5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lived in Moscow until his arrest. 6.  On 10 November 2006 the Prosecutor General’s office instituted criminal proceedings on charges of aggravated bribery and abuse of position against a number of officials of the Federal Mandatory Health Insurance Fund (“the Fund”), including the applicant. The latter was employed as the first deputy director of the Fund until August 2006, when he resigned. 7.  The applicant was not arrested, as on 24 November 2006 he gave a written undertaking to comply with investigators’ orders and summons. During the subsequent eight months he fully complied with the written undertaking and actively participated in the criminal investigation, attending investigative actions whenever summoned by the Prosecutor General’s office (at least fifteen times in eight months). 8.  On 2 July 2007 the deputy head of the Trade Security Service of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”), lieutenant-general V., sent a letter to a senior investigator of the Prosecutor General’s Office responsible for the applicant’s criminal case. The relevant part of the letter read as follows:
“[We] have received information that the former first deputy director of the Fund, [the applicant], if informed that documents [for his arrest] are being prepared, will take steps similar to those [taken] in November 2006 when he, having used his extensive connections in medical institutions, admitted himself to a hospital for inpatient treatment.
Furthermore, according to the received information [the applicant], being a very cautious person and responding to all summons by the investigator, at the same time takes measures to pervert the investigation by inciting individuals who have information about his criminal activities to distort that information.
This is just to inform you.” 9.  On the following day, at approximately 2.30 p.m., the applicant was arrested. A record of the arrest, in so far as relevant, read as follows:
“It is suspected that [the applicant] in 2005 [and] 2006, having acted as the first deputy director of [the Fund] in Moscow together with an organised group and using his official position, had received bribes in large amounts from heads of regional mandatory medical insurance funds and representatives of pharmaceutical companies in exchange for provision of resources from the fixed insurance reserve of the Federal Fund and insurance funds set aside to supply citizens with medicines..., that is [the applicant is suspected] of a criminal offence proscribed by Article 290 § 4 (a) [and] (d) of the Russian Criminal Code.
...
In respect of his arrest [the applicant] stated: there are no grounds for the arrest; [I] did not attempt to abscond from the investigation; [I] did not try to prevent the establishment of the truth in the case; [I] did not make attempts to influence the participants in the proceedings or to destroy evidence; [I] did not commit any crime while at liberty. [I] have a permanent place of residence in Moscow.
The lawyer adds that [the applicant] is in a poor state of health.”
The applicant’s lawyer present during the arrest made a handwritten note in the arrest record, insisting on an immediate medical examination of the applicant, arguing that the latter was suffering from a number of serious illnesses, felt ill during the arrest and could not adequately respond to the investigator’s actions. 10.  On 3 July 2007 the applicant was brought before a judge of the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow. The applicant’s lawyer applied for an adjournment, arguing that he had had no time to study materials presented by the investigative authorities in support of their request for the applicant’s arrest. The District Court dismissed the lawyer’s request, noting that the criminal procedural law did not allow an adjournment on the grounds cited by the applicant’s lawyer, and authorised the applicant’s detention until 6 p.m. on 4 July 2007. The District Court stressed that the applicant’s lawyers should use that time to prepare their arguments in defence. The decision was amenable to appeal, however, no appeal followed. 11.  On 4 July 2007 the Basmanniy District Court remanded the applicant in custody, holding as follows:
“As it follows from the case file materials, in 2005, in Moscow, [the applicant] acting as a public official – the first deputy director of the Federal Fund... entrusted with organisational [and] regulatory functions within the financial credit entity, on mercenary grounds for personal benefit and by way of receiving large sums in bribes for actions in the interests of regional funds of mandatory medical insurance, pharmaceutical and other entities which participate in medical insurance programmes and supplies of medicines and equipment for medical prophylactic entities of the Russian Federation, organised, with the director of the Federal Fund, Mr T., and a deputy director of the Federal Fund, Ms K. a stable organised criminal group which [a number of other officials of the Fund] joined.
According to the division of roles [the applicant], Ms K. and Mr T. were in charge of criminal activities [and] arranged agreements with heads and representatives of the regional funds, pharmaceutical and other entities according to which requests from those funds were to be approved in return for large sums of money, representing a certain percent of a subvention sum given to them or their intermediaries.
When the Federal Fund received requests from regional funds with which indicated agreements had been reached, [the applicant], Mr T. and Ms K., abusing their official position, personally indicated, in drafts of documents prepared for provision of subventions upon the received requests, the amount of a subvention which had to be paid to the regional funds.
Following subsequent examination of the requests in the Federal Fund, [the applicant], being a member of the “Commission of the Federal Fund...”, ensured, by agreement with other participants of the crimes, the successful examination of [the requests].
When money was received as bribes, [the applicant], Ms K. and Mr T. divided it between members of the organised [criminal] group.
...
In 2005-06, having [organised the criminal group] to commit crimes together and having divided roles between them, the above-mentioned persons, abusing their official positions, received bribes of more than twelve million roubles from officials of regional funds, representatives of pharmaceutical and other legal entities, which were interested in regularly receiving subventions from the centralised resources of the Federal Fund, [the bribes] were divided between the members of the organised group.
...
In 2005-06 Ms K., in her office in Moscow..., on a number of occasions received in total 1,500,000 roubles from a Mr K. as a bribe. That sum was divided between Mr T., Ms K., [the applicant]...
On 24 November 2006 a senior investigator of the Prosecutor General’s office... received the criminal case file and on the same day a measure of restraint in the form of a written undertaking to attend [investigative arrangements] was chosen in respect of [the applicant].
On 3 July 2007, at 2.27 p.m., [the applicant] was arrested in compliance with the requirements of Articles 91 and 92 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure as a person suspected of an offence under Article 290 § 4 (a), (d) of the Russian Criminal Code and on 4 July 2007, at 11.20 a.m., he was questioned in that capacity.
...
The investigating authorities ask for an authorisation of [the applicant’s] detention, asserting that other measures of restraint... would not correspond to the interests of the investigation.
...
[The applicant’s] lawyer stated that [the applicant’s] poor state of health does not permit him to be detained.
[The applicant] has no intention of absconding from the investigation or trial, [he] is a Russian citizen, he is registered in Moscow, [he] is at the pre-retirement stage, [he] is a law-abiding citizen and he presented himself to the Prosecutor General’s office whenever summoned, [he] is only characterised positively, that is why he asks the court to dismiss the investigator’s request for his arrest and to apply another measure of restraint, in the form of bail.
...
Having examined and analysed the presented materials, the court considers that the application for the arrest should be accepted for the following reasons.
The criminal case was opened by the competent official on the basis of sufficient reasons. [The applicant] was arrested in accordance with the requirements of Articles 91 and 92 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure.
The [arrest] application is drawn up in accordance with criminal procedural norms and is presented to the court on an order from the competent prosecutor within the time-limit established by law. The materials presented to the court attest to the fact that [the applicant] was arrested lawfully on suspicion of a criminal offence.
While examining the issue of the application of the measure of restraint in the form of detention the court takes into account that [the applicant] is suspected of a crime which the law defines as a particularly serious [criminal offence]. If released, [the applicant] may continue with criminal activities, may abscond from the investigation and trial, may negatively influence prosecution witnesses and other participants in the criminal proceedings, may try to contact his accomplices who are on the run and may destroy or falsify evidence in the case.
Moreover, having connections in the law enforcement and other State bodies, [the applicant] may obstruct the identification and retrieval of [other] accomplices, thus influencing the lawfulness, objectivity and thoroughness of the criminal investigation.
According to the information provided by the head of the FSB Department on 2 July 2007, [the applicant] is now taking steps to obstruct the investigation by persuading persons who possess information pertaining to his criminal activities to distort the facts, and he is also liable to [take] other steps to avoid criminal responsibility.
The court has no reason not to trust that information.
As follows from the materials presented by the investigator, [the applicant] has not yet been served with the final bill of indictment, for objective reasons.
At the same time, the criminal investigation authorities suspect [the applicant] of a criminal offence established by Article 290 § 4 (a), (d) of the Russian Criminal Code, which the law places in the category of particularly serious [criminal offences], punishable by seven to twelve years’ imprisonment, and [the applicant] acquired the status of a suspect as a result of evidence collected by the investigation in the case:
- video and audio recordings, which were made during operational technical arrangements in 2005-2006, where statements about bribe-taking by the above-mentioned persons, made by representatives of the regional funds and pharmaceutical companies, were recorded, and statements about the distribution of money received as bribes [were also recorded].;
- documents discovered in the above-mentioned persons’ offices;
- search records in the places of residence of the accused, including the applicant, as a result of which large sums of money were found;
- statements by a witness, Mr K., who confirmed his statements during a confrontation interview with Ms K.; documents given by [Mr K.] to the investigation authorities;
- initial statements by an accused, Mr T., who confirmed that he, [the applicant] and other employees of the Fund, had received money from Mr K. as bribes;
- statements by Mr Ku., who claimed that, while working in the Federal Fund as the head of the administrative service division, in 2006, on a number of occasions he had received various sums of money from Ms K. Mr Ku. confirmed his statements during a confrontation interview with Ms K. During the investigation Mr Ku. voluntarily handed over unlawfully obtained sums;
- statements by two of the accused, Ms M. and Ms F., who described the circumstances in which in 2005-06 they had received bribes from representatives of the regional funds and pharmaceutical companies, and who knew that part of the money received had been given to [the applicant]. In the course of the investigation Ms M. and Ms F. voluntarily handed over to the investigators unlawfully obtained money;
- statements by a number of representatives of the regional funds and pharmaceutical companies who described circumstances in which they had had to bribe officials of the Federal Fund.
Having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the character and gravity of the criminal offence, and the information pertaining to [the applicant’s] personality, the court considers that the application for an authorisation of the arrest is lawful and well-founded and should be accepted.
While determining the issue of the need or otherwise to apply a measure of restraint such as arrest to [the applicant], the court also takes into account his family and welfare situation; [he] is married but does not have a minor child or any other close relatives who are in need of material assistance or additional care, he has never been registered in a drug abuse clinic or a psychiatric hospital, and his state of health allows him to take part in judicial and investigative actions and to be detained in a temporary detention facility (there is a medical certificate in the case file).” 12.  The applicant and his lawyers appealed, arguing that there were no grounds to conclude that the applicant was liable to abscond or pervert the course of justice. They indicated that for more than eight months the applicant had fully complied with the conditions of the written undertaking. According to the lawyers, the applicant’s family and personal situation, including his age and poor state of health, were calling for his release. They also pointed out that the information provided to the District Court by the deputy head of the FSB Trade Security Service was no more than a collection of assumptions, not supported by any evidence. The lawyers cited a decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, according to which the gravity of the charges could not serve as the sole ground for an authorisation or extension of the accused’s detention. They stated that in the absence of any other valid reasons the District Court had thus unlawfully based its decision on the gravity of the charges against the applicant. 13.  On 6 August 2007 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 4 July 2007, endorsing the reasons given by the District Court. 14.  On 3 September 2007 the Basmanniy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 November 2007, reasoning as follows:
“The court considers the arguments laid down in the application for an extension of the accused’s detention well-founded, because it is impossible to finish the pre-trial investigation in the criminal case within the established time-limits as it is necessary to perform a number of investigative procedural actions, indicated in the decision.
[The applicant] is charged with a particularly serious criminal offence which is punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment.
It follows from the investigator’s decision and the materials presented that [the applicant] is charged with a crime as part of an organised group, certain participants of which are now being identified by the investigation authorities.
The presented materials indicate that [the applicant] has a passport for travel. In the course of the operational search arrangements information was received that [the applicant] had taken steps to pervert the course of the investigation by trying to persuade certain individuals to make statements beneficial to [the applicant].
The circumstances of the crime and the above-mentioned data serve as sufficient grounds to conclude that if released [the applicant] may abscond from the investigation and trial, may contact other persons in respect of whom investigative and operational search measures are being taken, and may influence witnesses, thus [he] will pervert the course of the investigation in the criminal case.
Having regard to the above said, the court finds that at the present moment the grounds and circumstances to be taken into account while applying a measure of restraint in the form of the arrest under Articles 97, 99 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure had not changed, and it is still necessary to preserve the above-mentioned measure of restraint.
While examining the issue of extension of [the applicant’s] detention, the court takes into account his age, family situation and state of health.
Having assessed the amount of investigative actions which the investigative authorities have to perform, the court considers that the period for which the investigator asks [for the detention to be extended] is reasonable.” 15.  On 7 November 2007 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order, finding that the District Court’s conclusions were lawful and well-founded. 16.  On 30 October 2007 the Basmanniy District Court, by a decision worded similarly to the one issued on 3 September 2007, authorised a further extension of the applicant’s detention, this time until 10 February 2008. 17.  On 10 December 2007 the Moscow City Court upheld the detention order, confirming that the gravity of the charges against the applicant, his liability to abscond, pervert the course of the investigation and trial had been rightfully listed by the District Court as grounds authorising a further extension of the applicant’s detention. 18.  On 25 December 2007 the pre-trial investigation ended and two days later the applicant and his lawyers began studying the case file. 19.  At the end of January 2008 an investigator of the Prosecutor General’s office lodged an application with the Basmanniy District Court seeking an extension of the applicant’s detention for an additional three months. The investigator reasoned that the criminal case was particularly complex, the case file comprised eighty-nine volumes and additional time was necessary for eleven co-defendants and their twenty lawyers to study the file. He further submitted that the applicant was liable to abscond and pervert the course of the investigation by destroying evidence. 20.  The applicant’s lawyers lodged a counter-claim, asking for the applicant’s release. They claimed that it was no longer necessary to hold the applicant in custody, as the criminal investigation had ended, the evidence had been collected and the necessity to study the case file did not require the applicant’s further detention. The lawyers also invoked the applicant’s personal circumstances calling for his release: his age, very poor state of health, his permanent place of residence in Moscow and his law-abiding behaviour for more than a year since the criminal proceedings against him had been initiated. 21.  On 7 February 2008 the Basmanniy District Court, having examined the investigator’s application and the arguments of the defence in reply, extended the applicant’s detention for an additional three months, until 10 May 2008. The District Court invoked the necessity for the applicant and his lawyers to study the voluminous case file as the main ground for the extension. It further relied on the gravity of the charges, “the circumstances of the crime, the information on [the applicant’s] personality, including his official position” as the evidence of the applicant’s liability to abscond and influence witnesses and other participants of the criminal proceedings. In conclusion, the District Court noted that it had taken into account the applicant’s age, family situation, his state of health and the fact that he permanently resided in Moscow. However, the reasons for the extension outweighed those considerations. 22.  On 19 March 2008 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant’s and his lawyers’ appeal against the decision of 7 February 2008, finding that the District Court had thoroughly examined the circumstances of the case and had drawn the correct conclusions. 23.  On 5 May 2008 the Basmanniy District Court again granted an investigator’s application for an extension of the applicant’s detention and authorised further detention until 3 July 2008. The District Court accepted the investigator’s arguments that additional time was necessary for the applicant and his lawyers to complete studying the case file. It further noted as follows:
“The court also takes into account [the applicant’s] age, family situation, the state of his health and his place of residence.
The court considers that by virtue of Article 110 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure in the present time there are no grounds to annul or change to a more lenient one the measure of restraint in the form of the detention applied to [the applicant], as the circumstances which had been taken into account when the measure of restraint had been chosen on 4 July 2007, had not changed... Thus, it follows from a certificate presented by a deputy head of the Service – the head of the Department, lieutenant-general Mr V., that information was received in the course of the operative search arrangements that [the applicant] may prevent the objective examination of the criminal case by the trial court, as being in the detention facility [he] tries to influence other members of the group and witnesses. The court was not provided with evidence which could contradict the investigator’s arguments.” 24.  The applicant’s lawyers appealed, complaining, inter alia, that the District Court had grounded the extension order on assumptions and had imposed on the applicant the burden of disproving the investigators’ assumptions. In particular, the lawyers noted that the District Court had refused to call witnesses, including the FSB official who had provided the District Court with the information pertaining to the applicant’s alleged attempts to influence witnesses. Thus, the applicant had had no means of disproving the investigators’ arguments. 25.  On 2 June 2008 the Moscow City Court upheld the detention order of 5 May 2008, noting that the District Court had advanced valid reasons for the extension of the applicant’s detention and that the District Court’s finding corresponded to the “factual circumstances of the case”. 26.  On 19 June 2008 the Moscow City Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 September 2008, recognising the necessity to provide the applicant and his lawyers with additional time to study the case file. As to the further grounds for the extension of the detention, the City Court held as follows:
“[The court] dismisses the arguments by the accused, [the applicant], and his lawyer Mr S. that the investigator’s application is unsubstantiated, that [the applicant] is unlawfully detained in a detention facility, that he has no intention of absconding from the investigation and trial, and [that he] cannot influence the course of the investigation as the investigation is complete. In his application the investigator rightfully notes that circumstances which had served as the grounds for [the applicant’s] remand in custody did not change and did not cease to exist; he is charged with a particularly serious criminal offence, the examination of [the applicant’s] personality and his behaviour during the pre-trial investigation allow the conclusion that, if released, he can continue criminal activities, abscond the investigation and trial, contact the individuals who took part in the above-mentioned criminal offences and are not at present detained, [he may] influence other participants in the criminal proceedings, may take steps in order to destroy or falsify evidence, thus [he may] pervert the course of the investigation in the criminal case.
The case file materials contain information from the FSB that even while detained in the detention facility [the applicant] tries to influence other members of the group and witnesses to his criminal activities, looks for opportunities to conceal the results of his crimes in other regions of the Russian Federation by warning, through his relatives, individuals who participate in unlawful activities.
[The applicant] is not registered with a drug abuse unit or psychiatric hospital; [he] does not have illnesses which preclude his detention.
[The applicant’s] family situation and his age also do not prevent his further detention.
In these circumstances, there are no grounds authorising a change of the measure of restraint applied to the applicant to another measure of restraint.” 27.  On 29 July 2008 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the City Court’s decision, merely noting that it was well-founded and that the City Court had made a correct finding that, if released, the applicant may obstruct the examination of the case. 28.  On 29 August 2008 the Moscow City Court, in a decision which concerned both the applicant and his co-defendants, extended their detention until 10 December 2008 for the purpose of providing them with additional time to study the case file. The City Court also referred to the gravity of the charges against the defendants as a ground warranting the further extension of their detention. 29.  The applicant and his lawyers appealed against the detention order, requesting the applicant’s release on bail. 30.  On 14 October 2008 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the detention order, holding, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“As follows from the materials presented, [the co-defendants and the applicant] are charged with particularly serious criminal offences; a large amount of evidence was collected in the case; the case file, which the defendants have to study, comprises eighty-nine volumes, to which a substantial number of audio and video recordings and material evidence is attached.
The case file materials were presented to [the applicant’s co-defendants] and their lawyers long before the expiration of the maximum period of detention.
Taking into account those circumstances and the investigator’s reference that, if released, [the applicant and his co-defendants] may contact persons who had taken part in the criminal offences with which [the defendants] are charged and who are still not detained, and that they may influence witnesses, the court rightfully considered that the extension of the detention was exceptional and rightfully decided to extend [the detention] for an additional three months, at the same time [the applicant’s] period of detention does not exceed eighteen months.
...
[The court considers] manifestly ill-founded [the defendants’] appeal arguments that [their] detention exceeded the reasonable time-limits and is excessive and unlimited.
As follows from the materials the pre-trial investigation was closed long ago; since 27 December 2007 the defendants have been studying the case file materials and recently [the applicant and another defendant] have asked to study the case file materials once again, and [another co-defendant] has not yet studied a number of audio and video recordings.
It follows that the lengthy periods of the [applicant’s and his co-defendants’] detention are caused by [the fact that it takes the defendants] a long time to study the case file.
At the same time the case file does not contain any information proving that the delay in the examination of [the case file] was caused by the investigating authorities and the lawyers do not refer to that fact in their statements of appeal.” 31.  According to the applicant, he finished examining the case file on 10 October 2008. Two weeks later the remaining defendants completed their examination of the file. The Government, relying on the Supreme Court decision of 14 October 2008, disputed the applicant’s submissions, arguing that in October the applicant had asked for additional time to review the case file and his co-defendants had not yet finished reading the file. 32.  On 3 December 2008 the Moscow City Court issued a decision collectively extending the detention of the applicant and his co-defendants until 10 February 2009. The City Court reasoned that the grounds which had called for the defendants’ arrest (the gravity of the charges, the defendants’ personality, their broad connections to officials in various State bodies, including law-enforcement agencies, and their liability to abscond and pervert the course of the investigation through tampering with witnesses, destruction of evidence or other means) were still in place. At the same time the court dismissed as irrelevant the applicant’s lawyers’ arguments that he had completed the reading of the criminal case file, that he had been ill and that he had no intention of perverting the course of the criminal proceedings or absconding. 33.  According to the Government, on 10 December 2008 the last co-defendant completed reading the case file and the defendants were committed to stand trial before the Moscow City Court. 34.  On 26 January 2009 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the decision of 3 December 2008, finding as follows:
“[The applicant and his co-defendants] are charged with a particularly serious criminal offence committed within an organised group; [they] were top-ranking officials; thus the court correctly concluded that those persons, if released, could pervert the proceedings in the case and influence witnesses.
...
As follows from the presented materials, [the applicant’s and his co-defendants’] state of health does not preclude them from being detained and from participating in investigative actions.
...
The court does not see grounds to accept the statements of appeal.” 35.  In the meantime, on 11 January 2009 the Moscow City Court scheduled a preliminary hearing and held that the grounds warranting the detention of the applicant and two of his ten co-defendants had not changed and thus they should remain in custody. 36.  On 23 January 2009 the Moscow City Court held a preliminary hearing, as a result of which it found the case ready for trial and listed the first trial hearing. At the same hearing the City Court examined the applicant’s lawyer’s request for the applicant’s release and dismissed it, finding that the measure of restraint in respect of the applicant and his two co-defendants had been chosen correctly on the basis of a thorough consideration of their personal characteristics. The court concluded that it was still necessary to keep them detained to ensure the smooth course of the criminal proceedings. 37.  The applicant’s lawyers appealed, arguing that five of the ten co-defendants had been released in 2007 and another co-defendant in 2008. Their release did not affect the case and there were no reasons to conclude that the applicant’s release would in any way interfere with the course of the proceedings. In support of their arguments the lawyers relied on the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Panchenko v. Russia (no. 45100/98, 8 February 2005), and Mamedova v. Russia (no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006), insisting that the evidence had been collected and there was no need to proceed with the applicant’s detention. 38.  On 12 March 2009 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, having examined the lawyers’ statements of appeal, upheld the decision of 23 January 2009, having supported the correctness of the City Court’s findings that the applicant was liable to abscond and interfere with the course of justice if released. 39.  On 22 June 2009 the Moscow City Court collectively extended the detention of the applicant and his two co-defendants until 25 September 2009. The relevant part of the decision read as follows:
“The Moscow City Court received the present criminal case on 25 December 2008 and since 19 February 2009 the merits of the case have been examined in court hearings with the participation of a jury; the evidence presented by the defence is being examined now.
[The applicant and two other defendants] are charged with a criminal offence which, by virtue of Article 15 of the Russian Criminal Code, is considered particularly serious...
As follows from the case file materials, the measure of restraint in the form of the arrest was taken in respect of [the applicant and two defendants] in compliance with the requirements of Articles 97-99 and 108 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, with the information about their character and state of health,... and the nature of the crime having been taken into consideration. Despite the arguments of the defence, the necessity to apply the measure of restraint chosen earlier in respect of [the applicant and two defendants] did not cease to exist, irrespective of the stage of the trial proceedings; therefore, there are no grounds to annul or apply a more lenient measure of restraint, as was requested by the lawyers and defendants. The time-limit for [the defendants’] detention will expire on 25 June 2009... The case is at the stage of trial examination. Although the prosecution has finished presenting their evidence, the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure envisage an opportunity to supplement the judicial inquiry after the defence finishes presenting their evidence; therefore, the grounds for keeping the defendants in custody did not cease to exist. The length of the judicial proceedings is caused by objective reasons, that is the facts that the case against eleven defendants is examined by the jury; that a large number of prosecution witnesses were examined and now the defence witnesses and experts are being heard; that numerous written materials, laid down in 139 volumes of the case file, were examined; that the large number of audio and video recordings... were studied. There is no information about any circumstances which preclude [the defendants’] detention. There are no grounds to apply bail or other [more lenient] measures of restraint.
Taking into account the described circumstances, the fact that the European Court of Human Rights has granted priority treatment to application no. 5453/08 lodged by [the applicant] against Russia cannot serve as a ground for releasing him.” 40.  On 12 August 2009 the Moscow City Court found the applicant guilty as charged, sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment and imposed a fine of 1,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB).