5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Moscow. 6.  The applicant was a member of a public association, the National Bolshevik Party. On 15 November 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ordered its dissolution. On 19 January 2006 the Federal Registration Service of the Ministry of Justice refused an application for registration of a political party by the same name. Party members challenged the refusal before Taganskiy District Court, Moscow. 7.  On 13 April 2006 fifteen party members, including the applicant, came to Taganskiy District Court for a hearing concerning the refusal to register the National Bolshevik Party. The applicant alleged that near the court building they had been attacked by a group of forty people and had had to defend themselves. According to the Government, the party members, including the applicant, had assaulted passers-by with gas guns and rubber truncheons. 8.  On 11 April 2007 the applicant was arrested. The arresting officer indicated in his report that witnesses had identified the applicant as one of the perpetrators of the assault. On the same day he was charged with participation in mass disorders involving the use of gas guns and assault and battery, an offence under Article 213 § 2 of the Criminal Code. 9.  On 12 April 2007 Tverskoy District Court, Moscow, formally remanded the applicant in custody, finding that he had been charged with a serious criminal offence and that he had no registered place of residence in Moscow or permanent employment. The court concluded that he might abscond, interfere with the proceedings or reoffend. 10.  In his grounds of appeal of 13 April 2007 the applicant submitted that he had been arrested a year after the fight. He had had plenty opportunity to abscond, reoffend or interfere with the investigation during that year if he had wished. The fact that he had not fled from justice proved that he had no such intention. He had no criminal record, had permanent residence and employment in Moscow, positive references, a spouse suffering from epilepsy and a child. He was the only breadwinner in his family. He asked to be released on bail. 11.  On 7 May 2007 Moscow City Court upheld the detention order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful and justified. 12.  On an unspecified date the applicant was committed for trial before Taganskiy District Court. 13.  On 22 May 2007 Taganskiy District Court scheduled a preliminary hearing for 29 May 2007 and ordered that the applicant should meanwhile remain in custody. It referred to the gravity of the charge, the applicant’s character and his record of administrative offences, which included commission of several disorderly acts, and concluded that the applicant might abscond or reoffend. The applicant’s arguments that he had a child, that his wife suffered from epilepsy and that he himself needed medical assistance were insufficient to warrant release. 14.  The applicant appealed, repeating the arguments set out in his grounds of appeal of 13 April 2007. On 11 July 2007 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified. 15.  On 24 May 2007 a member of Parliament offered his personal guarantee that the applicant would not abscond. 16.  On 29 May 2007 Taganskiy District Court returned the case to the investigator, ordering that the applicant’s case be joined with the cases of six other members of the National Bolshevik Party who had been charged in connection with the same events of 13 April 2006. It further ordered that the applicant should remain in custody. It referred to the gravity of the charge and his record of administrative offences. The applicant’s character and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the imputed offence gave reasons to believe that he might abscond, reoffend or interfere with the proceedings. 17.  On the same day the applicant’s case was joined with the cases of six other persons, who had allegedly acted in conspiracy with the applicant. 18.  On 28 June 2007 Tverskoy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 6 August 2007, referring to the gravity of the charge, his record of administrative offences, the need for a further investigation and the risk of the applicant’s absconding or interfering with the investigation. It found that the applicant’s arguments about his good character and family situation were not convincing. Counsel for the applicant was absent from the hearing. 19.  The applicant appealed, repeating the arguments set out in his grounds of appeal of 13 April 2007. He further complained that his counsel had not been notified about the hearing. On an unspecified date his appeal was dismissed by Moscow City Court. 20.  In July 2007 seven defendants, including the applicant, were committed for trial. 21.  On 26 July 2007 Taganskiy District Court scheduled a preliminary hearing for 8 August 2007 and ordered that the defendants should meanwhile remain in custody. The court found that the defendants had been charged with a serious offence committed by an organised group some members of which had not yet been identified, and concluded that they might abscond or intimidate the victims and witnesses. It further noted that the defendants’ assurances that they had no intention of absconding were unconvincing and held that there was no reason to apply a more lenient preventive measure. 22.  On 8 August 2007 Taganskiy District Court held a preliminary hearing and ordered that all defendants should remain in custody for the same reasons as before. 23.  On 24 September 2007 Moscow City Court upheld the decisions of 26 July and 8 August 2007 on appeal, finding that they had been lawful and justified. 24.  In September 2007 the applicant and his co-defendants lodged applications for release with Taganskiy District Court. On 12 September 2007 Taganskiy District Court rejected their applications. It noted that the defendants’ arguments had already been examined and rejected many times when extension orders had been issued. It found that the grounds for the defendants’ detention mentioned in the extension orders were still pertinent and it was still necessary to hold them in custody. The defendants had been charged with a serious criminal offence committed by an organised group, some members of which had not yet been identified. Given the gravity of the charges against them, they might abscond, reoffend or interfere with the establishment of the truth if released. 25.  On 12 December 2007 Moscow City Court upheld the decision on appeal. 26.  On 26 December 2007 Taganskiy District Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 April 2008. It found that the grounds for their detention mentioned in the previous extension orders were still pertinent and a risk remained of their absconding, reoffending or obstructing the justice. The court also noted that the defendants’ arguments about the absence of corpus delicti in their actions and about the lack of evidence of their involvement in the commission of the imputed offence were without substance because, in extending the defendants’ detention, the court could not make any findings as to their guilt or innocence. 27.  The applicant appealed, arguing that the District Court’s conclusions had been hypothetical. It had issued a collective detention order and had not taken into account the personal circumstances of each defendant. In particular, it had disregarded the applicant’s arguments that he had no criminal record, had positive references, a permanent place of residence and employment, and was the only breadwinner for his ailing wife and minor daughter. He had offered to post bail and had provided the District Court with the personal surety of a member of Parliament. He finally submitted that during the year that had passed between the imputed events and his arrest he had not made any attempts to abscond or interfere with the investigation. Therefore, there were no reasons to believe that he would do it at the advanced stage of the proceedings. 28.  On 12 March 2008 Moscow City Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful and justified, as there had been no reason to release the defendants. 29.  On 24 March 2008 Taganskiy District Court convicted the defendants as charged and sentenced the applicant to one year and six months’ imprisonment.