crime”. The court further noted that the applicant’s pre-trial detention had also been based on the new charges against him, those concerning the alleged suborning of a witness. Finally, the family situation and health condition of the accused persons did not require their release. 55.  On 30 November 1994 the Regional Court refused the applicant’s renewed application for release, stating that there were no new circumstances. It also noted that after his release on bail during the preliminary investigation “he had committed another offence”. 56.  The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. 57.  On 4 December 1994 the Plovdiv Regional Court, before transmitting the appeal to the Supreme Court, sitting in private, examined the matter again and refused to reverse its decision of 30 November 1994. The court held, inter alia, that according to the domestic law and the Supreme Court’s practice detention pending trial was prima facie necessary when a person had been accused of having committed a serious wilful offence. To substitute this judicial measure by a more lenient one would only be possible if there had been “not even a hypothetical danger that the accused might abscond or commit further offences”, in particular, “if he is ill or elderly”. 58.  On 21 February 1995 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the applicant’s detention. 59.  The Supreme Court explained its practice in matters of pre-trial detention stating that under Article 152 §§ 1 and 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure remand in custody was mandatory for everyone accused of a crime punishable by ten or more years’ imprisonment, the only exception being where it was clear beyond doubt that there was no danger of the accused absconding or re-offending. In the Supreme Court’s view such would only be the case where, for example, the accused was seriously ill, elderly or in any other condition which excluded the danger of his or her absconding or re-offending. Since the applicant was charged with a crime punishable by more than ten years’ imprisonment and as no special circumstances excluding the danger of his absconding or re-offending had been established, there were no grounds for ordering his release on bail. 60.  The Supreme Court further refused to consider the applicant’s contention that the evidence against him was weak. It found that it had no jurisdiction to do so in connection with an appeal against remand in custody. Its only task was to examine whether the conditions for pre-trial detention under Article 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been met. 61.  Turning to the particular case of the applicant, which was different from that of the other co-accused, the Supreme Court took into account his behaviour, noting that he had been charged for having suborned a witness after his release on bail. That fact clearly demonstrated the danger of the applicant committing an offence if released. 62.  On 12 June 1995 the applicant submitted an application for release to the Regional Court on the grounds that he had a permanent address and that there was no danger of his obstructing the course of justice. He further complained of the length of his pre-trial detention, resulting from the court’s bad organisation of work and undue delays in the scheduling of the hearings. 63.  Between 30 August and 12 September 1995 the applicant underwent a treatment for his kidneys at the prison hospital. 64.  At the hearing on 21 September 1995 the applicant renewed his application for release on bail. He stated that he had a family and a permanent address, that the charges of suborning a witness had not been proven and that since the financial expert had completed his report there was no danger of the applicant obstructing the course of justice. He further maintained that he needed a treatment in hospital and enclosed a medical certificate. 65.  The prosecutor objected, stating, inter alia, that under the relevant law, and regard being had to the increase in the crime rate in the country, the court was not entitled to release the applicant or the other co-accused. 66.  On 21 September 1995 the Regional Court dismissed the application for bail, holding that there were no new circumstances and that domestic law required pre-trial detention to be imposed in all cases when a person had been accused of having wilfully committed a serious offence. The court further considered that it was not proven that the detention facilities had been detrimental to the applicant’s health. 67.  On appeal, the Regional Court’s refusal to release the applicant was upheld by the Supreme Court sitting in private on 6 November 1995, upon receipt of the prosecutor’s observations which had not been communicated to the applicant. The Supreme Court stated that the applicant could only be released if there existed unequivocal evidence establishing beyond all doubt that there was no danger of his absconding, re-offending or obstructing the investigation. However, no such evidence was available in the applicant’s case. 68.  On 12 January 1996 the applicant submitted an application for release on the ground that his detention had been excessively lengthy, that he had a permanent address, that he did not have a previous criminal record and that there was no danger of his obstructing the course of justice. On 19 February 1996 the Regional Court dismissed the application as there was no change in the relevant circumstances and on the ground that the applicant was charged with a serious wilful crime which automatically required the imposition of pre-trial detention in accordance with Article 152 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 69.  At the hearing on 27 March 1996 the applicant submitted a fresh application for release on the ground that all evidence had already been gathered, and that therefore there was no danger of his obstructing the course of justice. The Regional Court dismissed the application on the same day, holding that there were no new facts which required his release and that the length of pre-trial detention was not limited by statute. 70.  The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal on 28 May 1996, sitting in private. 71.  The Supreme Court reiterated its position that in view of the charges against the applicant pre-trial detention was mandatory save in exceptional circumstances where even a hypothetical danger of absconding, obstructing justice or committing an offence was objectively excluded. All other questions, such as those concerning the length of the proceedings and the soundness of the charges were irrelevant. 72.  At the hearing of 29 and 30 October 1996, the applicant requested to be released on bail, referring to the alleged excessive length of his detention and the Regional Court’s failure to conduct the trial speedily. The application was dismissed on the same day on grounds similar to those previously stated. 73.  On 7 November 1996 the applicant filed an appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of 29 or 30 October 1996 claiming that there was no danger of his obstructing the course of justice since all the evidence had been gathered, and that the criminal proceedings were excessively lengthy owing to bad organisation of the trial. 74.  On 11 November 1996, the Regional Court, sitting in camera, re-examined the matter ex officio and refused to reconsider its decision. On 19 November 1996 the appeal was transmitted to the Supreme Court. 75.  On 25 November 1996 a prosecutor of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office submitted written observations to the Supreme Court, inviting it to dismiss the appeals of Mr Ilijkov, Mr Hristov and Mr Mihov, which were being examined simultaneously. The comments were not communicated to the applicant. 76.  On 4 December 1996 the Supreme Court sitting in private dismissed the appeals. It stated that the danger of absconding, re-offending and perverting the course of justice was presumed in view of the gravity of the crime with which the applicant was charged. 77.  On 31 January 1997, the applicant was found guilty on the forgery charges and on the charge of suborning a witness. He was sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment.