4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Split. 5.  An investigation was opened against the applicant and twenty other individuals on 24 November 2006 by an investigating judge of the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) in connection with a suspicion that between 2003 and November 2006 they had organised distribution of heroin in Dubrovnik and on the island of Korčula. 6.  During the investigation, the investigating judge heard evidence from a number of witnesses, ordered searches, seizures and freezing of assets, and commissioned psychiatric, telecommunications and financial expert reports. 7.  Following an order by the investigating judge, on 24 November 2006 the police carried out a search of the applicant’s flat and on 5 February 2007 the psychiatrist submitted his report in respect of the applicant. He found that the applicant had used drugs for a relatively short period of time and had not developed an addiction. 8.  On 15 May, 15 June, 8 August and 5 October 2007 the investigating judge established that all the necessary evidence had not been obtained and asked the president of the Split County Court to extend the investigation. The president of the Split County Court granted the requests and the investigation was extended on each of those occasions. 9.  The State Attorney’s Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (Državno odvjetništvo, Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta; hereinafter: “the State Attorney’s Office”) indicted the applicant and sixteen others on 15 November 2007 in the Split County Court on charges of conspiracy to supply heroin in Dubrovnik and on the island of Korčula between 2003 and November 2006. 10.  The applicant lodged an objection against the indictment on 7 December 2007, arguing that it had numerous substantive and procedural flaws. On 7 February 2008 the Split County Court sent the indictment back to the State Attorney’s Office on the ground that it needed further clarification. 11.  The State Attorney’s Office submitted an amended indictment against the applicant and sixteen others before the Split County Court on 22 February 2008, reiterating the same charges of conspiracy to supply heroin. On 5 March 2008 the applicant lodged an objection against the above amended indictment, arguing that it had numerous substantive and procedural flaws. A three-judge panel of the Split County Court dismissed the applicant’s objection on 14 March 2008 as ill-founded. 12.  At a hearing on 13 November 2008 the applicant pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. 13.  At hearings held on 17 and 18 December 2008 the trial court heard evidence from two witnesses. Further hearings scheduled for 11 and 12 February 2009 were adjourned indefinitely as one of the defendants had broken his leg and could not attend. 14.  A hearing scheduled for 29 June 2009 was also adjourned because the first accused had asked for members to be removed from the trial panel. 15.  Further hearings were held on 28 August, 8, 15, 16 and 28 September, 20, 21 and 22 October, 2, 3, 4, 17 and 18 November and 21 December 2009, 27 and 29 January, 15, 17, 18 and 19 February, and 15, 29 and 30 March 2010. 16.  At a hearing on 13 May 2010 the applicant gave oral evidence denying all the charges. At hearings held on 14, 17, 21 and 24 May 2010 the other accused gave oral evidence and the parties made their closing statements. 17.  On 24 May 2010 the Split County Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to three years and six months’ imprisonment. 18.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the first-instance judgment on 31 January 2011. 19.  The appeal proceedings are still pending. 20.  On 22 November 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of supplying heroin. 21.  The investigating judge of the Split County Court heard the applicant on 23 November 2006 and remanded him in custody for a further forty-eight hours under Article 98 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant appealed against this decision, arguing, inter alia, that he was permanently employed by company K.-V. and had not been engaging in any criminal activity. To support his arguments he submitted his employment contract with company K.-V. On 24 November 2006 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court dismissed his appeal. 22.  On 24 November 2006 the investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody under Article 102 § 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending and gravity of charges). The relevant part of the decision reads:
“The pre-trial detention was ordered in respect of the defendants listed under [heading] II of this decision under Article 102 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because it is possible to order pre-trial detention on this ground for the offence at issue and because [the charges] concern a large quantity of heroin, which the defendants supplied to a larger number of people and for a longer period of time, therefore probably damaging the health of a significant number of people, which all contributes to the particularly grave circumstances of the offence...
The pre-trial detention was ordered under Article 102 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of defendants ... Milan Trifković, ... and ... since they have already been convicted of similar or other offences they now have no permanent income, so there is justified fear that they will reoffend.” 23.  The applicant lodged an appeal on 6 December 2006, arguing that the charges against him suggested that he had had only a minor role in the alleged organisation of supply of heroin. As to the risk of reoffending, he argued that it was not true that he had no permanent income, as he was employed by company K.-V. In this connection he indicated his employment contract and submitted further documents as evidence of his income. The applicant also asked that the detention be replaced by another preventive measure that the court deemed appropriate. 24.  The appeal was dismissed on 8 December 2006 by a three-judge panel of the Split County Court. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“In view of the offence [the accused] are charged with, this panel finds that there are particularly grave circumstances justifying their detention under Article 102 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure given that ..., Milan Trifković and ... have already been convicted of similar or other offences, so that for them the detention under Article 102 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is also justified.” 25.  The investigating judge extended the applicant’s detention on 20 December 2006, under Article 102 § 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending and gravity of charges), reiterating the arguments in his decision of 24 November 2006. 26.  The applicant appealed on 29 December 2006, pointing out that according to the charges held against him he had had only a minor role in the alleged organisation of heroin supplying. He also argued that nothing suggested that he might reoffend, since he was not a drug addict and his previous conviction for the possession of a small quantity of drugs could not in any respect be associated with the charges against him in the present case. He again asked that the detention be replaced by another preventive measure that the court deemed appropriate. 27.  That appeal was dismissed on 17 January 2007 by a three-judge panel of the Split County Court. They reiterated their previous arguments. As to the risk of reoffending they added:
“...and since [the defendants] are users of illegal drugs and do not have a permanent income, the investigating judge properly extended their detention under Article 102 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 28.  On 19 January 2007 the investigating judge extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating the arguments in his previous decisions. 29.  The applicant appealed on 23 January 2007, again stating that he had had only a minor role in the organisation of the supply of heroin and argued that the finding that he had no permanent income was not true, because he was employed. The applicant again asked for his detention to be replaced with another preventive measure. 30.  The appeal was dismissed on 8 February 2007 by a three-judge panel of the Split County Court which reiterated its previous arguments. 31.  On 20 February and 20 March 2007 the investigating judge extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, using the same formulation as before. 32.  The applicant lodged an appeal on 21 March 2007 where he argued, relying on the Court’s case-law, that the investigating judge had failed to provide sufficient reasons for extending his detention and that he had failed to consider the possibility of applying another preventive measure. 33.  The appeal was dismissed on 4 April 2007 by a three-judge panel of the Split County Court which reiterated that the gravity of the charges and the fact that the applicant had already been convicted of similar offences and that he was a drug user, justified his detention under Article 102 § 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 34.  On 20 April 2007 the investigating judge extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, using the same formulation as in his previous decisions. 35.  The applicant appealed on 23 April 2007, arguing, inter alia, that the investigating judge had insisted that he had no permanent income, which was not true, because he was employed, and in that respect he had provided sufficient evidence. He also asked that the detention be replaced with another preventive measure. The appeal was dismissed on 4 May 2007 by a three-judge panel of the Split County Court, which endorsed the reasoning of the investigating judge. 36.  On 18 May 2007 the investigating judge extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, using the same formulation as in his previous decisions. 37.  The applicant appealed on 21 May 2007, reiterating his arguments that there were no grounds for his continued detention. He again asked for the detention to be replaced with another preventive measure. On 30 May 2007 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, reiterating its previous arguments. 38.  The investigating judge extended the applicant’s detention on 20 June 2007 again under Article 102 § 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, using identical phrases as in his previous decisions. 39.  The applicant lodged an appeal on 21 June 2007 against the above decision, reiterating his previous arguments and asking for his detention to be replaced with another preventive measure: on 27 June 2007 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court dismissed his appeal, on the same grounds as before. 40.  On 19 July 2007 the investigating judge extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, using the same formulation as in his previous decisions. 41.  The applicant lodged an appeal on 25 July 2007, reiterating his previous arguments and asking for his detention to be replaced with another preventive measure, but on 31 July 2007 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, using identical phrases to those in its previous decision. 42.  On 20 August 2007 the investigating judge extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, again using identical reasoning. 43.  The applicant lodged an appeal on 21 August 2007 and on 28 August 2007 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court dismissed it, using the same formulation as in its previous decisions. 44.  The investigating judge extended the applicant’s detention on 20 September 2007 under Article 102 § 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, using identical phrases as in his previous decisions. 45.  The applicant lodged an appeal on 25 September 2007. He again pointed out that the same effect of extending his detention could be achieved by ordering another preventive measure. On 3 October 2007 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court dismissed the appeal, using the same formulation as in its previous decisions. 46.  On 19 October 2007 the investigating judge extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating his previous reasoning. 47.   The applicant lodged an appeal on 23 October 2007, reiterating his previous arguments, but it was dismissed by a three-judge panel of the Split County Court on 26 October 2007. 48.  On 16 November 2007, after the applicant had been indicted in the Split County Court, a three-judge panel of that court extended the applicant’s detention, again under Article 102 § 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending and gravity of charges). The relevant part of the decision reads:
“The criminal record ... shows that the accused ... Milan Trifković ... [has] already been convicted of a criminal offence of the same type as the one concerned in these proceedings ...
Furthermore, the report drawn up by a neuropsychiatrist ... shows that the defendant... Milan Trifković ... [is a] drug user ...
Therefore since the accused ... Milan Trifković ... [are] drug users ... there is a risk that they might reoffend.
Also, since the accused are charged [with having] organised a group with the aim of trafficking in illegal drugs on the island of Korčula, and were engaged [in that activity for] a long period of time, together with J.C., who was the leader of the group and of all [the criminal] activities, and particularly having in mind the gravity [ of the offences at issue] and the danger to society, as well the prevalence of such offences, this panel considers that in the case at issue there are particularly grave circumstances which significantly differ from the usual manner in which the offence at issue is committed.” 49.  Against that decision the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court on 28 November 2007. As to his previous conviction, he argued that he had been convicted only of possession of illegal drugs for his personal use, which could not in any respect be associated with the charges against him in the present case. Moreover, the psychiatric report showed that he had no addiction to drugs and that there was no risk that he would reoffend. He also pointed out that he was permanently employed and that he had a regular source of income. As to the gravity of the charges, the applicant argued that the charges against him suggested that he had had only a minor role in the alleged organisation of the supply of heroin. The applicant also asked for the detention to be replaced with any preventive measure that the court deemed appropriate. 50.  On 7 December 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, endorsing the reasoning of the Split County Court. It made no reference to the applicant’s request that his detention be replaced with another preventive measure. 51.  The applicant’s detention was further extended on 7 February 2008 by a three-judge panel of the Split County Court under Article 102 § 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating its previous arguments. 52.  On 12 February 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision, reiterating his previous arguments and asking for his detention to be replaced with another preventive measure. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 29 February 2008 in the following terms:
 “According to the indictment, the activities with which the accused are charged took place between the beginning of 2003 and mid-2006, and the accused J.C., in the broader area of Dubrovnik and Korčula, organised a criminal group in which he recruited ... Milan Trifković ... all in order to supply heroin.
Since all the accused were engaged in a criminal activity for a longer period of time, between the beginning of 2003 and mid-2006, in the broader area of Dubrovnik and Korčula, and since they showed a high degree of criminal resolve by organising continuous [criminal] activity, which shows a particular degree of persistence and criminal resolve, and taking this together with the fact that the accused ... Milan Trifković ... were on more occasions convicted of, [inter alia], the same or similar offences, and ... since the accused ... Milan Trifković are users of illegal drugs, there is a fear that they might reoffend...
Also, since the subject of the alleged [criminal] activity was distribution of the illegal drug heroin in large quantities, and since it could have been used for a large number of small packages for individual use, which, if sold on the illegal drug market, could endanger a large number of mostly young people, suggests... that there are particularly grave circumstances surrounding the offence ...
The preventive measures under Article 90 of the CCP in respect of the accused Milan Trifković would not have the same effect as detention on the basis of Article 102 § 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 53.  A three-judge panel of the Split County Court on 29 April 2008 extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the same grounds as before. 54.  The applicant lodged an appeal on 6 May 2008, reiterating his previous arguments, but on 30 May 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed it. 55.  On 24 July 2008 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating the same reasons as in its previous decisions. 56.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision on 29 July 2008. He argued that the evidence from the case file showed that he had not been a member of the alleged criminal organisation. As to the risk of reoffending, he pointed out that his previous conviction had concerned small amounts of drugs, for his personal use only, and that he was not a drug addict. He also argued that he was employed and had a regular source of income. On 10 September 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, reiterating the same arguments as in its previous decisions. 57.  On 10 November 2008 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court extended the applicant’s detention, again under Article 102 paragraph 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“The criminal record ... shows that the defendant ... Milan Trifković ... [has] already been convicted of a criminal offence of the same type as the one concerned in these proceedings ...
Furthermore, the report drawn up by a neuropsychiatrist ... shows that the defendant... Milan Trifković ... [is a] drug user ...
Also, the defendants are charged with organising a group with the aim of trafficking in illegal drugs on the island of Korčula, that they had been engaging [in that activity for] a long period of time, together with J.C., who was the leader of the group and of all [the criminal] activities.
The above-mentioned circumstances, together with the fact that the defendants were allegedly members of a group which was continually [and for a long] period of time engaged in trafficking in illegal drugs, namely heroin, one of the hardest drugs, and that they thus put at risk the health of a large number of people, justify the extension of detention in respect of the defendants ... [including] Milan Trifković ... under Article 102 paragraph 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These circumstances justify the fear of reoffending and also amount to particularly grave circumstances [in which] the offence [is alleged to have taken place].” 58.  The applicant lodged an appeal on 13 November 2008, in which he argued that the evidence thus far obtained had not implicated him in the offences in question, save for a statement given by a witness, Ž.T. However, he claimed that her statement was unreliable because it was both contradictory and hearsay evidence, and also contradicted the evidence given by other witnesses. The transcripts of telephone conversations of his which had been taped did not show that he had discussed details of drug trafficking with anyone. Furthermore, no material evidence which could connect him with trafficking in illegal drugs had been found on him. As regards the risk of reoffending, the applicant argued that, even if he had been a drug addict before being detained, during the period of his detention he would surely stop being one because he would not be able to take any drugs during his detention. As regards the argument that he had already been convicted of the same type of offence, he argued that his previous conviction concerned the possession of a small amount of drugs for his personal use, and that he was permanently employed. Against that background, he argued that there was no need for him to remain in detention and asked that his detention be replaced by another preventive measure. 59.  A three-judge panel of the Split County Court on 13 January 2009 again extended the applicant’s detention, under Article 102 paragraph 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and with the same reasoning as it had previously given. On 19 January 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision, reiterating his previous arguments. 60.  On 13 February 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 10 November 2008. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“The circumstances which show that there is a risk of reoffending ... are that the defendants are charged [with having been] ... members of a criminal organisation organised by the defendant J.C. in the period between the beginning of 2003 and November 2006, [operating in] the broader area of Dubrovnik and Korčula, and in which sixteen individuals were involved and mutually connected, among whom [were] the defendants Milan Trifković and ..., all [having the] aim of purchasing, storing, transferring and selling the drug heroin in order to obtain significant material gain. They delivered heroin previously bought by the defendant J.C. in Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro for the needs of drug addicts on the island of Korčula, in daily amounts of at least 32 grams.
Furthermore, the defendants Milan Trifković and ... have already been convicted several times of criminal offences of the same type – abuse of illegal drugs ... This shows that their previous life was not in conformity with the law and that their previous conviction has not taught them about the peril of committing criminal offences. Also, the documents in the file show that the defendants Milan Trifković and ... are users of illegal drugs ...
Therefore, the long period of engaging in such criminal activity, which shows their determination, high level of organisation and criminal resolve ..., together with the fact that they are users of illegal drugs, ... and previous conviction, amount in the view of the Supreme Court ... to specific circumstances which justify the fear that the defendants Milan Trifković and..., if at large, would continue to commit new criminal offences of the same type ...
The decision to extend the defendants’ detention on the basis of Article 102 paragraph 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is justified and lawful in view of the fact that the... charges concern a significant amount of the illegal drug heroin. The fact that there was such a large amount of this drug, which could be divided into a large number of individual doses and thus put at risk the health of a large number of people, especially youngsters, [together with] the international elements of the offence, surpasses by far the usual gravity of such offences.
The defendants’ arguments pointing to the lack of evidence that they had committed the criminal offences at issue ... have no bearing on the decision [on their detention]. When deciding upon an appeal against a decision on detention, the appeal court has no competence to assess the factual background of the case or the defendants’ criminal responsibility. For detention to be ordered it suffices that the indictment and the documents in the case file indicate that there is reasonable suspicion. Neither has the principle of proportionality been infringed, because the defendant Milan Trifković has so far spent less than two years and three months in pre-trial detention ... When applying that principle, the relevant factors to be taken into account are not only the time already spent in detention but also the gravity of the criminal charges brought against the defendants and the severity of the sentence faced, as well as the need to order and extend detention.
The statement of the defendant Milan Trifković that he is not a drug addict ... is also irrelevant, because drug addiction and drug use are not the decisive motives for committing such criminal offences, and they cannot put into question the importance of all the other above-mentioned points which show at the risk of reoffending ... “ 61.  On the same day, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Split County Court’s decision extending his detention of 13 January 2009, using the same arguments. 62.  On 5 March 2009 the applicant lodged two constitutional complaints with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the decision of the Supreme Court of 13 February 2009 dismissing his appeal against the Split County Court’s decision of 10 November 2008 and the decision of the Supreme Court of 13 February 2009 dismissing his appeal against the Split County Court’s decision of 13 January 2009. 63.  The applicant’s detention was again extended on 9 April 2009 by a three-judge panel of the Split County Court under Article 102 paragraph 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, using the same reasons as in its previous decisions. 64.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision on 16 April 2009. He argued that for several years his detention had been repeatedly extended, always using the same reasoning as to the gravity of the charges, without any assessment of his individual position in the alleged criminal organisation. He also pointed out that his previous conviction was minor and that he was employed, with a regular source of income. He further argued that the trial had been adjourned indefinitely and that there was a real risk that his detention was becoming a penalty. Finally, he pointed out, relying on the Court’s case-law, that the reasons justifying his detention were no longer relevant and sufficient, and that the domestic courts had never examined the possibility of applying another preventive measure. 65.  On 29 April 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint against the decision of the Supreme Court dismissing his appeal against the Split County Court’s decision of 10 November 2008 inadmissible on the ground that the impugned decisions were no longer in effect, because in the meantime the Split County Court had adopted a fresh decision on his detention on 13 January 2009. 66.  On 6 May 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision extending his detention of 9 April 2009, reiterating its previous arguments. It also found that the purpose of the detention could not be achieved with any other preventive measure. 67.  On 27 May 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint against the decision of the Supreme Court dismissing his appeal against the Split County Court’s decision of 13 January 2009 inadmissible on the ground that that the impugned decisions were no longer in effect, because in the meantime the Split County Court had adopted a fresh decision on his detention, on 9 April 2009. 68.  A three-judge panel of the Split County Court on 6 July 2009 again extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 paragraph 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, using the same formulation as in its previous decisions. 69.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision on 9 July 2009, pointing out that he had no addiction to drugs and that he was employed and therefore had a regular source of income. He also asked that the detention be replaced by another preventive measure. On 4 August 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, reiterating its previous arguments. It added that the fact that the applicant had been detained and therefore had not had any opportunity to obtain drugs was not of a decisive influence on the conclusion that he might reoffend. As to his arguments that he was employed and had a regular source of income, the Supreme Court held that it also had no decisive effect, since the proceeds of the offence at issue were significantly higher than his personal income. 70.  On 1 October 2009 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court again extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 paragraph 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, using the same formulation as in its previous decision. 71.  The applicant lodged an appeal on 5 October 2009 in which he argued that the principle of proportionality had been infringed with his continuous detention but on 14 October 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed it, reiterating its previous arguments. As to the proportionality of the detention, the Supreme Court held that this principle had not been infringed, since the charges concerned the most serious offences, for which there was also a possibility of extending the detention for an additional six months under section 28 paragraph 3 of the Act on the Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (hereinafter “the AOSCOC”). 72.  On 20 November 2009 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court extended the applicant’s detention for a further six months. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“ ... since the maximum limits for detention under Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were about to expire, [this panel] has examined whether there are grounds for extending the accused’s detention or for his release.
In the situation at issue, in view of the sentence that the offence at issue carries, the maximum statutory limit under Article 109 § 1(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is three years, and therefore this period would expire in respect of ... the accused Milan Trifković ... on 22 November 2009.
However, under section 28 § 2 of the [AOSCOC] the maximum time-limit of detention during an investigation, if the investigation has been extended, can be twelve months, while paragraph 3 of the same section provides that the maximum period of detention under Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be extended for a further six months if the detention during the investigation has been extended under paragraph 2 of [Section 28 of the AOSCOC].
Since in this particular case the investigation was extended so that it lasted more than the maximum six months, the conditions for extending the maximum period of the pre-trial detention for a further six months under section 28 paragraph 3 of the [AOSCOC] have been met.
Therefore, since all the circumstances on which the detention was extended under Article 102 paragraph 1 (1), (3) and (4) of the CCP have not changed, the detention in respect of the accused ... Milan Trifković and ... had to be extended for a further six months ...“ 73.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court against the above decision on 24 November 2009. He argued that the evidence adduced during the trial did not support the suspicion that he was an important member of the criminal group and that no drugs, objects usually used to sell drugs, or any proceeds of crime had ever been found on or seized from him. The applicant further argued that the Split County Court had been using the same stereotyped formula when extending his detention for three years, and that there were no grounds for extending his detention. He also argued that the proceedings had been unreasonably long and that during that period he had been detained in inhuman and degrading conditions. Finally, he pointed out, relying on the Court’s case-law, that the possibility of replacing his detention with another preventive measure had never been examined. On 27 November 2009 he also submitted to the Supreme Court a statement from company K.-V. confirming that he was permanently employed by that company; he asked again to be released. 74.  The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 11 December 2009. It limited its assessment only to the question of whether further extension would exceed the maximum statutory limit. As to the other arguments put forward by the applicant, the Supreme Court noted:
“As to the arguments put forward by all three accused in which they complain about the conditions of their detention and challenge the grounds and purpose of their detention on account of its length, it is to be noted that it does not put in any doubt the impugned decision. Namely, the [Split County Court’s] decision did not address the grounds for their detention, since it only concerned examination of statutory conditions for extending the maximum detention under Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in respect of which the arguments in the appeal are irrelevant.” 75.  On an unspecified date in 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the above decision of the Supreme Court, reiterating the same arguments from his appeal. 76.  A three-judge panel of the Split County Court on 12 February 2010 extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 paragraph 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating arguments from its previous decisions as to the risk of reoffending and the gravity of the charges. 77.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision on 18 February 2010, reiterating his previous arguments and asking that the detention be replaced by another preventive measure, if one was necessary. 78.  On 25 February 2010 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint against the decision of the Supreme Court of 11 December 2009. The relevant part of the Constitutional Court’s decision reads:
“It appears from the constitutional complaint, which is identical to the appeal lodged with the Supreme Court, that [the applicant] is complaining about the grounds for his detention, which was not the subject of the impugned decisions. The statutory grounds for his detention are under Article 107 paragraph 2 of the CCP, within the competence of the panel from Article 18 paragraph 3 and Article 20 paragraph 2 of [the CCP], which is obliged to examine the grounds for detention every two months ...
However, in the case at issue, the impugned decisions do not examine the grounds for [the applicant’s] detention, but only whether the conditions for extending the detention under Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been met. ... “ 79.  On 17 March 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Split County Court’s decision of 12 February 2010 on the ground that the same reasons warranting the applicant’s detention under Article 102 paragraph 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure still existed. It also found that the principle of proportionality had not been infringed and that there were no grounds to replace the detention with another preventive measure. 80.  On an unspecified date in 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court against the above decision of the Supreme Court, again complaining about the extension of his detention and about the conditions in detention. 81.  The applicant’s detention was again extended by a three-judge panel of the Split County Court on 17 May 2010 on the basis of Article 102 paragraph 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating its previous arguments. 82.  On 22 May 2010 the maximum statutory time-limit of the applicant’s extended detention expired and the applicant was released.