5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lived before his arrest in the town of Smolensk. He had served in the Smolensk regional police headquarters as deputy head of the division for the investigation of organised crime in the sphere of illegal firearms, serious traffic accidents and arson, but resigned from his office on 25 June 2004. 6.  On 4 August 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking. A record of his arrest was drawn up on the same day. An investigator noted in the record that eyewitnesses had identified the applicant. The applicant signed the arrest record, noting that he had been framed by officers of the Federal Service for Drug Control in relation to his work as a police investigator. He also wrote that his arrest had been unlawful as he had a permanent place of residence and was the breadwinner for a minor child. 7.  On the following day an investigator from the Leninskiy District prosecutor’s office filed a request with the Leninskiy District Court of Smolensk seeking authorisation for remanding the applicant in custody. The investigator argued that on 23 June 2004 the applicant had asked Mr Pa. to sell 26.59 grams of poppy straw extract to Ms P. On the same day Mr Pa., in the applicant’s presence, had sold the requested quantity of drugs to Ms P. The police seized the drugs from Ms P. on her way home. The investigator insisted that the applicant’s part in the alleged criminal offence had been confirmed by witness statements and records of phone calls. 8.  On 6 August 2004 the District Court authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention, holding as follows:
“It appears from the criminal case file materials presented to the court that [the applicant] is charged with a particularly serious criminal offence based on the facts mentioned in the case file. In this connection, and by virtue of Article 108 § 1 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, a measure of restraint in the form of detention should be chosen for the defendant. Taking into account information related to the personality of [the applicant] who, for a long time, was a high-ranking official in various divisions of the Smolensk regional police headquarters, and having regard to [the applicant’s] disagreement with the charges, his close and friendly relations with other parties in the proceedings in connection with the charges invoked in the present criminal case – Ms P., Mr Pa. (as it appears not only from the case file materials, but from the defendants’ own statements made in this court hearing) – and also considering the nature of the charges, their particular gravity, the circumstances examined by the court and the materials of the criminal case file, the court considers well-founded the arguments put forward in the investigator’s request [for authorisation of the applicant’s detention] that [the applicant] might obstruct, in some way, the course of justice, that is, prevent the establishment of the truth in the present case.”
It appears from a letter sent by a judge of the Leninskiy District Court to the Leninskiy District prosecutor on 20 August 2004 that the court also took into account the fact that the applicant had been unemployed at the time when the issue of his detention was being decided. 9.  On 1 October 2004 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 23 October 2004 on the grounds that the charges against him were serious and additional investigative measures were required. The District Court also noted that the previous grounds warranting the applicant’s detention remained valid. 10.  Twenty days later the District Court again extended the applicant’s detention, this time until 23 November 2004, giving the same reasons as on 1 October 2004. 11.  On 22 November 2004 the District Court, by the same decision, extended the applicant’s and Mr Pa.’s detention. The relevant part of the decision read as follows:
“Mr Pa. and [the applicant] are charged with a particularly serious offence. By virtue of Article 108 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, a measure of restraint in the form of detention may be applied to a defendant charged with a crime under Article 228 § 1 of the Russian Criminal Code, which is why the courts previously applied that measure of restraint to [Mr Pa. and the applicant] and extended the measure; the grounds for applying the measure have not changed: Mr Pa. and [the applicant] are still charged with a particularly serious criminal offence; the information about [the defendants’] personality has not changed, and nor have other circumstances which the court took into consideration when deciding the restraint measure. That is why the court considers well-founded the investigator’s arguments about the need to extend the period of [the defendants’] detention while additional investigatory and procedural measures are carried out, as mentioned in the [detention] order ...” 12.  According to the Government’s submissions, on 24 November 2004 the applicant was additionally charged with attempted bribery and the selling of poisonous substances. The prosecution asserted that on 23 June 2004, in addition to the 26.59 grams of poppy straw extraction, the applicant had also asked Mr Pa. to sell 97 millilitres of acetic anhydride to Ms P. On 24 June 2004 the applicant allegedly offered at least 500 United States dollars (USD) to the head of the division for the fight against drug trafficking of the Smolensk regional police headquarters in exchange for information about Ms P.’s arrest and in an attempt to obtain her release. 13.  On 17 December 2004 the District Court authorised a further extension of the applicant’s detention until 23 January 2005, for the same reasons as those set out in the order of 22 November 2004. The District Court did not cite any new charges against the applicant; it relied merely on the initial episode of the sale of poppy straw extraction. 14.  Ten days later, in response to an appeal lodged by the applicant, the Smolensk Regional Court upheld the detention order of 17 December 2004, finding that the entire period of the applicant’s detention had been lawful and based on sufficient reasons, such as the gravity of the charges and the need to carry out additional investigative measures. The Regional Court did not address the applicant’s arguments about his poor state of health, the availability of his permanent place of residence in Smolensk or his family situation. 15.  On 17 January 2005 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 23 February 2005, having noted that on 25 December 2004 additional charges of attempted bribery and the selling of poisonous substances had been introduced against him. Having further acknowledged that the investigation needed to carry out a number of measures, including psychiatric examinations of the applicant’s co-defendants, the District Court reasoned as follows:
“Taking into account the particular complexity of the investigation in the present criminal case in view of the fact that it involves a number of criminal episodes, and considering that [the experts] need additional time to perform inpatient psychiatric examinations, – up to three months, without taking into account the period required to transport the defendants to the place of examination – at least three months are needed to carry out the above-mentioned investigative measures. At the same time, it is necessary to take into account that [the applicant] is charged with a number of particularly serious criminal offences [and] that, if released, he might abscond from the investigation and the court [and] pervert the course of justice. It is therefore impossible to annul the measure of restraint in the form of detention”. 16.  The District Court employed identical wording when extending the applicant’s detention for another month on 17 February 2005. 17.  On 19 April 2005 the applicant was served with a copy of the bill of indictment comprising all charges, including aggravated drug trafficking, unlawful possession of poisonous substances and attempted bribery. 18.  By a decision of 6 May 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 23 June 2005, reiterating the wording used in the decisions of 17 January and 17 February 2005. However, the District Court also noted that it had previously taken into account the defence’s arguments pertaining to the applicant’s health and personality, and that it still considered them insufficient to warrant his release. 19.  The prosecution having closed the investigation, on 9 June 2005 the applicant was committed to stand trial before the Leninskiy District Court. 20.  On 23 June 2005 the Leninskiy District Court held a preliminary hearing, as a result of which it scheduled the first trial hearing. Noting that neither of the circumstances calling for the defendants’ detention had seized to exist, it stated that the measure of restraint applied to all the defendants should remain unchanged. The District Court did not indicate the period for which the defendants were to remain in custody. 21.  On 28 November 2005 the District Court simultaneously extended the applicant’s and Mr Pa.’s detention until 28 February 2006, finding that there were no grounds warranting their release. In particular, the District Court held as follows:
“Having heard all the parties to the proceedings, the court considers it necessary to extend the defendants’ detention. [The applicant] and Mr Pa. are charged with a number of intentional criminal offences, one of which is particularly serious. As the judicial investigation stage has not yet been completed, [the court] is still examining evidence provided by the prosecution. The circumstances which served as the basis for the initial detention of [the defendants] has not ceased to exist and has not changed. Taking into account the nature and gravity of the charges and the defendants’ personalities, [the court considers] that, if released, they might abscond, threaten witnesses to force them to change their statements in open court, or pervert the course of justice by other means. They might also reoffend. There are no new circumstances that warrant changing the measure of restraint applied to the defendants to a more lenient one.” 22.  An appeal lodged by the applicant against the detention order of 28 November 2005 was received by the District Court on 2 December 2005. Two weeks later the District Court informed the applicant that the appeal hearing had been scheduled for 17 January 2006. The Government submitted that the Regional Court had received the case materials on 20 December 2005. 23.  Having examined the applicant’s statement of appeal, on 17 January 2006 the Smolensk Regional Court upheld the detention order of 28 November 2005, finding that the entire period of the applicant’s detention had been lawful and there were no new grounds on which to base a change of restraint measure. 24.  By a decision identically worded to the previous detention order, on 20 February 2006 the Leninskiy District Court again simultaneously extended the applicant’s and his co-defendant’s detention for three months. 25.  On 12 May 2006 the Leninskiy District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. On 25 July 2006 the Smolensk Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction of attempted bribery and sentenced him to two and a half years’ imprisonment. At the same time, the Regional Court quashed the remaining part of the conviction and sent the matter for a new examination to the trial court. 26.  On 25 September 2006 the Leninskiy District Court authorised the applicant’s conditional release, given that he had already served the major part of his sentence. According to the parties’ submissions, by a separate decision issued the same day, the District Court accepted the prosecutor’s request for the applicant’s placement in custody on the grounds that he had been charged with serious criminal offences and the trial proceedings were still pending. 27.  The applicant was acquitted of the remaining charges on 13 February 2007 when the Leninskiy District Court found no evidence of criminal conduct and ordered the applicant’s immediate release in the courtroom. That judgment became final on 22 May 2007 when the Smolensk Regional Court dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal.