9.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Lublin, Poland. 10.  On 23 May 1996 the applicant was taken into custody by the police. On 24 May 1996 the Lublin District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) charged the applicant with hiding a stolen car and possession of a counterfeit banknote and remanded him in custody. The District Prosecutor considered that there existed a danger of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses. Moreover, he referred to a significant danger to society of the criminal acts allegedly committed by the applicant. 11.  The applicant appealed against the District Prosecutor's decision but on 18 June 1996 the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) dismissed his appeal. The court considered that the reasons given for the applicant's detention had not ceased to exist. 12.  On 14 August 1996 the Lublin Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 23 November 1996. It pointed out that the investigation had not been completed and that there was a risk that if released the applicant would obstruct the criminal proceedings against him. The applicant appealed against this decision but on 12 September 1996 the Lublin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed his appeal. 13.  On 14 October 1996 the Lublin Regional Prosecutor decided to take evidence from an anonymous witness. The applicant did not appeal against this decision. 14.  In November 1996 the prosecution dropped the charge of possession of a counterfeit banknote. 15.  On 22 November 1996 the Lublin Regional Prosecutor filed with the Lublin Regional Court a bill of indictment against the applicant. 16.  On 16 December 1996 the applicant applied for bail but on 17 December 1996 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed his application. It considered that the applicant's two adult children could help his wife, who was ill. Moreover, the evidence gave rise to reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the criminal offence with which he was charged. The court referred to Articles 209 and 218 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17.  The applicant appealed against this decision but on 15 January 1997 the Lublin Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. The appellate court referred to Articles 209 and 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It considered that the prison term to which the applicant could be sentenced justified his detention. The court also pointed out that the recent medical examinations of the applicant's wife had shown that she did not need the help of third persons. 18.  On 24 March 1997 the applicant applied to the Lublin Regional Court for release from detention. He submitted that his wife was ill and required his help. 19.  On 25 March 1997 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's application. It considered that the evidence gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the criminal offence with which he was charged. In addition, the applicant's wife did not require hospitalisation and could be helped by other members of her family. 20.  On 28 August 1997 the first hearing took place before the Lublin Regional Court. 21.  On 26 September 1997 the Lublin Regional Court examined an anonymous witness. 22.  Subsequently, hearings took place on 1 October and 5 November 1997. 23.  During the hearing held on 20 November 1997 the Regional Court released the applicant from detention. 24.  On 18 December 1997 and 7 January 1998 the trial court held hearings. 25.  On 9 January 1998 the Lublin Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to one year and five months' imprisonment and a fine. The applicant appealed his conviction. 26.  On 26 May 1998 the first hearing took place before the Lublin Court of Appeal. 27.  During the hearing held on 20 August 1998 the appellate court decided to refer a question on a point of law to the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy). The question concerned the legal qualification of the criminal offence with which the applicant was charged. 28.  On 18 November 1998 the Supreme Court adopted a resolution on the question submitted by the Lublin Court of Appeal. 29.  The next hearing before the Lublin Court of Appeal took place on 10 December 1998. The court quashed the applicant's conviction and remitted the case to the trial court. 30.  In the course of 1999 the Lublin Regional Court held hearings on 26 March, 29 April, 2 June, 6 and 9 September, and 8 October. 31.  On 24 and 29 September, 5 and 26 October 1999, and also 5 April and 10 May 2000, the anonymous witness failed to appear before the court. 32.  The first hearing in 2000 was held on 8 August. On 18 September 2000 the applicant informed the court that he was ill. 33.  The next hearing took place on 4 October 2000. The Regional Court decided to consider the charges against the applicant in separate proceedings. 34.  On 17 October 2000 the Regional Court stayed the criminal proceedings against the applicant because he was in a hospital and could not attend hearings. 35.  On 19 December 2000 the court examined the anonymous witness. 36.  On 4 January 2001 the court received information that the applicant was released from the hospital. On 13 March 2001 it resumed the proceedings. 37.  Subsequently hearing were held on 7 May, 6 June, 5 July and 20 September 2001. 38.  On 20 September 2001 the court fined several witnesses who had failed to attend hearings. 39.  During the hearing held on 5 December 2001 before the Lublin Regional Court the applicant requested that his case be transmitted to another court as he considered that the Lublin Regional Court was a party to the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights concerning his application. On 15 January 2002 his request was rejected. 40.  On 23 April, 15 May, 20 June and 19 July 2002 the Regional Court held hearings. 41.  On 23 July 2002 the Lublin Regional Court convicted the applicant of receiving stolen cars and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment and a fine. 42.  On 19 August 2002 the applicant appealed his conviction. On 26 November 2002 the Lublin Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. 43.  On 13 October 1997 the applicant mailed a letter to the European Commission of Human Rights. He handed a sealed envelope containing the letter to the prison authorities. The authorities submitted it to the Lublin Regional Court where the letter was opened and read. 44.  On 20 October 1997 the court returned the letter to the applicant. 45.  Subsequently, he did not send the letter through the prison service but instead mailed it through third persons. The letter was received by the European Commission of Human Rights on 4 November 1997.