5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Chişinău. He is the director of Tantal SRL, a company offering security services. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  On 12 July 2005 the applicant's company was informed by a client (a petrol supply company) of damage caused to the latter by one of the applicant's employees' having stolen fuel and damaged a fuel pump. On 20 July 2005 the applicant responded by revealing the results of an internal inquiry, which had established that one of the applicant's employees responsible for guarding the relevant petrol stations, G.N., had confessed to the above actions, but had refused to pay for the damage. The applicant proposed to send the relevant information to the local police and the client. 8.  On 25 November 2005 G.N. made a complaint to the General Directorate for Fighting Organised Crime (“GDFOC”), a subdivision of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, about threats to him and his family by “persons at the office of the Tantal company” who, from 5 July 2005, had threatened him with violence in order to obtain money from him. When he refused, he was coerced into signing a receipt which showed that he had borrowed money from T.G., another employee of the applicant's company. Finally, G.N. complained that he had been illegally detained between 7 and 11 July 2005 at one of the detention centres. The complaint was registered by GDFOC officer O. 9.  On 26 November 2005 officer M. from the prosecutor general's Office ordered the opening of a criminal investigation into the allegations made by G.N. and the creation, for that purpose, of a team of twenty investigators from two departments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The order described the applicant and T.G. as the alleged perpetrators. 10.  On 29 November 2005 the applicant was arrested. The reason given for the arrest was “the victim directly identified the suspect as the perpetrator of the crime; there is reason to believe that the suspect may exert pressure on the victim and witnesses”. From that date until 9 March 2006 the applicant was detained in the GDFOC remand centre, except for a few days when he was on bail (see paragraph 11 below). 11.  The prosecutor asked a court to remand the applicant in custody, accusing the applicant of unlawfully detaining and blackmailing G.N. in order to obtain 1,000 United States dollars (USD) from him. On 2 December 2005 the Buiucani District Court rejected that request. The court found that the prosecutor had not provided sufficient evidence to prove the existence of grounds for detaining the applicant. It further found that G.N.'s detention in July 2005 had been sanctioned by the deputy prosecutor of Chişinău and could not therefore be considered unlawful detention; that no evidence had been adduced to substantiate the danger of the applicant's exerting pressure on the victim or witnesses; and that the applicant had a permanent residence, a job, and supported a child. Nonetheless, the court ordered the applicant's house arrest for ten days. 12.  On 7 December 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal quashed that decision, finding that the court had incorrectly applied the law, which did not allow any preventive measure other than remand in custody of persons accused of especially serious crimes. However, the court accepted the applicant's request for release on bail, which was set at 50,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (3,300 euros (EUR) at the time). He paid that amount and was released. 13.  In the meantime, on 6 December 2005, the applicant's company's licence was revoked at the request of one of the subdivisions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The reasons given were the company's failure to observe the rules on the wearing of uniforms of certain colours, and the participation of the applicant in criminal activities. 14.  On 12 December 2005 the applicant mentioned to the media that his prosecution and arrest had been the result of efforts by the Ministry of Internal Affairs to monopolise the security services market by destroying competitors, including his company. 15.  On 15 December 2005 officer M. ordered the opening of another criminal investigation against the applicant and two others and the creation of a working group consisting of 24 investigators from two departments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The reason given was a complaint by H.A and another person about having been blackmailed by the applicant and three other persons between December 2004 and September 2005. The complaint was registered by GDFOC officer O. On the same day, the applicant was arrested, the reasons given in the minutes of arrest being that the victim expressly identified the applicant as the author of the crime. 16.  On 18 December 2005 the prosecutor requested a court to remand the applicant in custody. On the same day the Centru District Court accepted that request and ordered the applicant's detention for ten days. The reasons given by the court were that:
“the crime of which [the applicant] is accused is a serious one for which the law provides a penalty of more than two years; during the initial stage of proceedings the accused could obstruct the investigation, could put pressure on witnesses and the victim and could destroy evidence”. 17.  The applicant appealed, claiming his innocence and the insufficiency of reasons for choosing the preventive measure of detention. On 22 December 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, giving similar reasons. 18.  At the prosecutor's request, on 23 December 2005 the Buiucani District Court ordered the extension of the applicant's detention by twenty-five days. The court cited the relevant provision of domestic law and found that:
“[the applicant] is accused of a particularly serious crime, evidence submitted to the court was obtained lawfully, the accused could put pressure on witnesses and the victim, there is a need to verify the submissions of a co-accused and there is a danger of the fabrication of evidence and collusion between the accused. Also, the [applicant] has not made any declarations to the investigating authorities relying on his right to remain silent, which allows him to fabricate defence evidence should he not be detained”.
On 30 December 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld that decision, giving essentially the same reasons as before. 19.  On 6 January 2006 the applicant made a habeas corpus application, claiming that no evidence had been submitted to the courts in support of the alleged risk if he were to be released. He also drew the court's attention to the large number of investigators assigned to his case, which should have allowed them to take all necessary investigative action. Accordingly, his continued detention was not justified by the needs of the investigation. 20.  On 11 January 2006 the Buiucani District Court rejected that request, finding that:
“the grounds on which the detention was ordered remain valid. The court also considers that ... the investigation of [the applicant's] case by a group of officers is not a ground provided by law for changing the preventive measure”.
On 18 January 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld that decision, giving essentially the same reasons as before. 21.  On the same day the Buiucani District Court extended the applicant's detention by a further 15 days. On 25 January 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld that decision. Both courts gave essentially the same reasons as before. 22.  Also on 25 January 2006 the applicant's wife asked permission to give the applicant food and newspapers on a daily basis. By a letter of 30 January 2006 from the detention centre's management she was informed that, according to a regulation of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the applicant, with the approval of the investigating officer, was allowed one parcel per week. 23.  On 1 February 2006 the Buiucani District Court ordered the extension of the applicant's detention by twenty days, giving essentially the same reasons as before. In his appeal the applicant relied, inter alia, on the Convention and the Court's judgment in Sarban v. Moldova (no. 3456/05, 4 October 2005), submitting a copy of the judgment. On 6 February 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld that decision, giving essentially the same reasons as before. 24.  On 17 February 2006 the Buiucani District Court extended the applicant's detention by another ten days. In his appeal the applicant relied on Article 5 of the Convention. On 22 February 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld that decision. Both courts gave the same reasons as before for continuing to detain the applicant. 25.  The first preliminary hearing of the trial court was scheduled for 27 March 2006, but it was postponed owing to the absence of the prosecutor, who had not informed the court of his non-attendance or the reasons for it. At the same hearing, the applicant made a habeas corpus application, claiming that there was no continuing need to detain him and that the conditions of his detention in the Ministry of Justice detention centre were inhuman and degrading. The court refused to examine the application because of the absence of the prosecutor from the hearing. On 3 April 2006 the Buiucani District Court rejected the habeas corpus request lodged by the applicant. 26.  In a further habeas corpus request of 22 May 2006 the applicant's lawyer relied, inter alia, on statements made in court on 14 and 16 April 2006 by H.A. and another person, whose complaints had earlier served as the basis for the initiation of the second criminal investigation against the applicant (see paragraph 15 above). The lawyer reminded the court that one of the two alleged victims had declared before it that the signature on the complaint was not his and that he had no claims against the applicant. H.A., declared that he had claims against two other persons but that he had also included the applicant's name at the suggestion of the GDFOC officer O. He stated that there had been no threats against him and that none of the accused had committed any acts of violence against him. The Government did not dispute that summary of the statements made in court by these two persons. 27.  On 23 May 2006 the Buiucani District Court granted the applicant's habeas corpus request and ordered his release against an undertaking not to leave the city. The court gave the following reasons for its decision:
“... Both accused have no criminal record, have permanent residence and assure the court that they will not abscond from the law enforcement authorities or the court.
The court also considers that the sole argument of the gravity of the crime alleged to have been committed cannot serve as a ground for detention, in the absence of any specific evidence regarding the person's danger to society, the danger of pressuring witnesses who have already given their statements before the court, where none of the grounds provided for in Article 176 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been proved, namely that the accused might abscond, obstruct the investigation or re-offend...” 28.  On 6 and 7 February 2006 the applicant's lawyer complained to the Prosecutor General's Office about the conditions of detention in the GDFOC detention centre. In particular, he complained, relying on Article 3 of the Convention, of the insufficiency and poor quality of food and that he could not receive food from his wife on a daily basis. He also complained that he had been detained alone in a cell and that unidentified persons had visited him, in the absence of his lawyer, with the aim of subjecting him to psychological intimidation to induce him to give up his business. He asked to be transferred from the GDFOC detention centre, as GDFOC was the institution investigating his case, to a centre under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice, in order to obtain protection from such unlawful pressure.
There was no response to either of the two complaints. 29.  On 7 February 2006 the applicant claimed that his health had deteriorated and asked to be transferred to another centre where he could be given medical assistance, claiming that the GDFOC centre had no medical staff. 30.  On an unknown date the Head of GDFOC replied that the detention centre under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice was overcrowded and that it would be impossible to transfer the applicant there. Should the applicant need it, he would be given full medical assistance. 31.  In an appeal against the decision of 17 February 2006 (see paragraph 24 above), the applicant complained, inter alia, of his conditions of detention: the cell had been situated underground and he had had no access to daylight; low-intensity artificial light had never been turned off; there had been very high humidity; there had been no linen for the wood-covered stone platform which served as a bed; loud music had been played all day long; the ceiling had been so low as to prevent him from standing upright in the cell; access to shower facilities had been limited to one shower every ten days, which had only become possible following numerous requests by the applicant's lawyers; there had been no toilet in the cell and access to the toilet had been limited to once a day. There had been no opportunity for daily exercise and the ventilation system had only been switched on when the administration so decided. There had been no medical staff in the detention centre. The applicant also expressed the fear that he might have contracted tuberculosis. 32.  On 22 February 2006 the applicant's wife requested the GDFOC authorities to transfer him to another detention centre. As an alternative, she requested permission to give him food on a daily basis and requested that the authorities allow him daily walks and access to daylight, switch off the artificial light at night, allow him to use the toilet whenever he needed it (or transfer him to a cell with a toilet), provide access to shower facilities once a week and permit him to be seen by an independent doctor and be given necessary medication. It is unclear whether there was any response to these requests. 33.  In his submissions to this Court, the applicant stated that only the Head of GDFOC had had the keys to his cell and that the quality of food had been very poor. He reiterated his fears that he might have caught tuberculosis and that it was impossible to verify this without medical assistance. 34.  On 9 March 2006 the applicant was transferred to the Ministry of Justice detention centre (Prison no. 13, formerly known as Prison no. 3), where he was detained until his release on 23 May 2006.