4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Lublin. He is currently detained in Włodawa Prison. 5.  On 25 March 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed armed robbery. He was subsequently brought before the Lublin District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) and charged with armed robbery. The prosecutor applied to the Lublin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) for the applicant to be detained pending investigation. 6.  On 27 March 1998 the District Court remanded him in custody for three months on the ground of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence with which he had been charged. The court also considered that his detention was justified by the existence of substantial evidence against him and the seriousness of the charges. It also gave as a ground for detention the risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence. 7.  On 23 April 1998, following an appeal by the applicant, the Lublin Regional Court upheld that decision. 8.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was extended on three occasions. The relevant decisions were given by the Lublin Regional Court on 19 June 1998 and by the Lublin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 23 September and 21 December 1998. 9.  In their detention decisions the courts attached importance to the fact that the reasons for the applicant's pre-trial detention, as set out in the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), had not changed. They referred to the serious nature of the offences and the complexity of the case. They further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation justified his continued detention. 10.  In the course of the proceedings, the courts informed the applicant's lawyer about the dates of the sessions (posiedzenie) concerning the review of the applicant's pre-trial detention. The applicant's lawyer did not appear at the sessions. 11.  On 18 March 1999 the applicant was indicted before the Lublin Regional Court. He was charged with two counts of armed robbery committed on 23 March and 25 March 1998. The bill of indictment concerned four defendants and, in all, twenty-seven charges were brought against them. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from fifty-seven witnesses. Further, the bill of indictment included 157 items of evidence to be disclosed at the hearing. 12.  On 27 July 1999 a fifth defendant was indicted in the same proceedings before the Lublin Regional Court. 13.  At a hearing session held on 28 September 1999, at which the applicant's lawyer was not present, the Lublin Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 27 March 2000, giving as grounds for extending detention the compelling evidence against the applicant and the strong likelihood that he had committed the offence with which he had been charged. It also stressed that a lengthy sentence of imprisonment might be imposed on him. That decision and the reasons for it were upheld on appeal on 20 October 1999 at a hearing which the applicant's lawyer did not attend. 14.  The trial started on 29 November 1999. 15.  At a hearing held on 11 September 2000 the Lublin Regional Court decided to restart the trial following an objection by the applicant that the intervals between the court's hearings had been too long. 16.  During the court proceedings the authorities further extended the applicant's detention pending trial on many occasions. 17.  The relevant decisions were given on the following dates. 18.  At a hearing held on 6 March 2000 the Lublin Regional Court decided to ask the Supreme Court for an extension of the applicant's detention until 30 November 2000. This was due to the fact that only the Supreme Court could extend his detention beyond the statutory term of 2 years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 19.  On 24 March 2002 the Supreme Court extended the applicant's detention until 31 July 2000. On 20 July 2000 it extended his detention until 30 December 2000. The applicant's lawyer did not appear at the hearings. 20.  In its decisions extending the applicant's detention the Supreme Court found that the case was particularly complex and that it was necessary to obtain more evidence, in particular to hear evidence from numerous witnesses. It also found that there were “no grounds for release” under Article 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 21.  On 20 December 2000, following amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Lublin Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until 30 May 2001. The next decision was given on 9 May 2001 and the court extended the applicant's detention until 1 September 2001. This was followed by a decision of 22 August 2001, whereby the Lublin Court of Appeal extended the applicant's detention until 1 November 2001. On 23 January 2002 the Lublin Court of Appeal further extended the applicant's detention until 1 April 2002. The next decision was given on 6 March 2002, extending the applicant's detention until 1 June 2002. 22.  All the decisions reiterated the grounds previously given for the applicant's detention, notably the reasonable suspicion of his having committed the offences in question, the complexity of the case and the severity of the anticipated penalty which, in the courts' opinion, justified keeping him in custody in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. The Court of Appeal also held that the proceedings had not been unduly protracted and that the adjournments and restarting of the trial had been caused by events for which the Regional Court could not be held responsible. 23.  All the appeals and applications for release lodged by the applicant were to no avail. 24.  In the meantime, the Lublin Regional Court held around twenty-five hearings in the case, some of which had to be adjourned due to the necessity to examine procedural motions concerning matters such as a request for the disqualification of a judge, the failure to bring the applicant's co-defendants to court from prison, restarting the trial and the absence of witnesses. 25.  On 19 April 2002 the Lublin Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment and a fine. Both the applicant and the prosecutor appealed. The applicant's detention was subsequently extended on three occasions. 26.  On 28 January 2003 the Lublin Court of Appeal heard the applicant's appeal. It quashed the first-instance judgment on the ground of procedural mistakes and remitted the case. It ordered that the applicant's detention should continue until 17 June 2003. 27.  The retrial started on 26 May 2003. On the same date the Lublin Regional Court decided to extend the applicant's detention until 11 August 2003. 28.  On 11 August 2003 the applicant was released from detention. 29.  It appears that on 11 September 2005, at the request of the applicant, the trial was restarted. 30.  On 7 October 2005 the Lublin Regional Court convicted the applicant as originally charged. He was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment and a fine. 31.  On 22 August 2006 the Lublin Court of Appeal upheld the impugned judgment. The applicant has not informed the Court as to whether he lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.