6.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is serving a prison sentence in Izhevsk. 7.  On 20 June 2000 the applicant and two other persons were apprehended on suspicion of involvement in several incidents of theft. The applicant was allegedly taken to a flat where the police officers beat him up to make him confess to the crimes. On the next day he was transferred to a temporary detention facility at a police station. According to the applicant, the beatings continued on 21, 22, 23 and 26 June 2000. 8.  On 21, 22, 23 and 26 June 2000 in response to the applicant’s complaints of renal colic and pain in the lumbar area, the officer on duty called an ambulance. The applicant was examined on each occasion by a doctor, who did not find it necessary to take him to hospital. The applicant did not tell the doctor or the officer on duty anything as to what might have caused those pains. Nor did he say anything about ill-treatment by the police. 9.  On 21 June 2000 the investigator ordered that the applicant’s flat be searched. On 23 June 2000 the police conducted the search. 10.  On 23 June 2000 the applicant’s family retained a lawyer to represent him during the investigation and trial. On 15 December 2000 the applicant’s father was also admitted to represent him as a lay defender. 11.  On the same day the prosecutor of the Zapadniy Administrative Circuit of Moscow authorised the applicant’s detention. The court reasoned that the applicant should remain in custody pending the collection of the evidence necessary for the preparation of his indictment. 12.  On 30 June 2000 the applicant was charged with several counts of theft. He denied any involvement in the crimes he was charged with. 13.  On 10 August 2000 the prosecutor granted the investigator’s request to extend the detention of the applicant and two other defendants until 21 September 2000. The investigator reasoned that he needed more time “to investigate additional criminal acts committed by [the defendants], to join the criminal case-files, to finalise the bill of indictment and to carry out other investigative tasks in order to complete the preliminary investigation”. 14.  On 8 September 2000 the prosecutor granted the investigator’s request to extend the defendants’ detention until 21 November 2000. The investigator reproduced verbatim the reasoning of his previous request. 15.  On 12 October 2000 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s application for release. The court noted that the gravity of the charges alone could justify the applicant’s detention pending investigation and trial. It also referred to the applicant’s previous conviction and another pending criminal investigation against him. 16.  On 27 November 2000 the Nikulinskiy District Court scheduled the first hearing of the matter for 8 December 2000. The court ruled that the applicant and two other defendants should remain in custody pending trial. No time-limits or reasons justifying the defendants’ detention were indicated. 17.  Between 8 December 2000 and 14 June 2001 the court held twenty-one hearings of the case. On twenty occasions the hearing was adjourned due to the representatives of the defendants’ failure to appear or their need to study the case-file. 18.  On 14 June 2001 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention for three months. The court issued an order in respect of the three defendants, reasoning that their release “might impede a thorough, complete and objective examination of the case”. On 13 August 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 14 June 2001 on appeal. 19.  On 6 August 2001 the District Court found certain procedural irregularities in the bill of indictment and remitted the case to the prosecutor’s office for their rectification. The court ordered that all three defendants should remain in custody. On 6 September 2001 the Moscow City Court quashed the decision of 6 August 2001 on appeal and remitted the case for consideration to the District Court. The City Court also held that the defendants should remain in custody pending trial. 20.  On 11 October 2001 the District Court received the case-file and scheduled the hearing for 25 October 2001. The court further extended the detention of the three defendants for three months. The court referred to the gravity of the charges against them and the risk that they might impede the thorough, complete and objective examination of the circumstances of the case. On 13 February 2002 the Moscow City Court quashed the decision of 11 October 2001 on appeal. The City Court held that there was no requirement as a matter of law to decide on the applicant’s detention at that point. 21.  On 5 December 2001 the applicant complained to the District Court that he had been beaten up by police officers on 20, 21, 22, 23 and 26 June 2000. In support of his allegations, he submitted medical certificates indicating that doctors from the emergency response unit had been summoned by the officer on duty to examine him. 22.  On 7 December 2001 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged. 23.  On 1 April 2002 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 7 December 2001 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The court noted, inter alia, that the trial court had failed (1) to ensure the examination of several witnesses, instead relying exclusively on their written statements and (2) to ensure participation of the applicant’s lay defender in the closing arguments. The court indicated that the applicant should remain in custody pending a new trial. 24.  On 15 April 2002 the Nikulinskiy District Court scheduled a new hearing of the case for 23 April 2002. 25.  On 23 April 2002 the District Court dismissed the defendants’ applications for release. The court noted that all three defendants were charged with a serious offence and, if released, they “might interfere with the thorough, complete and objective examination of the case”. 26.  On 17 May 2002 the Nikulinskiy District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. The court based its findings on the statements of witnesses who had testified in court, including the applicant’s co-accused, victims of the crime, and forensic evidence. The court held that the applicant was to serve his sentence in a correctional colony with strict conditions of detention. 27.  On 9 September 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction in substance on appeal, indicating that the applicant was to serve his sentence in a correctional colony with normal conditions of detention. 28.  It appears that the applicant was sent to serve a prison sentence in a correctional colony with strict conditions of detention. On 14 February 2005 he was transferred to a correctional colony with normal conditions of detention. 29.  According to the applicant, he challenged the lawfulness of his detention in the colony with strict conditions of detention by lodging numerous complaints with the prosecutor’s office, department of corrections and the court.