5.  The applicant was born in 1963. It appears that he is serving a prison sentence in Russia. 6.  In early 2002 the national authorities received information to suggest that the applicant and another person were involved in drug trafficking, in particular the supply of large quantities of heroin. The authorities decided to carry out various investigative measures in respect of them under the Operational-Search Activities Act, including a test purchase of drugs and a video recording of the operation. On 12 April 2002 the applicant was arrested after having handed over parcels containing drugs to undercover officers K. and G. The preparation and carrying out of the operation were witnessed by Ko. and D., who had been asked by the authorities to take part in the operation as “members of the public”. 7.  The applicant was interviewed and placed in a temporary detention centre. On 15 April 2002 criminal charges were brought against him. The applicant and his accomplice were accused of fraud (as one of the parcels did not contain heroin), the illegal acquisition, possession of drugs for the purpose of sale, transport and the illegal sale of drugs. 8.  Between April and June 2002 officers K. and G., as well as the attesting witnesses Ko. and D., were interviewed by the investigating authority. 9.  On 27 June 2002 the criminal case was sent for trial before the Zarechenskiy District Court of Tula (“the District Court”). A hearing scheduled for September 2002 was adjourned owing to the absence of seven witnesses. Hearings were held on 3, 4, 5 and 23 December 2002. By a judgment of 12 February 2003 the District Court acquitted the applicant of fraud but convicted him of the illegal acquisition, possession and transport of drugs on a large scale for the purpose of sale, and the illegal sale of drugs. The applicant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. The trial court ordered that the convicted defendants be kept in detention until the judgment became enforceable. 10.  Both the applicant and the prosecution appealed against the judgment to the Tula Regional Court. Having heard the parties’ submissions, the appellate court decided on 19 November 2003 to set aside the judgment of 12 February 2003 and ordered the District Court to re-examine the case. 11.  A hearing was held by the District Court on 26 January 2004. Having noted the absence of the co-defendant’s lawyer and witnesses, the presiding judge adjourned the proceedings until 11 March 2004. 12.  At a hearing on that date the applicant sought the withdrawal of the judge and dismissed his lawyer. The applicant’s lay representative was afforded time to study the case file. As a result, the proceedings were adjourned until 13 May 2004. On an unspecified date a new lawyer was appointed to assist the applicant during the trial. 13.  On 13 May 2004, having noted the absence of undercover officers K. and G. and some other witnesses, the presiding judge adjourned the hearing. A further hearing was held on 17 May 2004, during which witnesses were cross-examined. The defence asked for more witnesses to be called. 14.  On an unspecified date, the applicant’s lawyer informed the trial court that she would be on annual leave from 10 June to 5 July 2004. Nevertheless, a hearing was held on 28 June 2004. It was adjourned until 18 August 2004 and the judge ordered that the presence of the witnesses should in the meantime be secured. 15.  Witnesses, including officer G., were examined at the hearing on 18 August 2004. On 23 August 2004 the judge ordered that witness Ko. be compelled to attend the trial. 16.  At the hearing on 25 October 2004 the applicant’s lawyer was absent attending an unrelated jury trial. The judge adjourned the hearing until 22 November 2004. 17.  On 30 November 2004 the presiding judge’s term of office expired. On 20 January 2005 the case was assigned to another judge. 18.  On 15 February 2005 a short hearing was held during which certain procedural issues were clarified. 19.  In April 2005 the case was assigned to another judge who scheduled a hearing for 11 April 2005. On that date, noting the absence of the defendants and witnesses, the judge adjourned the hearing until 21 April 2005. On that latter date, the proceedings were again adjourned until 4 May 2005 because the defence lawyers and witnesses were absent. On 4 and 19 May 2005 the judge ordered the bailiffs to enforce summonses in respect of some of the witnesses. 20.  The applicant’s lawyer took annual leave between 27 May and 20 June 2005. Accordingly, the hearings scheduled for 30 May and 14 June 2005 were adjourned. 21.  On 5 July and 4 August 2005 the judge again ordered the enforcement of summonses in respect of several witnesses. 22.  On 5 September 2005, noting the absence of witnesses Ko. and D., as well as of the co-defendant’s counsel, who was on sick leave and annual leave until 21 September 2005, the judge adjourned the hearing until 28 September 2005. 23.  On that latter date, the judge ordered that D. and Ko. be compelled by bailiffs to attend the trial. 24.  On 31 October 2005 the final hearing was held. 25.  By a judgment of 9 November 2005 the District Court convicted the applicant of selling drugs and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. The District Court relied, inter alia, on the witness statements made in 2002 and 2004 by D., Ko. and officers K. and G. The applicant did not appeal against the conviction and it became final. 26.  The applicant and his accomplice were arrested on 12 April 2002. On 15 April 2002 a prosecutor ordered that the applicant remain in continued detention on the grounds that he “had committed” a criminal offence and would abscond or obstruct the proceedings if at liberty. No further decisions were taken by the prosecuting authority prior to the applicant’s trial before the District Court. 27.  On 12 February 2003 the District Court convicted the applicant of drug trafficking. On 19 November 2003 the Regional Court set aside the trial judgment and ordered a retrial (see paragraphs 9 and 10 above). It does not appear that the appellate court determined that any preventive measure be taken against the applicant. 28.  On 15 December 2003 the District Court held that “the preventive measure should remain unchanged”. 29.  On 13 May 2004, having heard the applicant and the prosecutor, the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 19 August 2004, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk of absconding. It does not appear from the transcript of the hearing that the court examined any evidence in relation to the prosecutor’s request for the applicant to remain in detention. 30.  On 18 August 2004 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 19 November 2004, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risks of absconding and reoffending. The court also refused to deal with an application for release, noting that such an application “would be examined during the pronouncement of the trial judgment in the criminal proceedings”. The applicant appealed against the decision to the Regional Court. On 6 October 2004 that court upheld the extension order. 31.  At a remand hearing on 15 November 2004 the applicant argued that the prosecution had not adduced any documents in support of their request for extending detention pending retrial. The District Court rejected this argument in the following terms:
“The relevant documents were submitted to the district prosecutor on 15 April 2002 when detention pending investigation was first ordered ... These documents were admitted to the case file, to which the defence were able to have access. There are no reasons to justify releasing the defendants, bearing in mind that the trial should be proceeding in November”.
The District Court dismissed the defendants’ applications for release and extended their detention pending retrial. 32.  On 15 February 2005 the District Court extended the defendants’ detention, referring to the gravity of the charges. Further extensions were ordered on 19 May and 4 August 2005, when the court also referred to the “organised nature of the crime”, the character of the defendants and the risks of their absconding and reoffending. The applicant was convicted on 9 November 2005 (see paragraph 25 above).