5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in the village of Novoye Pole, Chelyabinsk region. 6.  On 13 November 2004 the applicant was detained as a suspect in a criminal case concerning theft. On the same day the Kambarskiy District Court of the Udmurtskaya Republic authorised his detention for two months. 7.  On 13 January 2005 the criminal case file was submitted to the court. The applicant remained in detention, although the detention order of 13 November 2004 had expired and no extension had been ordered. 8.  On 25 January 2005 the criminal case file arrived at the Kambarskiy District Court, and on 26 January 2005 the court scheduled a preliminary hearing in the case to take place on 8 February 2005. The court did not take any decision on whether the applicant should remain in detention. 9.  On 3 February 2005 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of the Udmurtskaya Republic against the decision of 26 January 2005, claiming in particular that he had been detained unlawfully. 10.  On 8 February 2005, during a preliminary hearing before the Kambarskiy District Court, the applicant challenged his detention from 13 January onwards, which was still continuing, without any detention order. The court held that “the measure of restraint, pre-trial detention, [was] to remain unchanged”. 11.  On 16 February 2005 the Kambarskiy District Court examined the applicant’s application for release and dismissed it on the grounds that the gravity of the charges and the applicant’s previous criminal record made it likely that he would flee justice or commit new crimes if released. 12.  On 19 February 2005 the applicant challenged the decision of 8 February 2005 as regards the extension of his detention. 13.  On 17 March 2005 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtskaya Republic examined and dismissed the applicant’s complaint by which he challenged the decision of 8 February 2005 on the grounds that it did not cover the period from 13 January to 8 February 2005. The court noted that the criminal case file had been sent by the prosecutor’s office to the court on the last day the detention order was valid, thus complying with the time-limits. It referred to Articles 231 and 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a basis for the applicant’s detention during the trial but did not examine whether, and when, the court authorised the detention under these provisions. 14.  On 31 March 2005 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtskaya Republic examined the appeal, in which he challenged the extension of his detention by the decision of 8 February 2005, which he alleged to be unlawful. The court found that the decision was justified in view of the gravity of the charges and the applicant’s previous criminal record, and upheld the extension of the detention. 15.  On 4 and 11 May 2005 the applicant made applications for release to the Supreme Court of the Udmurtskaya Republic, without success. 16.  On 25 May 2005, during the hearing of his criminal case before the Kambarskiy District Court, the applicant made another application for release, which was refused on the grounds of the gravity of the charges, the applicant’s previous criminal record and the likelihood that he would abscond. 17.  On 27 May 2005 the Kambarskiy District Court examined the applicant’s new application for release and dismissed it on the same grounds as two days earlier. 18.  On 7 July 2005 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Udmurtskaya Republic conducted a supervisory review of the appeal decision taken by the Supreme Court of the Udmurtskaya Republic on 17 March 2005. It noted that in his complaint of 3 February 2005 the applicant challenged the decision of 26 January 2005, alleging that his detention from 13 January 2005 onwards was unlawful, whereas the decision of 8 February 2005 granted the extension without addressing the lawfulness of the detention in the time before that. However, the Presidium found that the decision of 26 January 2005 did not concern the detention and therefore was not amenable to appeal on that point. The Presidium quashed the appeal decision of 17 March 2005 and discontinued the appeal proceedings as regards the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention from 13 January 2005 to 8 February 2005. 19.  On 12 July 2005 the Kambarskiy District Court lifted the detention order and released the applicant, who signed an undertaking not to leave. 20.  On 21 September 2006 the Kambarskiy District Court convicted the applicant of theft and sentenced him to two years and four months’ imprisonment, suspended.