4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Moscow. 5.  On 30 August 2002 the applicant, a former police officer, was summoned to the Moscow Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office and then arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and extortion committed as a member of a group. The arrest was based on statements given by an eyewitness. 6.  On 31 August 2002 the investigating authorities applied to the Moscow Kuzminskiy District Court (“the District Court”) for the applicant to be remanded in custody. 7.  On 31 August 2002 the District Court remanded the applicant in custody without specifying any time-limit. The relevant part of this decision reads as follows:
“... Having heard the parties to the proceedings, the court considers that the request for the extension of [the applicant’s] detention, brought under Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Russia, should be approved for the following reasons. The request for an extension of the applicant’s detention is drafted in compliance with the relevant requirements of the law of criminal procedure and in line with statutory time-limits. It is approved by the competent prosecutor. The case file documents show that [the applicant’s] arrest was lawful and that it was based on sufficient grounds.
The court takes into account the fact that [the applicant] is suspected of a serious criminal offence. If released, he may put pressure on witnesses or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice. He may also continue criminal activities or abscond. This does not allow the court to order a measure of restraint other than remand in custody ...” 8.  The applicant did not appeal against this order. 9.  On 6 September 2002 a Moscow Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office investigator brought official charges against the applicant. The applicant was suspected of armed kidnapping committed by an organised group driven by mercenary motives and of being an accessory to extortion committed by an organised group. These crimes were of a violent character and aggravated by the fact that the perpetrators had been associates previously. There were four co-accused in this case, including the applicant. 10.  On 24 October 2002 the District Court examined the investigator’s request for an extension of the applicant’s detention. The request was based on the suspicion that the applicant had committed a very serious offence, punishable by fifteen years’ imprisonment. The investigator stated that not all the required investigative actions had yet been taken. In particular, the alibi of all four co-accused needed to be checked, and the final version of the official charges had not yet been served on the applicant. The applicant’s lawyer submitted objections. He noted that the investigator’s request was unsubstantiated, that the applicant had no criminal record, had a family, a stable place of residence in Moscow, and positive references from his employer. These circumstances indicated no risk of absconding. 11.  The District Court granted the investigator’s request for the applicant’s detention to be extended until 30 November 2002. It stated that:
“... the investigator’s request should be granted. The court agrees with the investigator’s arguments. It sees no reasons to change the measure of restraint. The investigator’s request is drafted in compliance with the law of criminal procedure and is approved by the competent prosecutor ...” 12.  On 25 November 2002 the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”), restating the findings of the District Court, upheld the order of 24 October 2002 on appeal. The applicant was represented by his lawyer at this hearing. 13.  On 26 November 2002 the investigator asked the District Court to extend the applicant’s detention, because not all the required investigative actions had yet been taken. In particular, he stated that the investigating authorities needed additional time to check the alibi of one of the co-accused in this case, locate another co-accused, and finalise the criminal proceedings. 14.  On the same day the District Court approved the investigator’s findings and granted his request. The detention was extended until 30 December 2002. The court reasoned as follows:
“... The court is of the opinion that the investigator’s request should be granted because the applicant is accused of a very serious offence ...” 15.  The applicant did not appeal against the order of 26 November 2002. 16.  On 24 December 2002 the District Court examined the prosecutor’s request for the extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. It referred to the need to carry out the investigative actions mentioned in the previous request. The request was granted and the applicant’s detention was extended to 28 February 2003. The decision read as follows:
“... Having heard the parties and examined the case file, the court arrives at the following conclusion. The request for an extension of the detention of the [other] co-accused should be granted, because they are accused of criminal offences punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment. Taking into account the characters of [the applicant and the other co-accused] and the seriousness of the charges against them, the court sees no reason to change the measures of restraint. In the course of the pre-trial investigation there were no violations of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Russia. The investigator’s request is drafted in compliance with the law of criminal procedure and approved by the competent prosecutor ...” 17.  The applicant did not challenge the order on appeal. 18.  On 21 January 2003 the applicant learned of the new charges. In addition to the charges of 6 September 2002 he was charged with abuse of power and robbery. 19.  On 5 February 2003 the applicant was informed of the investigator’s decision to complete the pre-trial stage of the proceedings. On this date he began studying his case file. 20.  On 18 February 2003 the District Court authorised the applicant’s further detention. The District Court noted that since the last detention order the investigating authorities had taken a number of investigative actions, such as questioning witnesses and bringing the final version of the charges against the applicant and his co-accused. In conclusion, the District Court held that the applicant’s detention should be extended to 20 May 2003:
“... taking into account the seriousness of the charges, the measures of restraint should remain unchanged ...” 21.  The applicant’s appeal of 27 February 2003 against this order was examined and rejected by the City Court on 19 March 2003. The appellate court gave no specific reasons to justify the extension of the detention. The applicant and his lawyer were not present at this hearing. 22.  On 10 April 2003 the investigating authorities recommenced the investigation. 23.  On 14 May 2003 the District Court examined the investigator’s request for an extension of the applicant’s detention based on the need to question one of the co-accused and to take unspecified investigating actions. 24.  The request was granted. The District Court agreed with the investigator, and reasoned as follows:
 “... [The applicant] is accused of very serious criminal offences. There are reasons to suppose that if released the applicant may obstruct the establishment of truth, continue his criminal activity or abscond from the investigating authorities and court ...” 25.  On 29 May 2003 the applicant’s appeal against this order was rejected by the City Court, which agreed with the first-instance court’s reasoning and noted that the detention was justified. The applicant was represented by a lawyer at the court of appeal. 26.  On 27 June 2003 the applicant was served with the official charges. 27.  On 30 June 2003 the applicant was notified that the investigative authorities had decided to complete the criminal proceedings. 28.  On 4 August 2003 the District Court ordered the extension of the applicant’s detention until 30 August 2013. The court agreed with the investigating authorities that there was a need to finalise the investigation. It also stated as follows
“... [the applicant] has been charged with very serious offences, therefore there are sufficient grounds to suppose that if released he may try to abscond ....“ 29.  On 25 August 2003 a complaint by the applicant about this decision was rejected by the City Court. The applicant was not present at this hearing, but was represented by a lawyer. 30.  On 15 August 2003 the City Court examined the investigator’s request for an extension of the detention of the applicant and his co-accused, based on the need to familiarise the accused with the criminal case file. The court approved the request, referring to the seriousness of the applicant’s charges and the potential risk of flight. It extended the applicant’s detention until 20 November 2003. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“... From the submitted documents it follows that [the applicant and his co-accused] have begun studying the case file. However, there is a significant amount of documents, which means that it will be impossible to finish before 30 August 2002.
Although the criminal case file contains positive references in respect of [the applicant and his co-accused], [they] are accused of very serious criminal offences. The reasons for detention have not ceased to exist, because if released they may flee from the investigating authorities and the court and impede the administration of justice ...” 31.  On 9 September 2003 the investigation was reopened. 32.  The applicant challenged the decisions to recommence the investigation. However, his challenges were rejected by the District Court on 9 July and 28 October 2003. The court noted that in accordance with Article 37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Russia an investigator is entitled to direct the course of criminal proceedings. These decisions were upheld on appeal by the City Court on 5 August and 19 November 2003 respectively. 33.  On 21 October 2003 the Supreme Court of Russia examined the lawfulness of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. Upholding the order of 15 August 2003 on appeal, the court briefly noted that the prosecutor’s request had been submitted in compliance with the requirements of domestic law. It stated that owing to the risk of absconding the measure of restraint applied to the applicant should remain unchanged. This decision was delivered in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer. 34.  On 17 November 2003 the City Court granted the investigator’s request for an extension of the applicant’s detention until 20 February 2004. The court noted that investigative actions such as an identification parade, a reconstruction exercise, and some others, had not yet been taken by the investigating authorities. It stated that if released the applicant might put pressure on unspecified witnesses. The court further stated that the applicant was suspected of a very serious offence and therefore if released might try to abscond. 35.  On 10 December 2003 the applicant received the final version of the charges against him. The investigative authorities excluded the charge of abuse of power. They pressed charges of armed and violent kidnapping committed by an organised group driven by mercenary motives and of being an accessory to extortion, also committed by an organised group. In accordance with the charges, both the offences were aggravated by the fact that the perpetrators had been associates previously. 36.  On 8 January 2004 the Supreme Court of Russia held a hearing in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer, and upheld the order of 17 November 2003. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer was informed of the date of this hearing. 37.  On 17 February 2004 the City Court extended the applicant’s detention until 1 March 2004. The court’s findings read as follows.
“... Having checked the submitted materials in respect of the [applicant and his co‑accused] and heard the opinions of the prosecutor and defence counsel, the court has decided to extend the detention of the accused for the reasons given below ...
The investigator informed the accused that the criminal proceedings against them were complete and advised them of their right to study the case file ...The schedules and the statements of the accused confirmed that the familiarisation with the case file was not yet complete ... It is not possible to finish the study of the case file before the detention expires.
Although there are positive references in the criminal case file in respect of [the applicant and his co-accused], there is no reason to change the measure of restraint. There have been no breaches of law in respect of the detention of the accused. The detention was extended in line with the requirements of Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Russia ... All the accused have been charged with serious criminal offences related to kidnapping. This gives the court grounds to conclude that they might flee or impede the proper administration of justice ...” 38.  On 27 April 2004 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the order of 17 February 2004. The applicant and his legal counsel were not informed of the date of this appeal hearing. The said decision was given in their absence. 39.  On 26 February 2004 the investigator’s request for a further extension of the applicant’s detention was granted by the City Court. The detention was extended “until such time as [the applicant and the co‑accused] had finished studying the case file materials”. The decision reads as follows:
“... The court has examined the case file. It notes that the accused were notified of the termination of the investigating actions. At the present time they are studying the case file materials. The court further observes that the investigator’s request was drafted in line with the requirements of the law of criminal procedure and in compliance with the statutory time-limits. The court also states that [the applicant and his co-accused] are charged with very serious offences, and that there are sufficient grounds to believe that they may abscond or in other ways impede the administration of justice. Taking into account that the reasons for the applicant’s detention continue to exist, the court arrives at the conclusion that the prosecutor’s request should be granted ...” 40.  On 20 April 2004 the Supreme Court of Russia rejected the applicant’s appeal. It confirmed the City Court’s findings and stated that there were “sufficient grounds to believe” that the seriousness of the charges against the applicant may lead the accused to take flight. The hearing was held in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer, because the competent authorities did not notify him or his counsel of the date of this hearing. 41.  After the applicant had studied his case file, on 7 April 2004 the applicant’s criminal case was transferred to the District Court for examination on the merits. The length of the applicant’s pre‑trial detention at this time was one year, seven months and eight days. 42.  The applicant remained in detention until he was convicted by the first-instance court, on 11 October 2004, his detention on remand having been extended by the District Court at regular intervals. The court did not give specific reasons for these extensions. The length of his detention during judicial proceedings was six months and four days, and the total length of his detention was two years, one month and twelve days. 43.  As indicated above, the criminal case was transferred to the District Court on 7 April 2004. On 14 May 2004 the District Court ordered open court hearings to be held in the applicant’s case. 44.  On 1 June 2004 the prosecutor stated that Mr R., a victim of the applicant’s alleged crime, had received threats from the applicant. On this ground the prosecutor requested that the court hearings be held in camera. 45.  On the same day the District Court granted this request. 46.  The parties did not submit a copy of this decision to the Court. As far as can be ascertained from the documents in the Court’s possession, the District Court neither questioned Mr R. about the threats allegedly received from the applicant, nor did it examine his written statements concerning those threats. 47.  All the trial court hearings after 1 June 2004 were held in camera. During these hearings the District Court questioned Mr R. and several other witnesses against the co-accused. 48.  According to the applicant, during the trial hearings the District Court misrepresented witness statements in the court records and significantly abridged them. 49.  On 11 October 2004 the District Court convicted six co-accused, including the applicant, who was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for armed and premeditated kidnapping associated with threats of violence, and an act of robbery. The court’s findings were based on statements from more than ten eyewitnesses, who were questioned in connection with different aspects of the criminal offence, on statements from the co-accused, identification parade records, medical documents and other pieces of evidence. The sentence was announced publicly. 50.  The applicant appealed against his conviction to the City Court. He claimed that his conviction was unsafe and based on false findings of facts and law. He also complained about the lack of publicity, owing to the proceedings having been held in camera. 51.  On 11 July 2005 the City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. It agreed with the conclusions given by the District Court and held that the sentence was lawful. As regards the closed trial court sessions the court noted:
“During the criminal proceedings [Mr R.] reported that threats of bodily harm had been made against him. In connection with this the prosecutor requested that hearings be held in camera. The court’s decision to grant this request fully complied with the requirements of Article 241 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Russia, which entitles courts to hold closed sessions in the interests of the personal safety of participants in criminal proceedings”. 52.  It is not clear whether the appeal hearing was held in camera or not. 53.  In his application form of 25 April 2003 the applicant noted that from his arrest on 30 August until 16 September 2002 he was an inmate in the “Vikhino” Moscow Department of the Interior temporary detention facility and kept in solitary confinement. According to him, he received food at one to three-day intervals. He slept on wooden boards without a mattress. There were no sanitary facilities in his cell. Subsequently, he was detained in remand prison IZ-77/1 in Moscow. 54.  In his application form of 25 August 2005 the applicant made complaints about the conditions of transport he was subjected to on forty occasions, when he was transported to and from court hearings between 31 August 2002 and 11 October 2004. He stated that on hearing days he was taken out of his cell at around 5 a.m. and placed in an overcrowded preliminary reception cell. At around 9 to 11 a.m. the inmates were placed in a prison van, which was so overcrowded that half the prisoners had nowhere to sit. According to the applicant, people infected with tuberculosis or who had lice were put in the same van as other prisoners. The vans used for the applicant’s transportation had no windows or ventilation. Each trip to a court hearing took around two or three hours. Return trips usually lasted from three to five hours, owing to frequent traffic jams. At the pre-trial stage of the proceedings the applicant took such trips around forty times. 55.  In his application form of 25 August 2005 the applicant claimed that on the days of court hearings he was held in the cells of the District Court and the City Court, originally designed for two people. Because of the shortage of cells the authorities placed three or four people in each cell. He stated that he remained in the cells for the entire day on numerous occasions between 31 August 2002 and 11 October 2004.