5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Moscow. 6.  On 1 August 2000 the Interior Department of Moscow opened criminal proceedings against the applicant and another person on suspicion of attempting to sell a flat that did not belong to them to several unrelated persons. On 2 August 2000 the applicant was charged with fraud. 7.  On 28 December 2000 the investigation was completed and the case was sent for trial to the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow. 8.  On 24 January 2001 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court declined jurisdiction and sent the case to the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow. The Tverskoy District Court referred the case to the Moscow City Court. 9.  On 29 March 2001 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court held that the case should be tried by the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow. 10.  On 14 April 2001 Judge Y. of the Presnsnenskiy District Court, to whom the case had been allocated, fixed the opening hearing of the trial for 23 April 2001. 11.  The hearing of 23 April 2003 was adjourned because Judge Y. was busy with another trial. 12.  On 19 June 2001 Judge V. of the Presnenskiy District Court noted that the case had been assigned to him “because Judge Y. was absent”. 13.  The first trial scheduled in July 2001 (the date is unreadable) was adjourned until 30 July 2001 because the judge did not know when the applicant’s co-defendant had received the indictment. 14.  The hearing of 30 July 2001 was adjourned until 24 September 2001 because the victims and witnesses did not appear. 15.  The hearing of 24 September 2001 was adjourned until 25 September 2001 because counsel for the applicant, the victims and witnesses did not appear. 16.  The court held hearings on 25 September, 1, 3 and 4 October 2001. 17.  On 4 October 2001 the Presnenskiy District Court remitted the case for additional investigation at the request of one of the victims. On 25 December 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision on appeal. 18.  On 30 January 2002 the case file was received by the investigator. 19.  On 31 May 2002 the additional investigation was completed and the case was resubmitted for trial to the Presnenskiy District Court. 20.  On 18 June 2002 the Presnenskiy District Court scheduled the opening trial hearing for 8 July 2002. 21.  The hearing of 8 July 2002 was adjourned until 1 August 2002 because the applicant had dismissed his counsel and had asked the court to appoint him another lawyer. 22.  The hearing of 1 August 2002 was adjourned until 9 September 2002 because the presiding judge was busy with another trial. 23.  Hearings were held on 9, 11, 18, 19 and 25 September and 1, 3, 7 and 14 October 2002. 24.  The hearing of 22 October 2002 was adjourned because counsel and witnesses did not appear. The following hearing was held on 25 October 2002. The hearing of 19 November 2002 was adjourned because counsel for the applicant did not appear. Further hearings were held on 21, 22 and 27 November 2002. 25.  The hearing of 9 December 2002 was adjourned until 25 December 2002 because the presiding judge was busy with another trial. 26.  Further hearings were held on 25 December 2002, 27, 30 and 31 January and 5, 20 and 28 February 2003. 27.  During the trial the court questioned thirty witnesses and examined material evidence. 28.  On 3 March 2003 the Presnenskiy District Court convicted the applicant of aggravated fraud and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. 29.  On 13 March and 24 April 2003 the applicant notified the Moscow City Court of his intention to lodge an appeal as soon as he received a copy of the judgment of 3 March 2003 and a copy of the trial record. 30.  On 29 April 2003 the applicant received a copy of the judgment of 3 March 2003. 31.  On 13 May 2003 the applicant lodged his appeal submissions. 32.  On 23 June 2003 the applicant received a copy of the trial record. 33.  On 14 August and 9 September 2003 the applicant lodged additional appeal submissions. 34.  On 28 August 2003 counsel for the applicant received the trial record and on 27 October 2003 lodged additional appeal submissions. 35.  In his appeal submissions the applicant complained, in particular, that the judgment had been pronounced on 28 February 2003 in his absence. 36.  The appeal hearing was scheduled for 13 November 2003. 37.  On 13 November 2003 the Moscow City Court adjourned the appeal hearing and ordered an inquiry in order to clarify whether the applicant and his counsel had been present at the pronouncement of the judgment. 38.  On 26 December 2003 the Judicial Affairs Department of the Supreme Court concluded that the first-instance judgment had been publicly pronounced on 3 March 2003 and that the applicant had been present at the pronouncement. On 5 January 2004 the report was sent to the Presnenskiy District Court. 39.  On 26 January 2004 the Presnenskiy District Court extended the time-limit for appeal at the request of one of the victims. 40.  On 10 February 2004 the case file was referred back to the Moscow City Court. 41.  An appeal hearing was scheduled for 3 March 2004. It was, however, adjourned until 25 March 2004 at the request of the prosecutor, who asked for additional time to study the case file. 42.  The hearing of 25 March 2004 was adjourned until 31 March 2004 because the video link to the applicant’s detention facility did not work due to technical problems. 43.  On 31 March 2004 the Moscow City Court held the appeal hearing, commuted the sentence to six years’ imprisonment and upheld the remainder of the judgment of 3 March 2003. 44.  On 2 August 2000 the applicant was arrested. On 4 August 2000 he was released on an undertaking not to leave Moscow. 45.  According to the applicant, between 4 and 17 August 2000 he was summoned by the investigator several times. During questioning on 17 August 2000 the investigator allegedly urged him to confess and threatened that if he refused he would be taken into custody. 46.  On 18 August 2000 the applicant did not appear for questioning. On the same date a Moscow deputy prosecutor ordered his arrest. 47.  On 21 August 2000 his name was put on the list of fugitives from justice. 48.  On 29 August 2000 the applicant was rearrested in the Moscow region. 49.  On 22 September 2000 the prosecutor extended his detention until 1 January 2001, finding that the applicant had failed to appear for questioning twice and had fled from justice. 50.  The applicant challenged that decision before a court, claiming that he had a permanent place of residence and employment, a minor child and an unemployed wife. On 5 December 2000 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow confirmed the prosecutor’s decision, relying on the gravity of the offence, the applicant’s previous criminal record and the risks of him absconding and interfering with the investigation. 51.  On 24 January 2001 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court ordered that the applicant should remain in custody pending trial. 52.  On 11 April 2001 the Presnenskiy District Court ordered that the applicant should remain in custody pending trial. 53.  On 19 June 2001 the Presnenskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 5 October 2001, finding that the applicant had been charged with a serious criminal offence and that “his release would significantly hamper a thorough, comprehensive and impartial examination of the case”. 54.  The applicant appealed. He complained, in particular, that the District Court had not advanced sufficient reasons to justify his continued detention and that no hearings had been held during the six months that had passed since the referral of the case to court. On 17 September 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified. 55.  On 30 July 2001 the applicant asked to be released. The Presnenskiy District Court rejected his request, referring to the gravity of the charge. 56.  On 4 October 2001 the Presnenskiy District Court held that the applicant should remain in custody pending additional investigation. 57.  On 25 December 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 4 October 2001 on appeal. It found that “the case had been remitted for additional investigation, therefore the extension of [the applicant’s] detention was justified”. 58.  On 4 February 2002 the Moscow prosecutor extended the applicant’s detention until 18 March 2002. On 19 February 2002 a deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation extended the applicant’s detention until 18 April 2002. Both prosecutors referred to the gravity of the charges, the applicant’s previous criminal record and the risks of him absconding and interfering with the proceedings. 59.  On an unspecified date the applicant petitioned the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow for release. He claimed that he had been unlawfully held in detention “during the investigation” for more than six months. He asked the court to take into account his positive references, permanent residence in Moscow and minor child. 60.  On 20 March 2002 the Tverskoy District Court rejected his application for release, referring to the gravity of the charges, his character and previous criminal record. It further held that his detention was lawful. 61.  On 16 April 2002 a deputy Prosecutor General extended the applicant’s detention until 18 June 2002. He relied on the gravity of the charge, his character and his behaviour during the investigation, in particular his previous attempt to flee from justice. 62.  On 18 June 2002 the Presnenskiy District Court ordered that the applicant should remain in custody pending the resumed trial. 63.  On 1 July 2002 the Presnenskiy District Court ordered a further extension of the applicant’s detention until 1 October 2002, repeating verbatim the wording of the detention order of 19 June 2001. 64.  On 1 October 2002 the Presnenskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 1 January 2003, repeating verbatim the wording of the detention order of 19 June 2001. 65.  In his grounds of appeal the applicant claimed that the extension had been unlawful and asked that he be released on an undertaking not to leave town, taking into account his permanent residence and family situation. On 21 November 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk of the applicant’s absconding or reoffending. It found that there was no reason to apply a more lenient preventive measure. 66.  On 25 December 2002 the Presnenskiy District Court ordered a further extension until 1 April 2003. It found that the applicant had been charged with a serious criminal offence and that he could hamper the examination of the case if released. On 27 May 2004 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order on appeal.