4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Toruń, Poland. 5.  On 15 November 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed several car thefts. 6.  On 17 November 2001 the Toruń District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody until 15 February 2002. The court considered that his detention was justified by the existence of substantial evidence against him and the gravity of the charges. It also noted that the applicant had attempted to induce one of the witnesses to change her testimony. 7.  On 11 February 2002 the court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 15 May 2002. It repeated the reasons previously given and added that the need to obtain additional evidence justified keeping the applicant in custody. 8.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged several times by the District Court and the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) until 30 March 2003. 9.  His appeal against the prolongation of his detention was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 15 January 2003. 10.  On 14 March 2003 the applicant and 22 other persons were indicted on charges of being members of an organised criminal group and having committed numerous car thefts. 11.  Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was extended several times by the Toruń District Court and the Gdańsk Court of Appeal, for the same reasons as before. 12.  On 18 November 2003 the District Court refused the applicant’s application for release. 13.  On 3 February 2004 the Court of Appeal granted the District Court’s request to prolong the applicant’s detention until 15 May 2004. The court considered that the case was very complex and that it was necessary to examine voluminous evidence. It also found that the detention was justified by the existence of strong evidence against the applicant and the gravity of the charges. There was also the possibility that the applicant would attempt to tamper with evidence. His appeal against that decision was dismissed on 16 March 2004. 14.  On 11 May and 12 July 2004 the Court of Appeal again granted the District Court’s requests and ordered that the applicant be detained until 30 September 2004. It dismissed the applicant’s appeals against those decisions. 15.  On 18 August 2004 the District Court released the applicant under police supervision; it also prohibited him from leaving the country. The court considered that the applicant suffered from a personality disorder and depression and that his isolation from the outside world constituted a danger to his life and health. The court based its view on a report by two expert psychiatrists. 16.  The proceedings are still pending.