5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lived before her arrest in Ufa, Republic of Bashkortostan. She is currently detained in Ufa IZ-3/1 remand prison. 6.  On 24 November 2006 the applicant was arrested and charged with large-scale drug trafficking. 7.  On 25 November 2006 Leninskiy District Court (Ufa) examined the investigator’s request to remand the applicant in custody. The court held as follows:
“Ms Koroleva Yu.V. is charged with serious offences, which are punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years.
Moreover, Ms Koroleva Yu.V. committed the above crimes while she was standing trial before the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court (Ufa). Ms Koroleva Yu. V. has no fixed abode and is not registered.
Furthermore, Ms Koroleva Yu. V. is a drug addict and, if released, she might engage in further criminal activities related to drugs in order to provide herself with drugs and improve her financial situation.” 8.  Taking into account the above elements, the danger to society presented by the offences imputed to the applicant and the need to secure the execution of her sentence, Leninskiy District Court remanded the applicant in custody. The applicant did not appeal against that decision. 9.  On 23 January 2007 Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 17 May 2007, referring to the gravity of the charges against her. The court further held that the applicant was a drug addict and if released she might abscond, continue her criminal activities or interfere with the proceedings, and noted that her detention was necessary in order to secure the execution of her sentence. The applicant did not appeal against that decision. 10.  On 11 May 2007 Kirovskiy District Court (Ufa) extended the applicant’s detention until 17 August 2007. The court held, in particular, that the period fixed by the court for the applicant’s detention was not sufficient to allow a judge, who would receive the case for examination on the merits, to take a decision concerning the applicant’s detention during trial. The court also held that the applicant was charged with a serious offence presenting a danger to society, and that if released she might continue criminal activities, abscond or interfere with the proceedings. The court also noted that the applicant’s detention was necessary in order to secure the execution of the sentence. 11.  On 15 August 2007 Kirovskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 17 November 2007, on the same grounds as given in its decision of 11 May 2007. 12.  On 26 September 2007 the applicant was presented with the final version of the charges. She was accused of several episodes of large-scale drug trafficking committed as a member of an organised criminal group. 13.  On 26 October 2007 the applicant and her counsel started familiarising themselves with the materials of the criminal case as did other twenty-nine defendants. According to the Government, the file consisted of 160 volumes. 14.  On 15 November 2007 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan (“the Supreme Court”) extended the applicant’s detention until 17 February 2008, referring to the gravity of the charges against her. The Supreme Court also stated that if released she might flee from justice, engage in criminal activities or obstruct the establishment of the truth. 15.  On 7 February 2008 the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention until 17 May 2008, bringing its total duration to seventeen months and twenty-four days. The court held as follows:
“Ms Koroleva is charged with particularly serious offences punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment. The grounds on which she was initially remanded in custody...had not changed. The investigation of the criminal case is particularly complex. These circumstances should be regarded as extraordinary circumstances which can serve as a basis for the extension of the defendant’s detention.” 16.  On 15 May 2008 the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention until 24 May 2008, thus bringing its total duration to eighteen months. The court held as follows:
“....The term of Ms Koroleva’s detention is to expire on 17 May 2008. As required by Article 109 § 5 of the CCrP [the Code of Criminal Procedure], the investigation was completed and the materials of the criminal case presented to the applicant and her counsel no later than thirty days before the expiry of the maximum period of detention. However, the investigating authorities need additional time in order to comply with the requirements of Article 217 of the CCrP.
The preventive measure applied to Ms Koroleva had been duly justified in accordance with Article 108 of the CCrP since she was charged with a number of particularly serious offences as a member of an organised criminal group, and if released she might interfere with the proceedings or abscond and therefore the court does not see any reason to alter the preventive measure ...” 17.  It appears that the applicant did not appeal against that detention order. 18.  On 20 May 2008 the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention until 17 August 2008, bringing its total duration to twenty-one months. The court cited the same legal provision and referred to the same grounds as in its decision of 15 May 2008. On 13 August 2008 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld that detention order. 19.  The Supreme Court further extended the applicant’s detention on 14 August until 17 November 2008, and on 12 November 2008 until 17 February 2009, referring to the same grounds as in the decision of 15 May 2008. 20.  On 27 November 2008 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the detention order of 14 August 2008. 21.  On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the detention order of 12 November 2008 and requested to be released under a written undertaking. She submitted that the extension of her detention beyond eighteen months had been unlawful. She could no longer interfere with the proceedings, since she and her co-defendants had already started familiarising themselves with the materials of the case. The applicant also asked the court to take into account the state of her health and the fact that her dependent grandfather had been placed in an old people’s home. 22.  On 27 January 2009 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examined and dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 12 November 2008. It held, in particular, that extension of the applicant’s detention had been in accordance with law and had been duly reasoned. It further noted that the grounds on which the applicant had been initially remanded in custody had not changed and that it had not been established that the state of the applicant’s health was incompatible with her detention. The court also found no grounds to cancel or alter the preventive measure. 23.  On 11 February 2009 the applicant and her counsel finished familiarising themselves with the materials of the criminal case. 24.  On 12 February 2009 the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention until 17 May 2009, still on the same grounds as before, and thus brought the total length of the applicant’s detention to twenty-nine months and twenty-four days. 25.  On 24 February 2009 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation against the detention order of 12 February 2009. She submitted that the extension of her detention had been unlawful and poorly reasoned and requested to release her under a written undertaking. The investigation of the case was complete; therefore she could no longer interfere with the proceedings if released. The court had not advanced any arguments to show that there was a danger of her absconding. The applicant considered that the detention order of 12 February 2009 had violated her rights under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. She requested the appeal court to examine the appeal in her presence. 26.  On 7 April 2009 the investigator in charge of the case informed the applicant that while the defendants were familiarising themselves with the criminal case twenty volumes of the case file had been stolen. On 16 January 2009 criminal proceedings had been initiated in this respect and the lost volumes had been restored. The investigator informed the applicant that she could now familiarise herself with those volumes of the case file. 27.  On 22 April 2009 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examined the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 12 February 2009. The court dismissed the applicant’s request for leave to appear at the appeal hearing. The court held, with reference to the position of the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 61 in Relevant domestic law and practice below), that the applicant had stated her position in her grounds of appeal. She had not indicated any circumstances which would require her personal presence at the appeal hearing. Therefore, the refusal of leave to appear at the appeal hearing would not violate her procedural rights and would not prevent the appeal court from taking a lawful and reasoned decision on her appeal. 28.  As to the merits of the applicant’s appeal, the appeal court found that the extension of the applicant’s detention had been lawful and duly reasoned. It held, in particular, that taking into account the large number of defendants in the criminal case at hand, the volume of the case, the familiarisation of all of the defendants with the materials of the case as well as the drafting of the bill of indictment could not have been finished within the term of the applicant’s detention fixed by a previous court order. It further noted that the grounds on which the applicant’s detention had been ordered initially had not changed and that it had not been established that the state of the applicant’s health was incompatible with her detention. The court found no grounds to cancel or alter the preventive measure. The court further held that the applicant’s complaint that her rights under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention had been violated were unsubstantiated. The applicant’s counsel was not present at the appeal hearing. The prosecutor was not present either. 29.  On 8 May 2009 the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention until 17 August 2009, bringing its total duration to thirty-two months and twenty-four days. That detention order was worded in the same terms as the detention order of 15 May 2008. 30.  On 15 May 2009 the applicant appealed against the detention order of 8 May 2009 to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. She submitted, in particular, that her detention had been unlawfully extended beyond eighteen months, and the court had not taken into account her poor health and her complaints of a lack of appropriate medical assistance in the remand prison. The investigating authorities had requested the extension of her detention on the grounds of the need for her to familiarise herself with the materials of the case, but those materials had been stolen. In any event she had finished familiarising herself with the materials of the criminal case. The applicant requested the appeal court to examine her appeal in her presence. 31.  On 16 July 2009 the last of the applicant’s co-defendants finished familiarising herself with the materials of the case. 32.  On 28 July 2009 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examined the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 8 May 2009. It dismissed the applicant’s request for leave to appear at the hearing, finding that the criminal case against the applicant and her co-accused had not yet arrived at the court for trial and had not yet been examined, that the applicant had sent her written submissions to the court and that the prosecutor was not taking part in the examination of her appeal. As to the merits of the applicant’s appeal, the Supreme Court held that the detention order of 8 May 2009 was lawful and duly reasoned. The applicant’s counsel was not present at the appeal hearing. 33.  On 3 August 2009 the criminal case against the applicant and her co‑defendants was referred to the Supreme Court for trial. 34.  On 5 August 2009 the Supreme Court set the preliminary hearing of the case for 13 August 2009. However, two of the applicant’s co-defendants (M. and T.), who were under a written undertaking, did not appear on that date. 35.  At the preliminary hearing of 14 August 2009 the trial court held that the crimes of which the absconded co-defendants were accused were closely linked to crimes allegedly committed by other co-defendants, and that it would therefore be impossible to examine the charges against them separately. The court accordingly decided to put the missing co-defendants on the warrant list and suspended criminal proceedings against all defendants until the missing co-defendants were captured. Regarding the other co-defendants, including the applicant, the court held as follows:
“... [the other co-defendants] are charged with serious and particularly serious offences. The grounds on which they had been placed in detention ... still remained valid. The defendants’ and their counsel’s arguments about their permanent place of residence and job, family situation, and serious health problems cannot be regarded as grounds for changing the measure of restraint. In such circumstances, the preventive measure applied to them in the form of detention should not be changed until the preliminary hearing of the case. However, taking into account the requirements of Article 255 § 2 [of the CCrP], they should not stay in detention for more than six months after the criminal case has come to court.
... the measure of restraint [applied to other co-defendants, including the applicant] should be detention on remand, for a period which should not go beyond 3 February 2010 ...”
At the hearing of 14 August 2009 the applicant was represented by legal counsel. 36.  On 12 November 2009 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the detention order of 14 August 2009 having found that the applicant’s detention had been extended in compliance with Article 255 § 2 of the CCrP and that it was based on sufficient reasons. 37.  On 24 November 2009 the trial court resumed the proceedings and set the preliminary hearing of the case for 14 December 2009. On the same date the trial court held that the measure of restraint applied to the applicant and some of her co-defendants should remain unchanged. 38.  The case was adjourned on 14 December and 18 January 2010 because two of the applicant’s co-defendants were sick. 39.  On 29 January 2010, after holding a preliminary hearing, the trial court set the examination of the case for 10 February 2010. By the same decision the trial court severed the proceedings against co-defendant T., who was still at large, into separate proceedings. The trial court further held, having regard to the applicant’s medical condition and also to the fact that among the defendants in those proceedings she was the only woman who had been detained for a long period of time, that the applicant should be released under a written undertaking. 40.  On 20 April 2011 the Supreme Court found the applicant guilty of attempted drug trafficking and acquitted her of the remaining charges. The applicant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. It appears that appeal proceedings are pending.