4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in St Petersburg. 5.  On 20 April 2000 police arrested the applicant on suspicion of having inflicted serious injury on a certain M. which had caused his death. 6.  On 21 April 2000 the district prosecutor authorised the applicant’s detention until 20 June 2000. 7.  On 26 April 2000 the applicant was charged with inflicting serious bodily harm causing the death of the victim, an offence under Article 111 § 4 of the Criminal Code. This offence was punishable by up to fifteen years’ imprisonment and was classified as particularly serious. 8.  On 24 May 2000 the Leninskiy District Court of St Petersburg (“the District Court”) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 21 April 2000. Neither the applicant nor his counsel appealed against that decision to a higher court. 9.  On 13 June 2000 the district prosecutor extended the applicant’s detention until 20 July 2000, on the grounds that it was necessary to conduct further investigations, to finalise the charges against the applicant, and to allow time for the victims and the applicant to read the case file. According to the applicant, that decision was taken in his absence, he was not informed about it and he could not appeal against it. 10.  On 7 July 2000 the Prosecutor of St Petersburg extended the applicant’s detention until 20 August 2000, on the same grounds as before. According to the applicant, the order was made in his absence, he was not informed about it and he could not appeal against it. The Government confirmed that the case file did not contain any information on whether the applicant had been informed of that decision. 11.  On 10 August 2000 a new version of the charges was brought against the applicant. In addition to the charges of infliction of serious bodily harm causing the death of the victim, the applicant was charged with the use of force against the police officers who had arrested him on 20 April 2000. 12.  On 18 August 2000 the investigation authorities referred the case to the District Court for trial. 13.  On 20 August 2000 the applicant’s detention ordered by the decision of 7 July 2000 expired. No other decision had been made regarding his detention. However, the applicant remained in detention. 14.  On 4 September 2000 the criminal case was assigned to Judge A. 15.  On 14 September 2000 the District Court, presided over by Judge A., set the date for trial at 3 October 2000. By the same decision the District Court held that the preventive measure that had been imposed on the applicant was in accordance with law and was justified, and that it should remain unchanged. The court used a pre-printed decision form and did not specify any reasons for the applicant’s continued detention. The Government stated that the criminal case file did not have any information on whether the applicant had been informed of that decision. They further stated that the applicant had not appealed against the decision. 16.  On 3 October 2000 the District Court, composed of Judge A. and two lay judges, started the examination of the case. However, on that date the case was adjourned because the applicant was not brought to the court. 17.  On 17 January 2001 the District Court adjourned the case until 26 February 2001 owing to the applicant’s lawyer’s failure to appear. The court also held that the preventive measure should remain unchanged. 18.  The hearing of 26 February 2001 did not take place because the presiding judge was involved in other unrelated proceedings. 19.  On 12 April 2001 the District Court adjourned the case until 22 May 2001 owing to the failure of some of the witnesses to appear. The court also held that the preventive measure should remain unchanged. 20.  On 22 May 2001 the case was adjourned until 14 June 2001 owing to the failure of witnesses to appear. The District Court issued a decision ordering the compulsory bringing of the witnesses to the court. 21.  On 14 June 2001 the District Court adjourned the examination until 23 August 2001 on the grounds that the applicant had not had sufficient time to read the case file. The court held that the preventive measure should remain unchanged and again issued a decision ordering the compulsory bringing of the witnesses to the court. 22.  On 23 August and 9 and 23 October 2001 the case was again adjourned owing to the failure of witnesses to appear. The District Court again issued a decision ordering the compulsory bringing of the witnesses to the court. 23.  The hearing of 15 November 2001 and those of 14 February and 25 March 2002 were adjourned because the applicant’s counsel did not appear. According to the Government’s submissions, the applicant had refused to appoint a different counsel. On 25 March 2002 the District Court issued a decision in respect of the lawyer’s failure to attend the hearings and sent it to the disciplinary commission of the St Petersburg City Bar. 24.  On 27 May 2002 the hearing was adjourned until 28 August 2002 owing to the applicant’s lawyer’s failure to appear. 25.  On 25 June 2002 the applicant’s counsel, Ye., was dismissed from the bar for systematic failure to appear at the court hearings of the applicant’s case. 26.  On 1 July 2002 Judge B. of the District Court extended the applicant’s detention for another three months, until 1 October 2002, referring mainly to the seriousness of the charges against the applicant. The decision also stated that no reasons existed for changing the preventive measure. The applicant states that neither he nor his lawyer was present at the hearing. On 5 August 2002 the applicant, who was allegedly not aware of the extension order of 1 July 2002, requested the head of the remand prison to release him. However, on 7 August 2002 the remand prison received a copy of the extension order of 1 July 2002 and it was read out to the applicant on 8 August 2002. The applicant states that he did not receive a copy of that decision. 27.  On 12 August 2002 the applicant appealed against the extension order of 1 July 2002. He submitted, among other things, that his case had been assigned to Judge A. and that the extension of his detention by Judge B. was in breach of domestic law. Furthermore, he complained that between 2 July and 6 August 2002 he had been detained without any court decision, as the extension order of 1 July 2002 had been sent to the detention facility only on 7 August. He also submitted that the decision had been issued in his absence and he had not been provided with a copy of it. Relying on the fact that he had a family, accommodation and money, the applicant submitted that he had no intention of absconding and requested the City Court to release him on an undertaking not to leave his place of residence. Finally, he expressed his wish to participate in the appeal hearing. 28.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 1 July 2002 had been submitted outside the prescribed time-limits and, therefore, had not been forwarded to the appeal court for examination. However, they acknowledged that the applicant had not been informed of his right to apply for reinstatement of the time-limits for lodging his appeal. 29.  On 14 August 2002 the applicant retained V. as counsel. 30.  At the hearing of 28 August 2002 the applicant asked to be released. It appears that the District Court, composed of Judge A. and two lay judges, dismissed his request. However, the applicant was not provided with a copy of that decision. The case was adjourned until 1 October 2002 in order for a witness to be called. 31.  According to the Government, on 1 October 2002 the composition of the trial court changed following the entry into force on 1 July 2002 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, and the examination of the case was begun anew by a single judge. 32.  On 1 October 2002 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention for another three months, until 1 January 2003, on the same grounds as before. The applicant appealed against that extension order and requested to be granted leave to participate in the appeal hearing. 33.  On 19 November 2002 the City Court held that the applicant’s grounds of appeal were very detailed and there was no need to call him to the hearing. It upheld the extension order of 1 October 2002, finding that the District Court had extended the applicant’s detention on sufficient grounds and in accordance with the law and that the applicant’s grounds for release were not convincing. The applicant was informed of that decision on 4 December 2002. He was not provided with a copy of it. 34.  At the hearing of 27 November 2002, at which the prosecutor, the applicant and his counsel were present, the District Court found that the case file was with the City Court and therefore it was impossible to continue the examination of the criminal case. By a decision issued on the same day the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 1 April 2003, referring to the seriousness of the charges against the applicant and the risk of him interfering with the proceedings. 35.  The hearing of 10 December 2002 did not take place because the judge was on sick leave. 36.  On 31 December 2002 the applicant requested the head of the remand prison to release him on 1 January 2003, as the period of detention ordered by the detention order of 1 October 2002 was to expire on that date. On 5 January 2003 the applicant received a reply which stated that his detention had been extended until 1 April 2003. The applicant received a copy of the detention order of 27 November 2002 on 9 January 2003. 37.  On 13 January 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 27 November 2002 with the City Court. He complained that the decision of 27 November 2002 had been issued in breach of procedure. In particular, he claimed that he had indeed been taken to the hearing of 27 November 2002; however, the judge had informed him that since the case file was with the City Court, his criminal case could not be examined. According to the applicant, the City Court had not examined any matters relating to his detention, and, therefore, he had not been aware that on 27 November 2002 his detention had been extended until 1 April 2003. The applicant also complained that his continued detention had not been duly justified, his detention had been extended on several occasions in his absence, he had not been served with copies of the detention orders, and his appeals against the detention orders had not been examined. The applicant also drew the City Court’s attention to the fact that he had been detained in inhuman and degrading conditions while suffering from tuberculosis. He requested that the detention order of 27 November 2002 be quashed and that he be released from detention. 38.  The hearing of 4 February 2003 did not take place because the judge was on sick leave. 39.  On 25 February 2003 the City Court examined the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 27 November 2002. The applicant’s lawyer, but not the applicant, was present at the hearing. The hearing was also attended by the prosecutor who requested that the appeal be rejected. The City Court held that the detention order of 27 November 2002 had been unlawful, as the District Court should not have taken any decision without studying the case file. It quashed the decision of 27 November 2002 and remitted the matter to the District Court for fresh examination. The City Court remanded the applicant in custody, without giving any reasons. The applicant received a copy of that decision on 4 March 2003. 40.  On 24 March 2003 the District Court re-examined its decision of 27 November 2002. Both the applicant and his lawyer were present. The court decided to extend the applicant’s detention until 1 April 2003 on the same grounds as before. The decision stated that it could be appealed against within ten days of the date of its pronouncement. 41.  On 31 March 2003 the applicant appealed against the detention order of 24 March 2003. It can be seen from a copy of the applicant’s appeal that the remand prison administration registered it in the record of outgoing correspondence under no. 0-5257. The applicant complained in his appeal, among other things, that there were insufficient grounds to keep him in detention. Relying on Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, he argued that he was entitled to a trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. According to the applicant, he was not informed of the results of the examination of the appeal. 42.  At the hearing of 1 April 2003 the applicant applied for release. The prosecutor requested that the applicant’s detention be extended for a further three months, on the ground that he had been charged with a particularly serious offence and that he might interfere with the proceedings if released. The District Court dismissed the applicant’s application for release, finding that his detention had been ordered in accordance with the law and was justified. It held that the prosecutor’s request should be granted and extended the applicant’s detention until 1 July 2003. The decision stated that it could be appealed against within ten days of the date of its pronouncement. 43.  On 7 April 2003 the applicant appealed against the decision of 1 April 2003. It can be seen from a copy of the appeal that the remand prison administration registered it in the record of outgoing correspondence under no. 0-5742. The applicant claims that he was not informed of the decision taken on his appeal. The Government stated that the applicant had not lodged any appeal against the detention order of 1 April 2003. 44.  On 22 April 2003 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged. The District Court’s findings were based, in particular, on statements by ten witnesses who had failed to appear at the court hearings but whose statements given during the pre-trial proceedings had been read out in court. The applicant did not appeal against the judgment and it took effect on 3 May 2003. On 19 June 2003 the applicant finished serving his prison sentence and was released. 45.  The applicant was detained in remand prison no. 47/1 between 28 April 2000 and 19 June 2003. On arrival at the remand prison he was diagnosed with seventh-degree tuberculosis. 46.  On arrival at the prison the applicant was placed in cell no. 892, which measured nine square metres and had six sleeping places. The cell was overcrowded most of the time. From April 2000 until the beginning of 2002 the cell accommodated on average eleven inmates. For a long period of time the applicant did not have a place to sleep or had to take turns with others to sleep. In the summer of 2002 there were nine people in the cell and in November 2002 the number of inmates decreased to six. Until 1 April 2003 the windows in the cell were covered with two rows of thick metal bars which blocked access to natural light and fresh air. The electric light was kept on all the time. 47.  The sanitary conditions in cell no. 892 were unsatisfactory. The toilet was not separated from the rest of the room and was situated near the dining table. The cell was full of insects. The detainees were not provided with any bedding, kitchen or cleaning materials, or toiletries. They received only one piece of soap per cell. There was not sufficient furniture in the cell. The detainees had made shelves and chairs themselves. The food and medical assistance was of very poor quality. 48.  On 3 May 2000 the applicant was relocated to cell no. 841 for a tuberculosis check-up. The cell measured nine square metres, had six beds and accommodated sixteen inmates. 49.  On 10 May 2000 the applicant was placed in cell no. 856-A as cell no. 841 did not have a spare place. 50.  On 17 May 2000 the applicant was again transferred to cell no. 892, where he stayed until 19 June 2003. 51.  On 25 October 2002, after another examination, the applicant was diagnosed with fourth-degree tuberculosis. 52.  The applicant provided the Court with the written testimony of several of his fellow inmates. All of them had shared cell no. 892 with the applicant and confirmed his description of the conditions of detention there. 53.  During his stay in remand prison no. 47/1 the applicant was detained in cells nos. 841, 892, 840 and 859. Each of them measured eight square metres, had six sleeping places and accommodated a maximum of six inmates including the applicant. At all times the applicant was provided with an individual sleeping place and bedding. 54.  The other aspects of the applicant’s detention fully complied with the requirements of the Convention. All cells in the remand prison had windows which let in sufficient fresh air. All cells were equipped with the mandatory ventilation system as well as central heating in good technical condition. The applicant was allowed one hour’s walk per day in the prison yard.