5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Yefremov, Tula Region. 6.  On 8 November 2002 criminal proceedings were opened against the applicant, who was suspected of murder. The same day he gave an undertaking not to leave town. 7.  On 11 November 2002 the applicant was arrested. On 12 November 2002 the Yefremovskiy Town Court of the Tula Region (“the Town Court”) remanded him in custody. His detention was subsequently extended by court order on several occasions. 8.  On 20 November 2002 the applicant was formally charged with murder and the illegal acquisition, keeping and wearing of a handgun and ammunition. On 28 February 2003 he was committed to stand trial before the Town Court. 9.  On 21 August 2003 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention pending trial for three months until 28 November 2003. Neither he nor his counsel were present at the hearing. No ordinary appeal was brought by them against that detention order; however, the applicant challenged the detention order in supervisory review proceedings. 10.  On 27 February 2004 the Town Court extended the applicant’s remand in custody from 28 February until 28 May 2004 in his absence. His counsel was not present at the hearing either. Instead of bringing an ordinary appeal, the applicant lodged a request with the court to have supervisory review proceedings initiated in respect of the detention order. 11.  On 26 May 2004 the Town Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment, acquitting him of the other charges. He appealed. 12.  On 25 August 2004 the Tula Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh examination. The appellate court noted in the operative part of its judgment that the preventive measure applied to the applicant should “remain unchanged”. 13.  On 9 September 2004 the applicant’s criminal case file arrived at the Town Court. 14.  On 6 October 2004 the Town Court examined a request by the applicant for release and dismissed it, stating:
“On 12 November 2002 the court remanded [the applicant] in custody. The reasons for that decision were the risk of him absconding and interfering with the investigation ...
The court does not see any reason to grant the request [for release]. Although the conviction of 26 May 2004 was quashed on appeal on 25 August 2004, the case was remitted for retrial ... The appellate court left the preventive measure unchanged. The [applicant’s] reference ... to the deterioration of his health while in detention is [inconclusive]. In the remand prison [he] receives the necessary medical assistance.”
The decision was amenable to appeal; however, it appears that no appeal was lodged. 15.  On 25 February 2005 the Town Court ruled that the applicant was considered to have been detained “pending trial” from 9 September 2004 and that the maximum period of detention of that kind was to expire on 9 March 2004 [sic]. It extended his detention for three months until 9 June 2005. On 23 March 2005 the detention order was upheld on appeal. 16.  On 15 August 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia, following the applicant’s supervisory review complaint, initiated supervisory review proceedings in respect of the detention order of 21 August 2003 (see paragraph 9 above) and remitted the case to the Presidium of the Tula Regional Court for examination. 17.  On 24 October 2005 the Presidium reviewed and upheld the detention order of 21 August 2003. It found that there had been no violation of the applicant’s rights as a result of his remand in custody being extended in his and his lawyer’s absence. The prosecutor was present at the hearing before the Presidium, but the applicant and his representative were not. 18.  On 3 November 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia accepted the applicant’s complaint and initiated supervisory review proceedings in respect of the detention order of 27 February 2004 (see paragraph 10 above). It ordered that the complaint be examined by the Presidium of the Tula Regional Court. 19.  On 23 January 2006 the Presidium acknowledged that the applicant’s defence rights had been violated as a result of his remand in custody being extended in his and his lawyer’s absence, quashed the detention order of 27 February 2004 and remitted the matter to the first-instance court for fresh examination. 20.  On 23 January 2006 the Town Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment. He appealed. 21.  On 21 February 2006 the Town Court conducted a new hearing on the issue of the applicant’s detention from 28 February until 28 May 2004 and authorised his detention for that period. He and his counsel were present at the hearing and made oral submissions. That detention order was upheld on appeal on 24 March 2006. 22.  On 26 April 2006 the Tula Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal, but reduced his sentence to eight years and six months’ imprisonment. 23.  It appears that in 2010 he was released on probation, having served only part of his sentence.