4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Warsaw, Poland. 5.  On 10 March 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and extortion. He was also suspected of being a member of an organised criminal group. 6.  On 12 March 1999 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained until 9 June 1999. The court found that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question. 7.  On 1 June 1999 the District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention. It referred to the interests of the pending investigation, such as the need to obtain additional evidence. The court also considered that the applicant, if released, could induce witnesses to give false testimony. 8.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged several times by the District Court for the same reasons as before. 9.  On 27 August 1999 the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) lodged with the Warsaw District Court a bill of indictment against the applicant and six other persons. They were indicted of several counts of robbery, extortion, and membership of an organised criminal group. 10.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended by the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 6 March, 26 June, 28 September and 30 November 2001. The court considered that keeping the applicant in custody was justified by the existence of strong evidence against him and the gravity of the charges. It was also necessary as he could obstruct the proper course of the proceedings or induce witnesses to give false testimony. The applicant’s appeals against those decisions were dismissed. 11.  On 16 January 2002 the Warsaw District Court convicted the applicant of several counts of robbery and extortion committed in an organised criminal group. The applicant was sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment. 12.  The Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld the first-instance judgment on 6 February 2003. 13.  On 28 October 2003 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal.