5.  The applicants were born in 1958 and 1980 respectively and live in Kemerovo. 6.  Both applicants were suspected of involvement in an organised criminal gang. 7.  On 11 March 2005 the Kemerovo Zavodskoy District Court authorised the second applicant’s detention pending investigation. When justifying the decision to remand him in custody, the court noted, in particular, as follows:
“... [The second applicant] is charged with a serious offence which entails a custodial sentence exceeding ten years; he might abscond or ... put pressure on and threaten B., one of the co-defendants, who voluntarily testified that he and [the second applicant] had committed an armed robbery at the premises of ... a furniture manufacturing company. Furthermore, if released, [the second applicant] might attempt to destroy ... evidence.” 8.  On 24 June 2005 the Kemerovo Tsentralniy District Court authorised the first applicant’s detention pending investigation. The court did not find it possible to use any other measure of restraint. In particular, the court noted as follows:
“... the court takes into account that [the first applicant] is charged with a number of very serious criminal offences which ... entail a custodial sentence of from eight to fifteen years.
Furthermore, the court takes into account that [the first applicant] played an active part in the offences: as well as the specific circumstances of the crimes committed ... the fact that he had had firearms in his possession ... and had so far failed to turn them in. Accordingly, the court considers that even though [the first applicant] does not have a criminal record, that he was employed and provided positive character references, the conclusion is that if released [the first applicant] might abscond, interfere with the administration of justice by putting pressure on and threatening witnesses, and continue with criminal activities. The court finds without merit the arguments furthered by the defence and [the first applicant] that he has not absconded in the past. The criminal investigation against [him] was suspended due to the [authorities’] failure to identify the culprits ... [The first applicant] was identified as a suspect only in May 2005 ... [Before that time] he did not have any reasons to abscond.” 9.  On 22 July 2005 the Tsentralniy District Court extended the second applicant’s detention until 2 October 2005, reasoning as follows:
“The circumstances underlying the [second applicant’s] remand in custody had not changed or ceased to exist. [The second applicant] is charged with a serious crime and a number of particularly serious offences. Accordingly, there are reasons to believe that once at liberty he might abscond, continue with his criminal activities or interfere with the establishment of the truth in the case.” 10.  On 11 August 2005 the Tsentralniy District Court extended the first applicant’s detention until 2 October 2005. The court took into account the gravity of the charges against him and indicated as follows:
“... the court finds that [the circumstances underlying the court’s decision to remand the first applicant in custody] did not cease to exist and it is still necessary to detain him. The court considers that, if released, [the first applicant] might continue his criminal activity, abscond or interfere with administration of justice.” 11.  On 30 September 2005 the Kemerovo Regional Court extended the applicants’ pre-trial detention until 2 January 2006. The court issued a detention order in respect of seven co-defendants, including the applicants, noting that it granted the prosecutor’s request that the defendants be detained pending trial. 12.  On 10 October 2005 the Regional Court set the trial for 24 to 28 October 2005, noting that the five defendants, including the applicants, should remain in custody. 13.  It appears that the applicants’ detention was repeatedly extended pending trial. Each time the court referred to the gravity of the charges, arguing that the circumstances underlying the court’s decision to remand them in custody had not ceased to exist. According to the second applicant, his detention was extended on 2 January 2006. On 20 March 2006 the Regional Court extended the applicants’ detention until 26 June 2006. 14.  According to the Government, on 22 March 2006 the authorities found a note on defendant B. which proved that the applicants had tried to put pressure on him to make him testify in their favour. B. was also held in custody pending trial. 15.  On 29 May 2006 the Regional Court granted a request by the prosecutor for the criminal prosecution against the applicants and four other defendants to be discontinued in respect of the charges concerning membership of an organised criminal gang. On the same day the Regional Court found the first applicant guilty of robbery and wilful destruction of property and the second applicant of robbery and illegal possession of firearms. The court sentenced them to ten and twelve years’ imprisonment respectively. 16.  On 25 October 2006 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the applicants’ conviction on appeal and remitted the matter to the Regional Court for fresh consideration. The applicants remained in custody pending the new trial. 17.  On 28 December 2006 the Regional Court extended detention in respect of four defendants, including the applicants, until 20 March 2007. In the relevant extension order the court reasoned as follows:
“Regard being had to the gravity of the offences the defendants are charged with, their character and other circumstances, the court has sufficient reasons to believe that if at liberty they might abscond, continue with their criminal activities, threaten witnesses and other parties to the proceedings, or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice.” 18.  On 12 March 2007 the Regional Court extended the applicants’ detention until 20 June 2007, reiterating verbatim the reasoning it had used when issuing the detention order of 28 December 2006. On the same date the court transferred the case back to the prosecutor’s office for further investigation. 19.  On an unspecified date the prosecutor forwarded the case file to the Kemerovo Zavodskoy District Court. On 31 May 2007 the District Court fixed the hearing for 7 June 2007. It further extended the detention in respect of four of the co-defendants, including the applicants, reasoning as follows:
“Regard being had to the gravity of the offences [the defendants] are charged with, their character and other circumstances, the court has sufficient reasons to believe that if at liberty they might abscond, continue with their criminal activities, threaten witnesses and other parties to the proceedings, or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice. [Their detention] is necessary for execution of the verdict.
Furthermore, the court did not receive any evidence that [their detention] was no longer necessary.” 20.  On 6 June 2007 the Supreme Court of Russia considered appeals against the decisions of 28 December 2006 and 12 March 2007 and upheld them. The second applicant appealed only against the decision of 28 December 2006. 21.  On 4 July 2007 the Zavodskoy District Court returned the criminal case file to the prosecutor’s office to allow the latter to consolidate the cases against different defendants charged with the same offences. The court discerned no circumstances that would permit the applicants’ release, and ordered that they remain in detention. 22.  On 19 July 2007 the police investigator discontinued the criminal proceedings against the first applicant in respect of the charge of wilful destruction of property. 23.  On 24 July 2007 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 31 May 2007 on appeal. 24.  On 22 August 2007 the Zavodskoy District Court decided to hold a preliminary hearing of the matter in response to the applicants’ request to be tried by jury. The court ruled that the applicants and two other defendants remain in custody. In particular, the court noted as follows:
“Regard being had to the gravity of the charges against [the applicants], B. and L., their character and other circumstances, the court considers that if released they might abscond, continue with their criminal activity, threaten witnesses or other parties to the proceedings, or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice...
Furthermore, the defence failed to furnish evidence that [their detention] was no longer necessary. Accordingly, there are no grounds to lift or change the measure of restraint imposed.” 25.  On 30 August 2007 the District Court set the trial for 12 September 2007. It further reasoned that the four defendants, including the applicants, should remain in custody. The court did not establish any grounds justifying their release. 26.  On 13 September 2007 the District Court extended the applicants’ detention until 20 December 2007. The court issued a single order in respect of the four defendants, including the applicants, and reiterated verbatim the reasoning of its decision of 22 August 2007. On 18 October 2007 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 13 September 2007 on appeal. 27.  On 13 December 2007 and 11 March and 15 May 2008 the District Court extended the applicants’ detention until 20 March, 20 May and 20 July 2008 respectively. The court’s reasoning and the format of the order remained unchanged. The Regional Court upheld the said decisions on appeal on 19 February, 17 April and 8 July 2008 respectively. 28.  On 18 July 2008 the District Court found the applicants guilty of robbery and sentenced them to three years and one month and three years and two months’ imprisonment respectively. The applicants did not appeal. 29.  It appears that both applicants were released shortly after the pronouncement of the judgment of 18 July 2008.