4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Warszawa. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Włodawa Prison. 5.  On 28 June 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of several counts of extortion. 6.  On 29 June 2001 the Lublin District Court remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might go into hiding (since he did not have any permanent place of residence). The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence (up to eight years of imprisonment) and the fact that the applicant had a criminal record. 7.  Later, several members of an organised crime group were detained and charged in connection with the investigation against the applicant. 8.  Certain witnesses were granted special status. The prosecutor called, inter alia, two State's witnesses and several anonymous witnesses. Several confrontations between the suspects and witnesses took place. Several expert opinions were ordered, namely an expert opinion on ballistics, an expert opinion as to the identification number of a vehicle, and several psychiatric opinions regarding some of the suspects. 9.  The applicant's appeal against the detention order, his subsequent appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him were all unsuccessful. 10.  On 1 August 2001 the Lublin District Court decided that the applicant should he detained in connection with another set of criminal proceedings instituted against him by the District Prosecutor in Lublin (case no. IX 1K 765/02). 11.  On 13 November 2001 the Lublin Regional Prosecutor decided to amend the charges against the applicant. He was suspected of several counts of extortion committed while acting in an organised criminal gang. 12.  On 18 September 2001 the applicant's detention was extended until 27 December 2001. The court relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by evidence from witnesses and experts. Further, the court attached importance to the grave nature of those offences. Finally, it noted that the prolongation of the investigation was not attributable to the prosecuting authorities, but resulted from the fact that other suspects had been identified and arrested. 13.  On 3 December 2001 the Lublin District Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Lublin District Court. The applicant was charged with several counts of extortion which had been committed while being a member of an organised crime group. There were twenty defendants in the case, all charged with numerous counts of extortion committed in an organised crime group. 14.  On 5 March 2002 the trial court held the first hearing. It subsequently held fifty-six hearings in the first instance. On several occasions the Lublin District Court requested other courts to hear evidence from some of the witnesses. 15.  On 31 July 2002 the Public Regional Hospital informed the court that from 16 to 17 July 2002 the applicant was in coma and was hospitalised following a medicine overdose in a suicide attempt. Therefore, he could not attend the hearing on 16 July 2002. 16.  On 2 July 2003 the court requested information from the health care unit of the detention centre concerning health of the applicant and of another co-accused. 17.  On 4 November 2003 the court decided that the co-accused be released from detention. 18.  On 26 November 2003 the court decided to release three other defendants from detention in view of the difficult situation of their families, especially their children. 19.  On 3 December 2003 the Lublin Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 11 May 2004. It observed that the fact that the trial had not been terminated could not be attributed to the authorities, given the volume of evidence and the fact that some hearings had had to be cancelled as the defendants' counsels or witnesses had not appeared. It further considered that the applicant had been charged with crimes for which he was liable to a sentence of imprisonment exceeding eight years, and that the circumstances of the case indicated that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings. 20.  On 30 April 2004 the applicant was released from detention under police supervision. The court relied on the fact that almost all witnesses had been heard and thus the applicant ceased to pose a threat to the proper conduct of the proceedings. Moreover, the applicant had committed himself to staying in Lublin at a fixed address. 21.  On 25 May 2004, on 27 June, on 6 December 2004, on 20 January and on 15 March 2005 the police informed the court that the applicant had failed to report to the police station as required by the court order and that he had not lived at the indicated address. 22.  On 20 May 2005 the Lublin District Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to six years' imprisonment (case no. IX K 2252/01). The applicant appealed on 20 January 2006. 23.  According to the applicant the appellate court remitted the case for re-examination. However, he did not submit the date or the copy of the relevant judgment. 24.  On 9 December 2005 the applicant was also found guilty of the offences he had been charged with in another set of criminal proceedings conducted by the Lublin District Court (case file no. IX K 756/02). The applicant was sentenced to 3 year's imprisonment. 25.  The applicant is presently serving a prison sentence imposed by the judgment of the Płońsk District Court of 3 September 2004 (case file no. II K 282/03). It appears that the judgment has become final.