5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Pavlograd. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  On 17 November 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and a certain Mr V.G. on suspicion of robbery. On the same date the applicant was arrested and detained. 8.  On 20 November 2000 the applicant was formally charged with involvement in a robbery. On the same date a decision was taken to remand him in custody pending trial based, in particular, on the seriousness of the charge against him. Subsequently, the applicant was indicted on several additional charges of robbery and theft, committed on his own and in association with a certain Mr M.M. 9.  On 3 July 2002 the Pavlograd City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) convicted the applicant of several offences of robbery and theft, and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. 10.  The applicant appealed. On 6 December 2002 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the judgment of 3 July 2002, finding that the conviction was not based on sufficient evidence. The Court of Appeal ordered that further pre-trial investigations be carried out. It also decided, without giving any reasons, to extend the applicant’s detention pending the additional investigations. 11.  On an unspecified date the prosecution submitted the applicant’s case to the City Court for a fresh trial. 12.  On 6 May 2003 the City Court found at the preparatory hearing in absence of the applicant that the evidence gathered was insufficient and that the instructions of the Court of Appeal had not been followed. The case was remitted for fresh pre-trial investigations. The court also ordered that the applicant should remain in custody, without, however, giving any reasons for this decision. The prosecutor lodged an appeal against the decision to remit the case for further investigations. 13.  On 4 July 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 6 May 2003 and referred the case to the City Court for trial. The Court of Appeal also decided, without giving any reasons, that the applicant was to remain in custody. 14.  On 1 April 2004 the City Court convicted the applicant of theft and robbery and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment with deduction of the time spent in detention. 15.  That judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 9 June 2004 and by the Supreme Court on 17 March 2005.