6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Penza. 7.  On 15 October 1996 the applicant was arrested and detained on suspicion of murder. On 6 June 1997 the criminal proceedings were terminated and she was released. 8.  On 17 October 2001 a new set of criminal proceedings was initiated against the applicant and another person. This time she was suspected of fraud. 9.  On 13 December 2001 the applicant was put on a list of persons wanted by the police. 10.  On 5 January 2002 the applicant was arrested. The reasons for her arrest indicated in the arrest warrant included preventing her from committing further offences, absconding from the investigation and interfering with the course of justice. 11.  On 8 January 2002 the investigation authorities charged her, as a principal offender, with fraud and remanded her in custody pending trial for the reasons that, having been earlier placed on the wanted list, she might abscond and interfere with the course of justice. Later the investigation authorities decided to carry out a psychiatric examination of the applicant. On 19 February 2002 she was transferred from the remand prison to a psychiatric hospital. The preventive measure was changed from detention to an obligation not to leave the place without permission. 12.  On 22 March 2002, after the psychiatric examination, the prosecutor ordered to re-detain the applicant on the ground of the gravity of charges. 13.  On 1 April 2002 the investigator applied to the prosecutor for extension of the applicant's detention on the grounds that she was charged with having committed grave offences, had no permanent residence in Penza and “did not take voluntarily any measure to compensate the damage caused to the victims”. The prosecutor extended the applicant's detention until 17 April 2002. 14.  On 8 April 2002 the applicant and the co-accused were informed that the preliminary investigation was complete. On 10 April 2002 they began studying the case file. 15.  On 17 April 2002 the investigator applied to the prosecutor for extension of the applicant's detention until 5 May 2002 on the ground of the gravity of charges. The prosecutor granted the extension until 5 May 2002. 16.  On 29 April 2002 the investigator applied to the prosecutor for extension of the applicant's detention until 5 June 2002 in order to let her study the case file. The investigator stated that she should remain in detention because of the gravity of the charges and lack of permanent residence in Penza and that, if released, she might abscond and put pressure on the victims and witnesses. 17.  On 30 April 2002 the prosecutor extended the applicant's detention until 5 June 2002. 18.  On an unspecified date the applicant filed an application for release pending trial on the grounds, inter alia, of her state of health and two dependent children. 19.  On 6 May 2002 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Penza dismissed the application. The court held:
“The offence the accused is charged with belongs to the category of “serious” [offences]. Taking into account the social danger of the offence, the preventive measure applied to [Ms] Melnikova is lawful and well-grounded. At present, there are no reasons to change it.” 20.  The applicant appealed. 21.  On 31 May 2002 she finished studying the case file. 22.  On 5 June 2002 the case was transmitted to court. 23.  On the same date the Penza Regional Court quashed the decision of 6 May 2002 and remitted the case for a fresh examination by the same court. 24.  On an unspecified date the applicant again filed an application for release pending trial, referring to her two dependent children. 25.  On 24 June 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Penza dismissed the application. Relying on Article 261 of the 1960 Code of Criminal Procedure, the court held:
“... the application [for release] ... must be dismissed, because ... the detention ... was lawfully applied to the applicant by the investigator and authorised by the prosecutor, and because there was a risk that she might abscond.
It can be seen from the case file that before her arrest [Ms] Melnikova was on the wanted list, furthermore, she does not have a permanent residence in Penza. The investigator's order to apply the preventive measure was lawfully authorised by the prosecutor because, in accordance with the legislation in force, the preventive measure may be applied by the court after 1 July 2002. At present there are no grounds for modification of the preventive measure in respect of [Ms] Melnikova.” 26.  On 6 November 2002, in the course of the trial, the applicant sought to declare certain evidence inadmissible and again filed an application for release. 27.  On the same date the Leninskiy District Court of Penza, relying on Articles 235 and 271 of the 2001 Code of Criminal Procedure, dismissed the application on the following grounds:
“ ... [the applicant] is charged with serious offences, has neither a permanent residence nor a job in Penza, the preventive measure was applied in accordance with the law, there are no grounds for its modification and release [of the applicant]...” 28.  On an unspecified date the applicant's lawyer requested the court to remit the case to the investigating authorities for the charges to be re-formulated. He also asked for the applicant's interim release. 29.  On 28 November 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Penza returned the case to the prosecutor for the bill of indictment to be amended but refused to release the applicant. The court held in particular:
“... as [Ms] Melnikova is accused of having committed serious offences ... the court finds no grounds for modification of the preventive measure...” 30.  On 6 December 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Penza extended the applicant's detention until 10 January 2003 relying on the gravity of the offence with which the applicant was charged. 31.  The applicant appealed against the decisions of 28 November and 6 December 2002 arguing, inter alia, that she had two dependent children and, therefore, if released she could not abscond. 32.  On 18 December 2002 the Penza Regional Court dismissed the appeal. The court held:
“The [trial] court rightfully refused to release [Ms] Melnikova, because during the preliminary investigation it was decided to detain her and because less than six months had elapsed between the transmission of the case to the court and the ruling of 28 November 2002, and also because [she] was charged with serious offences there were no reasons to apply a different preventive measure.” 33.  On 25 December 2002 the prosecutor remitted the case for additional investigation. 34.  On 26 December 2002 the investigator accepted the case for additional investigation. On the same date the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Penza ordered extension of the applicant's detention until 28 February 2003. The applicant appealed. 35.  On 31 December 2002 the Penza Regional Court dismissed the appeal. The court held:
“[Ms] Melnikova faces serious charges and has sought to evade investigation. If released, she may abscond and obstruct the establishment of the truth. In the present case it is necessary to correct the defects [of the investigation] discovered in the course of the trial, to carry out investigative acts for this purpose, to submit a final bill of indictment and to familiarise the accused with the file. The judge was right not to find grounds for the cancellation of detention as a preventive measure in respect of [Ms] Melnikova.” 36.  It appears that on 22 February 2003 the case was referred to the court, and the applicant remained in custody until the delivery of the sentence. 37.  On 23 May 2003 the Leninskiy District Court of Penza convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced her conditionally to 5 years' imprisonment.