5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Kursk. 6.  On 16 December 2008 the applicant, a high-ranking police officer at the time, was arrested on suspicion of misappropriation of funds and abuse of power. 7.  On 17 December 2008 the applicant was charged with abuse of power and fraud. 8.  On 18 December 2008 the Leninskiy District Court of Kursk authorised the applicant’s detention pending investigation. The court noted, in particular, as follows:
“It follows from the materials submitted that the investigating authorities have grounds to charge the applicant with [abuse of power and fraud] which entail a custodial sentence exceeding two years.
...
When deciding to remand [the applicant] in custody, the court also takes into account that the circumstances justifying deprivation of liberty are reasonable suspicion [that the applicant committed the offences he is charged with] and the investigator’s argument that, if at large, [the applicant] would put pressure on witnesses, attempt to destroy evidence and interfere with the investigation.
The investigating authorities consider that, if at large, [the applicant] might put pressure on witnesses. This fact was confirmed by witness Sp., who stated that [the applicant] and B. wilfully and knowingly kept him in an office [at the regional migration service] from 5 p.m. on 7 November 2008 to 0:30 a.m. on 8 November 2008 in order to make him change his testimony, write an explanation and tender his resignation ...
Witness V. submitted that ... [the applicant] had put pressure on him. [The applicant] ordered an internal inquiry in respect of V. allegedly for V.’s failure to prepare certain documents. On 3 December 2008 ... [the applicant] removed V. from office.
Furthermore, it follows from the materials submitted that, according to Sp., on 8 November 2011, after he had left the building of [the regional migration service] he had been assaulted and sustained bodily injuries ... When questioned, Sp. submitted that the assault, in his opinion, had been connected with the criminal investigation against [the applicant] and Sp.’s testimony [against him].
Following complaints lodged by Sp. and V., who feared for their lives, the investigating authorities considered including the said witnesses in the state protection programme.
Furthermore, it follows from the materials ... submitted by the investigating authorities that [the applicant] had attempted to hide documents ... prevent witnesses from being questioned ... and reconcile testimonies in order to evade criminal liability. This has been confirmed by the materials obtained in the course of interception of the [applicant’s] telephone communications.
Furthermore, [the court] accepts as substantiated the argument made by the investigating authorities that [the applicant] had attempted to influence the investigation in order to evade criminal liability. He is currently head of [the regional migration service], and for a long time has been in charge of [the regional department of the interior]. Because of his position, he has connections in law enforcement and could interfere with the preliminary investigation by putting pressure on witnesses who report to him and who have not been questioned yet.
...
Regard being had to the above, the court accepts the argument of the investigating authorities that, if at large, [the applicant] who is charged with [serious] criminal offences, would continue putting pressure on witnesses and other parties to the proceedings, attempt to destroy evidence and otherwise interfere with the criminal investigation. The court does not consider it possible to apply a less severe measure of restraint to [the applicant].” 9.  On 13 February 2009 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 24 April 2009. The court reiterated verbatim its reasoning of 18 December 2008 and added as follows:
“... It was also established that [the applicant] had tried, with the assistance of his subordinates, to influence the director of Secret Service LLC in order to make the latter falsify the documents necessary for the investigation of the crime in connection with supply and assembly of equipment for the server room in the [regional migration service].
...
Regard being had to the new circumstances concerning the activities of [the applicant] and B., the court also accepts the investigator’s argument that, if at large, [the applicant] would attempt to put pressure on witnesses and conspire with the other perpetrators who are at large.
...
... the court also takes into account the information about the [applicant’s] character, his age, family and state of health. The defence has not submitted any information showing that [the applicant] is unfit for detention in a remand prison.” 10.  On 3 March 2009 the Kursk Regional Court upheld the decision of 13 February 2009 on appeal. 11.  On 22 April 2009 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 24 July 2009. The court reiterated verbatim its reasoning of 13 February 2009. On 14 May 2009 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 22 April 2009 on appeal. 12.  On 22 July 2009 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 24 October 2009. In addition to the reasons indicated in the relevant court orders of 18 December 2008 and 22 April 2009, the court noted that the applicant was charged with nine counts of abuse of power and four counts of misappropriation of funds and embezzlement. It indicated as follows:
“... the persons suspected of involvement in the same crimes, when questioned (I. was questioned on 4 March 2009, Naz. was questioned on 25 June 2009, Nag. was questioned on 26 February 2009 and Nek. was questioned on 17 March 2009), submitted that [the applicant] had put pressure on them in order to make them change their testimonies.” 13.  On 11 August 2009 the Regional Court upheld, in substance, the decision of 22 July 2009 on appeal. However, it reduced the period of the applicant’s detention by one month, noting that the three months’ extension of the applicant’s detention had been excessive. 14.  On 23 September 2009 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 24 November 2009. It noted as follows:
“Regard being had to the offences [the applicant] is charged with, the court considers that the investigators have sufficient reasons to believe that [the applicant] who is charged with having committed premeditated crimes of medium gravity and serious crimes, realizes that he might be facing a lengthy prison sentence and might put pressure on witnesses who have been questioned [by the investigator] in order to make them change their testimonies.
The investigator’s argument is supported by the statements made by Sp. which show that on 7 November 2008 [the applicant] and B. willfully and knowingly kept Sp. in an office [at the regional migration service] from 5 p.m. on 7 November 2008 to 0:30 a.m. on 8 November 2008 in order to make him change his testimony, write an explanation and tender his resignation ... . As a result, Sp. was unlawfully dismissed. On 29 December 2008 the Leninskiy District Court of Kursk reinstated him in his job.
Furthermore, it follows from the materials ... submitted ... that [the applicant] attempted actively to hide documents ... , to prevent witnesses from being questioned ... and took steps to reconcile witnesses’ testimonies and coordinated the actions of Nag., I., Kr., Naz. and Nek. in order to prevent them from telling the truth ... . When questioned, I., Nag., Kr., Nek. and Naz. confirmed that the applicant had put pressure on them to make them change their statements.
Regard being had to the above, [the court considers] that the investigating authorities have reasons to believe that, if at large, [the applicant] might continue putting pressure on witnesses and other parties to the proceedings.
... [T]he court also takes into account the [applicant’s] character. It notes that for a long time [the applicant] has held high-ranking positions in the [regional department of the interior] and has connections in law enforcement. [The court] finds that the investigating authorities’ argument that, if at large, [the applicant] might interfere with the preliminary investigation is justified.
The court also takes into account the information about the [applicant’s] age, family, state of health and the gravity of the charges. There is no information showing that [the applicant] was unfit for detention in a remand prison, and the defence did not submit anything to this effect either.” 15.  On 13 October 2009 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 23 September 2009 on appeal. 16.  On 23 November 2009 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 16 December 2009. The court noted as follows:
“To date the factual circumstances underlying the [applicant’s] remand in custody have not changed or ceased to exist.
It follows from the materials submitted that [the applicant] is charged with a number of premeditated offences that are classified as serious and of medium gravity. Regard being had to the circumstances of the crimes [the applicant] is charged with, the gravity of the charges, the [applicant’s] character and the fact that, prior to the arrest and remand in custody, [the applicant] attempted to influence witness Sp., to put pressure on witness V., to hide documents which were important for the criminal case (those facts were confirmed by witnesses Sp., V. and others), and the materials of the operative and investigative activities, the investigating authorities have rightfully concluded that, if at large, [the applicant] might put pressure on witnesses or otherwise interfere with the investigation. The fact that [the applicant] was dismissed from his post does not mean that [he] is unable to put pressure on witnesses. He has information about his former subordinates.
...
Regard being had to the above, the court concludes that there are no grounds to change the measure of restraint previously imposed on [the applicant] and considers it necessary to extend the [applicant’s] detention ... ” 17.  On 10 December 2009 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 23 November 2009 on appeal. 18.  On 14 December 2009 the District Court held a preliminary hearing of the case against the applicant, B. and I. The case file compiled by the investigators comprised thirty-seven volumes. The court ordered that the applicant remain in custody pending trial, noting as follows:
“... [the applicant] is charged with a number of serious premeditated offences ..., one of which entails a custodial sentence of up to ten years. Accordingly, being aware that he might be sentenced to a significant term of imprisonment, [the applicant] might abscond and interfere with the administration of justice and delay the determination of the criminal charges against him.
Furthermore, the arguments put forward by the prosecutor that, if released, [the applicant] might put pressure on witnesses are not without merit. As it follows from the materials in the case file, prior to being remanded in custody, [the applicant] had tried to put pressure on witness S. and some others in order to make them change their testimonies. He had attempted to conceal the documents which were important for the criminal case in order to coordinate the testimonies given by him and other persons. There are therefore grounds to believe that he might continue to interfere with the administration of justice. Accordingly, there are no grounds to replace the measure of restraint imposed previously with his undertaking not to leave town. As regards the [applicant’s] dismissal from his post, this fact alone is not sufficient to grant the motion submitted by the defence.” 19.  On 14 January 2010 the Kursk Regional Court upheld, in substance, the decision of 14 December 2009 on appeal, specifying that the applicant should be detained until 14 March 2010. 20.  At 5.45 p.m. on 15 March 2010 the District Court ordered the applicant’s remand in custody until 15 May 2010. The court noted as follows:
“... [the applicant] is charged with a number of serious intentional offences ... Regard being had to the offences with which the applicant is charged; their gravity; his character; the fact that prior to being remanded in custody, [the applicant] had attempted to put pressure on witnesses V. and Sp. in order to make them change their testimonies (the latter has not been questioned yet), to conceal the documents which were important for the criminal case and to give instructions to the witnesses as to the contents of their testimonies (which was confirmed by witnesses V., Kr., Nag. and Naz., the court considers that, if at large, [the applicant] might put pressure on witnesses in order to interfere with the course of justice. The fact that the [applicant] has been dismissed from his post does not mean that he would be unable to influence the witnesses, since he has information on his former employees. The court accordingly considers that it is necessary to remand the applicant in custody.” 21.  The applicant appealed, alleging, inter alia, that the previous detention order had expired on 14 March 2010 and he had been detained for several hours on 15 March 2010 unlawfully. 22.  On 6 April 2010 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 15 May 2010 on appeal. The court did not discern any unlawfulness as regards the application of the rules of criminal procedure by the District Court when processing the applicant’s detention. 23.  On 30 April 2010 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 15 August 2010. The court reiterated its earlier reasoning that the applicant might put pressure on witnesses, if he were released. 24.  On 1 June 2010 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 30 April 2010 on appeal. 25.  On 23 July 2010 the District Court found the applicant guilty of two counts of abuse of power and two counts of embezzlement, and sentenced him to four and a half years’ imprisonment. 26.  On 16 November 2010 the Regional Court upheld, in substance, the applicant’s conviction on appeal. 27.  On 27 April 2011 the Bor Town Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region released the applicant on parole. 28.  On 16 March 2010 the regional prosecutor’s office issued the administration of the remand prison where the applicant was being detained with a writ of execution, noting that the applicant’s pre-trial detention had ended on 14 March 2010 and he had been detained on 15 March 2010 unlawfully. The prosecutor urged the administration to take measures in order to rectify the violation of the applicable laws and to institute disciplinary proceedings against the persons responsible. 29.  On 15 April 2010 the warden of the remand prison informed the prosecutor that two persons responsible for the failure to release the applicant once the detention order had expired on 14 April 2010 had been subjected to a reprimand. 30.  On 25 January 2012, in a letter addressed to the District Court, the warden confirmed that the applicant should have been released immediately on the expiry of the court order authorising his detention until 14 March 2010 and that his detention on 15 March 2010 had been unlawful.