4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Biysk of the Altay Region. 5.  On 2 March 1995 the applicant and other individuals were arrested on suspicion of causing lethal injury to Mr B. They were remanded in custody. 6.  On 9 June 1995 the case against the applicant, Mr K. and Mr S. was referred for trial to the Priobskiy District Court of the Altay Region (“the District Court”). 7.  Before 5 May 1998 when the Convention entered into force in respect of Russia, trial hearings were adjourned on many occasions for carrying out a psychiatric examination of Mr S., Mr K.’s illness, obtaining the attendance of the victim and the witnesses, the legal counsels’ default in appearance, and the judge’s involvement in different proceedings. The case was also once remitted to the prosecutor for further investigation. On 5 December 1997 the Altay Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) asked the president of the District Court to take measures to ensure compliance with the procedural time-limits. 8.  From 25 May to 4 June 1998 the court examined the case at regular hearings. On the latter date the applicant was released from custody on an undertaking not to leave the town. 9.  Two other hearings scheduled in 1998 and 1999 did not take place due to Mr S.’s representative’s failure to appear and Mr K.’s illness. In late 1999 the case was handed over to judge D. 10.  By letter of 22 November 1999, the Regional Court reported to the applicant’s mother that delays in the examination of the case were due to a substantial number of pending cases. 11.  On 24 January 2000 the hearing was postponed to 14 August 2000 following the witnesses’ failure to appear. 12.  On 11 April 2000 the case was remitted to the prosecutor for lack of competence of the investigative body. Upon return of the case, the trial court held two hearings in August 2000 and stayed the proceedings to carry out another psychiatric examination of Mr S. 13.  Once the proceedings resumed, the next hearing was scheduled for 5 February 2001. However, it did not take place on that date as the authorities had failed to deliver Mr K., who was serving his sentence out of town, to the court. 14.  On 22 February 2001 the case was once again remitted to the prosecutor to remedy certain procedural defects. Upon return of the case, it was examined at regular hearings from 13 to 20 August 2001. 15.  On 20 August 2001 the District Court handed down conviction by which the applicant was acquitted. 16.  On 4 October 2001 the Regional Court quashed the judgment on procedural grounds and remitted the case for a new trial. 17.  On 2 November 2001 the trial court adjourned the proceedings to carry out another psychiatric examination of Mr S. citing the significant period of time that had elapsed since the previous examination and taking into account new medical data in his respect. Once the proceedings resumed, two hearings were adjourned due to the failure to obtain the case file back from the medical institution and the applicant’s counsel’s default in appearance. 18.  On 17 January 2002 the District Court gave a new judgment by which it again acquitted the applicant. 19.  On 21 March 2002 the Regional Court set aside the judgment, finding that the District Court had failed to evaluate several witnesses’ statements. A new hearing was required. 20.  On 22 April 2002 the trial court adjourned the hearing due to Mr K.’s illness. On 20 May 2002 the case was remitted to the prosecutor for unspecified reasons. 21.  On 8 August 2002 the court suspended the proceedings pending the convalescence of Mr S. 22.  On 15 October 2002 the court ordered another psychiatric examination in respect of Mr S. following a newly established diagnosis. After resumption of the proceedings, two hearings did not take place due to the failure to obtain the case file back from the medical institution and then due to Mr. S.’s illness. 23.  Between 14 and 18 March 2003 the case was examined in regular hearings. On 18 March 2003 the District Court appointed another psychiatric examination of Mr S. on account of inconsistency of the previous results and adjourned the proceedings. 24.  The case was examined between 19 and 25 August 2003. On 27 August 2003 the hearing was adjourned due to the illness of Mr S.’s representative. On 5 September and 7 October 2003 the case was remitted to the prosecutor to remedy certain defects in the bill of indictment. 25.  On 11 December 2003 the District Court found the applicant and his co-defendants guilty of causing grievous bodily injuries to Mr B. The applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and taken into custody. 26.  On 12 February 2004 the Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal.