4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Jelenia Góra. 5.  On 10 June 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed homicide. On 12 June 1999 the Wrocław District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question, the seriousness of the charges against him and the risk that he might tamper with evidence or go into hiding. 6.  On 2 September 1999 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) extended the applicant’s detention until 30 September 1999. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged, which was supported by evidence from witnesses and experts. The court made reference to the measures already taken in the investigation and indicated, in detail, the evidence that still had to be taken. Consequently, it decided that it was necessary to extend the applicant’s detention. The court also referred to the likelihood of a lengthy prison sentence being imposed on the applicant and the complexity of the case. 7.  On 28 September 1999 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 December 1999. It repeated the grounds previously given for his detention. 8.  On 7 December 1999 the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) extended the applicant’s detention until 31 December 1999. On 28 December 1999 it extended that period until 15 January 2000. It emphasised that the grounds originally given for his detention were still valid. 9.  On 14 January 2000 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 June 2000. It repeated the grounds that had been given in the previous decisions and added that further detention would not be excessively burdensome for the applicant or his family. 10.  On 5 June, 19 June and 11 December 2000 and 9 April 2001 the court held hearings. 11.  On 19 June, 11 December 2000 and 9 April 2001 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention. It repeated the grounds previously given for keeping him in custody. 12.  On 21 May 2001 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court applied under Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings to the Wrocław Court of Appeal for the applicant’s detention to be extended beyond the statutory time-limit of two years. On 29 May 2001 the Wrocław Court of Appeal granted the request and extended the applicant’s detention until 20 September 2001. It held that there was a strong suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged and that the nature of the offences justified the continuation of his detention. In addition, it stressed that the case was particularly complex. 13.  On 20 September 2001 the Wrocław Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 30 November 2001. It repeated the grounds given in the previous decisions. 14.  On 4 October 2001 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. He appealed. The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended on four occasions. 15.  On 12 September 2002 the Wrocław Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment. At the same time the Court of Appeal extended his detention. 16.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy). On 3 December 2003 the Supreme Court allowed the cassation appeal, quashed the appellate court’s judgment and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal. 17.  On 3 December 2003 the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention until 3 April 2004, relying on the seriousness of the charges, the “degree of danger to society” (stopień społecznej szkodliwości) represented by the offence in question and the severity of the penalty imposed by the court of first instance. 18.  On 5 March 2004 the Wrocław Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Jelenia Góra Regional Court. The court stated that the failure to call and hear evidence from six eyewitnesses, Belarus nationals, had been a serious shortcoming justifying a retrial. The trial court had not made efforts to secure their presence at the hearing or to make use of a rogatory letter in order to have them heard as witnesses by the Belarus authorities. Furthermore, as regards the anonymous witness, the court of first instance had failed to make efforts to secure his presence at the hearing. The court had not made sufficient inquiries about his whereabouts. 19.  On 1 April and 23 September 2004 and 24 March 2005 the Wrocław Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged, which was supported by evidence from witnesses and experts. It referred to the likelihood of a lengthy prison sentence being imposed on the applicant and found that holding him in custody was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. 20.  During the proceedings the applicant made repeated unsuccessful applications for release. He also appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against refusals to release him and decisions extending his detention. 21.  At a hearing held on 1 March 2005 the Regional Court decided to send a rogatory letter to the relevant Belarusian court, asking it to take evidence from six eyewitnesses. The applicant’s lawyer prepared questions in writing to be put to them on the applicant’s behalf. The court in Belarus heard evidence from three witnesses, because, despite the efforts of the authorities, it was impossible for them to establish the current addresses of the remaining witnesses. The records of evidence taken from those witnesses during the investigation were read out by the trial court. 22.  On 8 March 2006 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The court established the facts of the case on the basis of evidence taken from seventeen witnesses. 23.  The applicant appealed. The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended on several occasions. 24.  On 28 September 2006 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It considered that the facts of the case had been duly established and the rules of criminal procedure, as well as guarantees of a fair trial, had been respected. As regards evidence from the anonymous witness, despite the authorities’ efforts, the court could not secure his presence at the hearing. Consequently, it was necessary to take into account evidence given by him in the investigation. 25.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy). On 19 December 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.