8.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Ghent. 9.  On 29 March 1994 he was arrested in connection with an investigation concerning a case of arson committed on 25 May 1993. 10.  On 1 April 1994 the Committals Division of the Ghent Criminal Court refused to extend the validity of the arrest warrant. On appeal, the Indictment Division of the Ghent Court of Appeal overturned that decision and prolonged the applicant's pre-trial detention. 11.  On 21 April 1994 the investigating judge rescinded the warrant concerned. 12.  On 29 June 1994 and 2 June 1995 respectively the Committals Division and the Indictment Division, ruling on the action to be taken on the basis of the investigation to date, held that there was insufficient evidence to commit the applicant for trial and discontinued the proceedings. 13.  On 25 October 1996 the applicant claimed compensation for unwarranted pre-trial detention, relying on the Law of 13 March 1973 (see “Relevant domestic law” below). 14.  On 12 May 1997 the Minister of Justice refused the applicant's claim on the ground that he had not “established his innocence by adducing factual evidence or submitting legal argument to that effect”, as required by section 28(1)(b) of the Law of 1973. That requirement was justified, according to the Minister, in the case of an order or judgment discontinuing criminal proceedings, given that a discontinuation decision was not a bar to the reopening of the case if new information or evidence were to come to light. 15.  On 4 July 1997 the applicant contested the Minister's decision by means of an application to the Unwarranted Pre-trial Detention Appeals Board. 16.  On 1 December 1997 the applicant appeared before the Appeals Board, which upheld the refusal of his claim by a decision taken on the same day and served on the applicant on 29 March 1998. It noted that the grounds for presuming the guilt of the applicant, who had always denied committing the offence he stood accused of when appearing before the courts investigating the charge, had been held to be insufficient to justify committing him for trial. It observed that, although the applicant had announced his intention of submitting a pleading setting out the evidence in the file which “amply” proved his innocence, he had not done so and had not replied to the Government's submissions. Consequently, the Appeals Board found that he had not proved his innocence as the law required (dat verzoeker derhalve het bij de wet van hem vereiste bewijs van onschuld niet bijbrengt).