5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Kharkiv. 6.  On 31 March 2000 the applicant’s grandfather was murdered in his apartment. On 1 April 2000 the criminal investigation into the murder was initiated. 7.  On 19 April 2000 the investigator of the Poltava Oktyabrskiy District Police Department ordered a search in the applicant’s apartment. The investigator also ordered that the applicant be brought compulsorily before him (примусовий привід) as a suspect on 21 April 2000 at 9.00 a.m. in the framework of the criminal case of murder of the applicant’s grandfather. 8.  On 20 April 2000 the applicant was apprehended in Kharkiv and transferred to Poltava. Upon arrival the applicant allegedly attempted to escape from the police car and resisted the police officers who prevented his fleeing. 9.  The same day the police officers drew up a report on the applicant’s forceful resistance to the police. Following this report, on 21 April 2000 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Poltava (hereinafter – the District Court) sentenced the applicant to five days’ administrative arrest under Article 185 of the Code on Administrative Offences. This decision was final and not subject to appeal under Article 287 of the above Code, but the president of the higher court could review it on its own motion under Article 294. The applicant requested the higher courts on two occasions for a review of his case, but the requests were rejected, respectively, by the President of the Poltava Regional Court on 12 May 2000 and by the President of the Supreme Court on 25 September 2001. 10.  According to the applicant he wrote confession statements, admitting the murder of his grandfather, on 22 April 2000. These statements were allegedly dictated by the police officer K., who signed and backdated them to 20 April 2000. On the same date K. made minutes of the applicant’s interrogation as a suspect, also dated 20 April 2000. During this period he was not represented by a lawyer. 11.  On 25 April 2000 the applicant was charged with intentional murder of his grandfather and was temporarily detained as a suspect. 12.  On 27 April 2000 the prosecutor of Oktyabrskiy District ordered the applicant’s detention on remand for two months. 13.  On 31 May 2000 the District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the prosecutor’s detention order of 27 April 2000. 14.  From 22 June to 30 June 2000 the applicant and his lawyer studied the case-file. 15.  On 13 July 2000 the case was referred to the District Court. 16.  On 21 August 2000 the court conducted a preparatory hearing and maintained the applicant’s detention on remand. 17.  On 10 November 2000 the applicant’s lawyer requested the applicant’s release. The court rejected this request. 18.  During the trial the applicant denied the accusations and stated that he had been forced to confess. On 6 June 2001 the District Court remitted the case for additional investigation on that matter and for examination of the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment during the investigation. The court further rejected the applicant’s request for release and maintained his detention. On 4 July 2001 the Poltava Court of Appeal (former Poltava Regional Court) upheld this ruling. 19.  On 18 July 2001 the Prosecutor’s Office received the case-file. 20.  On 1 August 2001 the investigator of the Prosecutor’s Office requested the District Court to extend the applicant’s detention from 18 July to 18 September 2001. 21.  On 8 August 2001 the District Court issued a ruling extending the applicant’s preventive detention for the requested period on the grounds that the applicant was suspected of a serious crime and could obstruct justice. 22.  On 31 August 2001 the Poltava Court of Appeal quashed the ruling of 8 August 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the District Court. No decision on the applicant’s further detention was given. 23.  On 5 September 2001 the District Court extended the applicant’s preventive detention from 18 July to 8 September 2001 on the grounds that the applicant could obstruct the investigation or flee from justice. 24.  On 13 September 2001 the Court of Appeal upheld this ruling. 25.  Between 17 August and 6 September 2001 the applicant was given access to the case-file. 26.  On 6 September 2001 the case was referred to the District Court. 27.  On 3 October 2001 the court remitted the case for additional investigation and maintained the applicant’s detention. 28.  On 21 November 2001 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 3 October 2001 and referred the case for new trial proceedings. 29.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s mother requested the Poltava Regional Prosecutor’s Office to institute criminal proceedings against the investigator for unlawful detention of her son. On 3 December 2001 the Prosecutor’s Office rejected this request as unsubstantiated. 30.  On 17 December 2001 the District Court maintained the applicant’s detention. 31.  On 5 February 2002 the applicant’s lawyer requested the applicant’s release. This request was rejected by the court on the same day. 32.  On 7 March 2002 the additional forensic examination established that the death of the applicant’s grandfather had taken place at a time when the applicant could not have been present at the scene of crime. 33.  On 10 May 2002 the District Court sent the criminal case against the applicant for further investigation and released the applicant under the obligation not to abscond. 34.  On 30 December 2002 the criminal case against the applicant was terminated for lack of proof of his involvement in the murder.