6.  On 5 October 1999 the Prosecutor's Office, acting on the victim's complaints and after having collected over forty-five pages of evidence, opened a preliminary investigation against the applicant concerning a series of five burglaries. The prosecutor in charge ordered that the applicant be detained on remand in view of the fact that there were another three preliminary investigations and sixteen enquiries pending against him for various other offences. 7.  By order of the same day, issued by an investigator and confirmed by a prosecutor, the applicant was charged with the five burglaries and was detained on remand. No specific reasons were cited in the order of the investigator for detaining the applicant, but reference was made to the aforesaid order of the prosecutor to detain the applicant. The applicant was presented with the order and at 4:20 p.m. on the same day signed a statement that he had been informed of its content. 8.  The applicant was questioned on an unspecified date and confessed to having committed the burglaries. 9.  The charges against the applicant were amended on 18 October and 15 November 1999. The detention on remand was sustained on both occasions without specific reasons being cited by the authorities. 10.  On 29 November 1999 the applicant appealed against his detention and argued, inter alia, that he had a permanent address, was planning to marry his pregnant girlfriend and had been in detention since 5 October 1999. 11.  In a decision of 2 December 1999 the Velingrad District Court dismissed the appeal. Referring to the serious charges against the applicant, the other three preliminary investigations and the sixteen enquiries pending against him, the court considered that, if released, there was a likelihood that he might abscond or re-offend. 12.  On an unspecified date the charges against the applicant were amended and he was charged with another three burglaries. Also on an unspecified date he confessed to having committed these burglaries. 13.  The preliminary investigation was completed on 21 December 1999. 14.  On 10 February 2000 an indictment was filed against the applicant with the Velingrad District Court for a series of eight burglaries. 15.  A hearing was conducted before the Velingrad District Court on 21 March 2000 at which the applicant confessed to the offences he had been charged with. 16.  At the next hearing on 19 April 2000 the applicant stated his readiness to endure an appropriate sentence for his offences. 17.  By judgment of the same day, 19 April 2000, the Velingrad District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment, suspended for a period of five years. In determining his sentence, the domestic court took into account, inter alia, that he did not have a criminal record and that he had confessed. According to the minutes, the court also amended the measure for securing the applicant's appearance in court to bail in the amount of 50 Bulgarian levs [BGN : approximately 25 euros (EUR)], payable within three days, and ordered that he be released after provision of the said recognisance. 18.  On 20 April 2000 a friend or relative of the applicant deposited the recognizance into the bank account of the Velingrad District Court. It is not clear when the District Court was informed that bail had been provided. The applicant was released on 21 April 2000. 19.  Neither the applicant nor the prosecution appealed against the judgment and it entered into force. 20.  The applicant contended, which the Government did not challenge, that from 5 October 1999 to 7 February 2000 he was detained at the Velingrad Investigation detention facility. He was then transferred to the Pazardzhik Prison where he remained until his release on 21 April 2000. 21.  In the applicant's submission, at both of these detention facilities, (1) there was insufficient fresh air in the cells; (2) there was no exercise or healthy food; (3) hygiene was lacking (presence of parasites and rodents); (4) he was denied access to newspapers, books, radio and television; (5) he could not meet with his attorney in private, and (6) he could not maintain an active correspondence.