6.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lived until his arrest in the town of Yakhroma in the Moscow Region. 7.  On 18 August 1995 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of unlawful possession of weapons.  He was arrested on the following day. It appears that the applicant immediately obtained legal representation and also appointed Ms B. to act as his public defender. The Taldomskiy District Prosecutor’s office additionally charged the applicant with aggravated robbery and extortion. 8.  On 13 September 1995 the Taldomskiy District Prosecutor, relying on the gravity of the charges against the applicant and his liability to reoffend, authorised his placement in custody. His detention was extended a number of times, having regard to the gravity of the charges. 9.  On 29 December 1995 the Sergiyevo-Pasad Town Court of the Moscow Region authorised the applicant’s release on a written undertaking not to leave the town. Two months later the Dmitrov Town Prosecutor revoked the undertaking and authorised the applicant’s arrest. 10.  The applicant was served with the bill of indictment on 30 July 1996. Two days later he was committed to stand trial in the Dmitrov Town Court of the Moscow Region. On 2 August 1996 the Volokolamsk Town Court of the Moscow Region authorised the applicant’s release under his own recognisance. 11.  On 27 November 1997 the Dmitrov Town Court stayed the proceedings due to the applicant’s illness.  In 1997 and the beginning of 1998 on a number of occasions the applicant underwent treatment in a psychiatric hospital. 12.  On 26 January 1998 the Dmitrov Town Court found that the applicant had not attended hearings on 19 and 26 January 1998 and had failed to provide any excuse. It remanded the applicant in custody. According to the Government, the applicant was not detained because he had notified the Town Court that he had been treated in a psychiatric hospital. 13.  On 23 April 1998 the Dmitrov Town Court ordered that the applicant be submitted to a psychiatric examination. A psychiatric expert opinion was lodged with the Town Court on 29 May 1998. However, the experts did not give answers to certain questions and on 25 September 1998 the Town Court revoked the applicant’s undertaking not to leave the town and ordered that he be placed in custody and be transported to the Serbskiy Psychiatric Centre for an additional psychiatric evaluation. It appears that the applicant was placed in custody on 28 September 1998. The additional psychiatric evaluation was completed on 8 December 1998. 14.  According to the Government, on an unspecified date the criminal proceedings were stayed because another criminal case had been brought against the applicant. 15.  On 1 March 2000 the Dmitrov Town Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. The judgment became final on 25 May 2000 when the Moscow Regional Court upheld it on appeal. 16.  On 4 January 2001, acting upon an application by the President of the Moscow Regional Court and by way of a supervisory review, the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the judgments of 1 March and 25 May 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The Presidium did not rule on the detention issue. The applicant remained in custody. 17.  The Dmitrov Town Court received the case file on 21 February 2001. According to the Government, on 6 March 2001 the Town Court listed the first trial hearing and ordered that the measure of restraint applied to the applicant “should remain unchanged”. 18.  On 12 October 2001 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention for an additional three months, until 21 November 2001, holding that he was charged with serious criminal offences and was liable to abscond and reoffend. The Town Court noted that the applicant had already absconded once. A month later the Moscow Regional Court upheld the extension order, noting the gravity of the charges against the applicant. 19.  According to the Government, no further extension orders were issued. 20.  On 27 April 2002 the Dmitrov Town Court found the applicant guilty of aggravated robbery, dismissed the remaining charges and sentenced the applicant to four years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant did not appeal. 21.  On 22 September 1998 the Dmitrov Town Prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant. He was suspected of having murdered two persons. On the same day the acting Dmitrov Town Prosecutor authorised the applicant’s detention on the ground that he was suspected of a particularly serious offence and that he could not be found at his place of residence. The prosecutor concluded that the applicant had absconded. 22.  After his arrest on 28 September 1998, the applicant was served with a copy of the decision of 22 September 1998 on which he made a handwritten note. It reads as follows:
“Served [with the decision]:
I do not agree that I absconded, because I underwent treatment in Moscow Regional psychiatric hospital no. 5”
That copy of the decision also bears a handwritten note from a certain official, who wrote that due to the state of his mental health the applicant could not be placed in a temporary detention unit or detention facility under normal conditions. 23.  On 19 November and 4 December 1998 prosecution authorities further extended the applicant’s detention, until 16 December 1998 and 16 March 1999 respectively. The reason for both the extensions was similar: the applicant was charged with a serious criminal offence and the investigating authorities needed additional time. 24.  On 18 October 1999 and 28 August 2000 the Moscow Regional Court acquitted the applicant. Both judgments were quashed on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, on 15 March and 20 December 2000, respectively. The Government submitted that from 18 October 1999 to January 2001 the domestic courts had not determined the detention matter. 25.  On 16 January 2001 the Moscow Regional Court fixed the first trial hearing for 26 February 2001 and authorised the applicant’s detention on the ground that he had been convicted by the Dmitrov Town Court on 1 March 2000, he was serving his sentence in a correctional colony in the Ryazan Region and his presence was necessary at future court hearings. 26.  On 17 September 2001 the Moscow Regional Court again acquitted the applicant and ordered that the issue of his further detention should be determined in the course of the first set of the criminal proceedings against him. On 10 April 2002 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld that judgment. 27.  The applicant was detained in detention facility no. IZ-50/2 in Volokolamsk. 28.  According to the applicant, on 28 December 2001 warders entered his cell and severely beat him up. The applicant claimed that as a result of the beatings he had sustained a broken rib, concussion, a displaced joint on his left leg and multiple bruises. 29.  The Government disputed the applicant’s statement of facts, alleging that on 28 December 2001 he had been placed in a punishment cell for a refusal to follow lawful orders of the facility administration. When warders attempted to escort him to the punishment cell he resisted and put up a fight. A warder twisted the applicant’s arm behind his back and forced him into the cell. The Government, relying on a medical certificate issued on 28 December 2001 by a prison doctor and a certificate issued on 28 July 2005 by the facility director, further submitted that on the same day the prison doctor had examined the applicant and had not recorded any injuries. Furthermore, the applicant had not made any complaints to the prison administration concerning his state of health. 30.  On 22 January 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Dmitrov Town Court alleging ill-treatment in detention facility no. IZ-50/2. The Town Court redirected that complaint to the Volokolamsk Town Prosecutor’s office which had jurisdiction over it. 31.  On 25 January 2002 an investigator of the Volokolamsk Town Prosecutor’s office issued a decision dismissing the applicant’s complaint. The investigator found no prima facie case of ill-treatment. The applicant did not appeal to a court.