5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Kherson. 6.  On 26 April 1995 the investigator of the Kharkiv Regional Department for Combating Organised Crime of the Ministry of the Interior instituted criminal proceedings for tax evasion against officials of the Bystryye Dengi open joint-stock company, managed by the applicant. At that time the applicant was also a member of the Dzerzhinskiy District Council of Kharkiv (“the District Council”) and enjoyed immunity from criminal prosecution. 7.  On 30 January 1996 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Police Department instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for tax evasion. 8.  On 14 March 1996 the investigator charged the applicant with tax evasion and ordered him not to leave his place of residence. The same day, having established that the applicant’s whereabouts were unknown, the investigator suspended the investigation and placed him on the wanted list. 9.  On 2 October 1996 the Prosecutor of the Kharkiv Region requested the District Council to lift the applicant’s immunity. On 1 November 1996 the Council rejected this request by a secret vote. Following this, the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued and the order relating to his obligation not to abscond was cancelled. 10.  On 12 March 1997 the prosecutor repeatedly requested the District Council to lift the applicant’s immunity. 11.  On 20 March 1997 the applicant was stopped while crossing the Ukrainian-Russian border and was sent back to Kharkiv. On his way there he escaped. 12.  On 17 April 1997 the Kharkiv City Council decided to lift the applicant’s immunity. 13.  The same day the investigator ordered the applicant’s arrest. 14.  On 18 April 1997 the preliminary investigation was suspended as the applicant’s whereabouts were unknown. The applicant was placed on the wanted list. 15.  On 8 August 1998 the applicant was arrested and charged with tax evasion under Article 148-2 of the Criminal Code. On the same day the Deputy Prosecutor of the Kharkiv Region ordered his pre-trial detention. 16.  The applicant’s detention was extended on successive occasions: to six months on 6 October 1998 by the Prosecutor of the Kharkiv Region, to ten months on 25 January 1999 and to twelve months on 25 May 1999 by the Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine. The period of the applicant’s detention on remand pursuant to the prosecutors’ decisions expired on 8 August 1999. 17.  On 15 January 1999 the investigator reclassified the charges against the applicant and instituted criminal proceedings against him for fraud, tax evasion, illegal business activities, embezzlement and abuse of power. 18.  On 4 August 1999, four days before the approved period of the applicant’s detention on remand was due to expire (8 August 1999), the investigation was completed and the applicant was given access to the case file. 19.  On 30 May 2000 both the applicant and his lawyer finished consulting the case file. 20.  On 2 June 2000 the case was referred to the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Kharkiv (“the District Court”). 21.  On 13 July 2000 a judge of the District Court committed the applicant and three other individuals for trial. In her decision, the judge noted that “[t]he preventive measure with respect to the accused was chosen in accordance with the material in the case file” and ruled that the preventive measure chosen by the investigating authorities should be maintained. 22.  On 15 December 2000 and on several further occasions in November 2002 and February and May 2003 the court granted the applicant several days to study the case file further. 23.  On 11 January 2000, following numerous health complaints by the applicant, the court ordered a forensic medical examination to establish whether he suffered from any chronic illnesses that would prevent his participating in the trial. The examination revealed no such disease or medical condition. 24.  On 29 January 2002 the District Court rejected a request by several aggrieved parties to replace the applicant’s detention with an obligation not to abscond. The necessity to maintain the preventive measure of deprivation of liberty for the applicant was explained by the fact that he was charged with a crime which was punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than three years. This ruling was not subject to appeal. 25.  During the trial the applicant’s lawyer applied for the applicant’s release. She complained that the case file contained no reasoned decision by a court on the applicant’s detention and that the original charges against him no longer constituted a criminal offence. On 25 March 2002 the District Court rejected the application. It noted that the applicant had been detained on the prosecutor’s orders and that the court, when committing the applicant for trial, had agreed with and maintained the preventive measure of detaining him. The court further noted that the applicant had been on the wanted list. Taking this into account, as well as the fact that the applicant was charged with several crimes punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than three years, the court rejected the lawyer’s application. This ruling was not subject to appeal. 26.  On 25 October 2002 the detention centre provided information that the applicant had been taken to the court 246 times, including 110 times for court hearings and 91 times to study the case file. 27.  On 18 November 2002 the judge issued a separate ruling that the absence of the applicant’s lawyer in court without good reason was to be regarded as unwillingness to defend him. 28.  On 9 December 2002 the court rejected a request by the applicant for release, applying the same reasoning as in the ruling of 25 May 2002 (see paragraph 25 above). 29.  On 16 December 2002, following numerous disturbances in court by the applicant, the court issued him with a final warning for contempt of court. 30.  On 31 March 2003 the judge ordered the applicant’s removal from the hearing room until the end of examination of his case on account of frequent infringements of law and order during the hearings. 31.  In May 2003 the applicant’s lawyer submitted one more application for his release, stressing that the applicant had been detained for more than four years without legal grounds. On 12 May 2003 the District Court rejected the application, stating that this issue had been already considered by the court. 32.  On 1 September 2003 the District Court convicted the applicant of fraud, embezzlement and abuse of power, and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment. 33.  On 27 April 2005 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment with minor changes. 34.  On 20 June 2006 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decisions of the lower courts.