5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Krasnoselka, Odessa region, Ukraine. 6.  Between 1990 and 2001 the law enforcement authorities of the Odessa region instituted thirteen sets of criminal proceedings on different accounts of murder, rape and robberies committed by several individuals. On 8 May 2000, in particular, the Lyubashivskiy Police Department instituted criminal proceedings concerning the robbery of Mr Sh. 7.  On 19 March 2001 the police arrested the applicant on suspicion of the aforementioned robbery of Mr Sh. 8.  On 22 March 2001 the Lyubashivskiy District Prosecutor ordered the applicant's detention until 14 May 2001 − on the ground that he might abscond. 9.  On 8 May 2001 the prosecutor, without indicating any grounds, extended the applicant's detention until 14 June 2001. 10.  On 13 June 2001 the prosecutor further extended the applicant's detention until 19 June 2001. 11.  On 20 June 2001 the applicant lodged a request for release with the prosecutor. He maintained that the authorised period of his pre-trial detention had expired on 19 June 2001 and that he was only given access to his case-file on 20 June 2001. 12.  On 21 June 2001 the prosecutor rejected his request on the ground that the applicant had been informed that the investigation had been completed on 19 June 2001, after which he was given access to the case file. 13.  On 13 July 2001 the Lyubashivskiy Local Court of Odessa region rejected the applicant's complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention after 19 June 2001−on the ground that the time given to an accused for studying his case-file was not to be taken into account. The applicant appealed to the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal but to no avail. 14.  On 6 August 2001 the head of the Lyubashivskiy Police Department rejected the applicant's request for his immediate release on the ground that the time given to an accused for studying a case-file was not to be taken into account. 15.  On 5 November 2001 the Ananiyvskiy Court held the committal hearing. The court joined the proceedings in the criminal case concerning the robbery of Mr Sh. with those of several other cases (given that the applicant's co-defendants were involved in other cases too (see paragraph 6 above)). The applicant and six others were committed for trial. The court rejected the applicant's complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention having found no irregularities therein. It also maintained his detention without giving any grounds or fixing any time limit. 16.  On 15 November and 19 December 2001 the court held hearings in the case. 17.  On 20 December 2001 the Ananiyvskiy Court rejected the applicant's request for release on the grounds that he had previous convictions, that he had committed a serious crime and that he might abscond and interfere with the course of justice. The hearing was then adjourned owing to the non-appearance of one of the lawyers. 18.  On 7 January 2002 the applicant submitted a complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention with the Ananiyvskiy Court. 19.  On 21 January 2002 the Ananiyvskiy Court rejected the applicant's complaint referring to its previous findings during the committal hearings (see paragraph 15 above). The hearing was then adjourned owing to the non-appearance of the aggrieved parties and one of the accused. 20.  On 18 February 2002 the applicant lodged an application for release with the court. It was rejected the same day. The hearing was then adjourned owing to the non-appearance of one of the aggrieved parties. 21.  On 5 March 2002 the hearing was adjourned due to the failure to bring the accused to the court. 22.  On 3 and 4 April 2002 the court held hearings in the case. 23.  On 16 May 2002 the court remitted the case against the applicant and several other individuals for an additional investigation. It also maintained the applicant's detention without indicating any reasons or fixing any time-limit. 24.  On 8 September 2002 the applicant complained of the unlawfulness of his detention to the prosecutor. By a decision of the same day, the Ananiyvskiy Prosecutor's Office rejected this complaint. The prosecutor noted that a two-month period for the applicant's detention had expired on 20 August 2002 and by that time the additional investigation had already been completed. 25.  On 20 May 2003 the criminal case against the applicant and other persons was transferred to the Lyubashivskiy Court. 26.  On 26 May 2003 the Lyubashivskiy Court held a committal hearing at which, among other things, the applicant's detention was maintained without an indication of any grounds or any time-limit fixed for its duration. 27.  On 18 and 23 June 2003 the applicant lodged applications for release with the court. On these dates the hearings were adjourned owing to the non-appearance of the lawyer of one of the co-defendants. 28.  On 26 June 2003 the court held a hearing and remitted the case for additional investigation. It also rejected the applicant's application for release and maintained his detention − noting that it had no grounds to replace it by another preventive measure. 29.  On 18 July 2003 the applicant complained to the prosecutor of the unlawfulness of his detention. 30.  On 25 July 2003 the prosecutor rejected his complaint with the same reasoning as provided in the decision of 8 September 2002 (see paragraph 24 above). 31.  On 19 September 2003 the Lyubashivskiy Court held a committal hearing and decided, inter alia, to maintain the applicant's detention without indicating any reasons or fixing any time-limit. 32.  On 21 October 2003 the court held a hearing in the case. 33.  On 28 January 2004 the hearing was adjourned owing to the non-appearance of the prosecutor. 34.  On 18 February 2004 the court held a hearing. 35.  On 6 July 2004 the case was transferred to the Kotovsk Local Court of Odessa region. 36.  On 17, 18 and 19 August 2004 the Kotovsk Court held hearings in the case. On the last-mentioned date, the applicant lodged an application for release with the Kotovsk Court stating that he had been detained for a long period of time, that he had been arrested on insufficient grounds and that he had no intention of absconding. The court rejected the application on the ground that the applicant was suspected of committing a serious crime and that he had previous criminal convictions. 37.  On 28 October 2004 the hearing was adjourned owing to the non-appearance of two of the co-defendants. 38.  On 25 November, 1, 6 and 8 December 2004 the court held hearings in the case. 39.  On 13 December 2004 the Kotovsk Local Court of Odessa region found the applicant and six others guilty of several different crimes; in particular, the applicant was found guilty of robbery and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. The court also rejected the applicant's application for release. 40.  On 23 March 2005 the applicant made a request for his release, which was rejected at the court's hearing on 29 June 2005 because the applicant had already been sentenced. 41.  On 17 January 2006 the Odessa Court of Appeal, in the applicant's presence, upheld the decision of the first-instance court. 42.  On 18 March 2006 the applicant finished serving his sentence. 43.  On 10 July 2006 the applicant appealed in cassation. 44.  On 21 August 2006 the judge of the Supreme Court returned the applicant's cassation appeal without consideration due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and gave him a month to correct the shortcomings. 45.  On 27 September 2006 the applicant lodged his new cassation appeal. 46.  On 2 November 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's cassation appeal as being submitted too late.