5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Kramatorsk. 6.  In July 2001 a journalist, Mr Igor Aleksandrov, was beaten to death by unknown persons in the premises of the local television company in Slovyansk, which he headed. He was the author of a number of television programmes on corruption and organised crime in the region. 7.  The above tragic event sparked a broad public outcry. 8.  In August 2001 the police arrested a certain V. on suspicion of Mr Aleksandrov’s murder. V. was homeless and had no means of subsistence, being newly released from prison, where he had served a sentence for theft. Although he confessed to the crime in question many times, his statements lacked coherence. Eventually, he mentioned that he had entered into an agreement with a certain B., also a former convict, who had promised him a car and an apartment in exchange for his confessing to the journalist’s murder. B. himself had been acting upon the instructions of certain law‑enforcement officials. He had assured V. that the latter would be taken care of in prison and that his term of imprisonment would be minimal. 9.  It appears that B. went missing in October 2001. 10.  In May 2002 the first-instance court acquitted and released V. In July 2002 he died, supposedly of heart failure. Subsequently, a criminal investigation was launched into V.’s suspected poisoning. Its outcome is not clear from the case-file materials. 11.  On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were initiated in respect of the assumed murder of B., even though his body had not been found. 12.  At the time of the events the applicant held the post of deputy head of the Kramatorsk City Police Department. 13.  On 28 January 2004 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant in respect of a suspected abuse of office having led to grave consequences. Namely, he was suspected of having falsified the criminal case against V. According to the prosecution, the applicant, aiming to avoid responsibility for the failure to uncover the journalist’s murder, had instructed B. to find a vulnerable person who would agree to confess to the crime in question in exchange for remuneration. Accordingly, B. had convinced V. to play that role. The applicant was also suspected of having instructed his subordinates to either bribe or coerce a taxi driver into committing perjury with a view to his acting as a witness against V. 14.  On 10 February 2004 the applicant was arrested as a suspect. 15.  On 13 February 2004 the Kyiv Pecherskyy District Court (“the Pecherskyy Court”) remanded the applicant in custody pending trial. His pre-trial detention was subsequently extended on many occasions. 16.  On various dates in 2004 further criminal cases were opened against the applicant and other persons in respect of: several counts of suspected kidnapping and aggravated murder and a further episode of abuse of office (selling a car which had been impounded as material evidence). Furthermore, a criminal case was opened against the applicant in respect of B.’s murder. All the cases in question were joined to the one initiated earlier. 17.  During his questioning on 8 November 2004 the applicant confessed to having falsified, together with another police officer, the criminal case against V., as well as to having been involved in V.’s poisoning and to having murdered B. 18.  On 28 November 2004 the applicant retracted his statements of 8 November 2004 and lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General’s Office, submitting that he had been coerced into self-incrimination under psychological pressure. 19.  On 5 April 2005 the Supreme Court extended the term of the applicant’s pre-trial detention to eighteen months (until 10 August 2005) in the light of the particular complexity of the proceedings. 20.  On 8 July 2005 the pre-trial investigation was declared completed. The investigator also made a formal declaration that the case file was available for inspection by the accused and their lawyers. 21.  On 14 July 2005 the applicant was given access to the case file. 22.  On 5 August 2005 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (“the Kyiv Court”) extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to twenty months (until 10 October 2005) on the grounds that the applicant and his lawyers had not finished studying the case file, which consisted of over a hundred volumes. The applicant’s lawyer submitted that the extension was not justified as, in any event, they had not received access to all the case-file materials. His argument was dismissed. The court based its ruling on Articles 156 and 165‑3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 61 below). 23.  On 6 October and 8 December 2005, and on 6 March and 7 April 2006, the Kyiv Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention, respectively, to twenty-two, twenty-five, twenty-six and twenty-seven months (until 10 May 2006) on the same grounds as before. 24.  On 28 April 2006 the case file was sent to the Supreme Court for it to determine the court which would conduct the trial. 25.  On 23 May 2006 the Supreme Court referred the case to the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal (“the Zaporizhzhya Court”). 26.  On 12 September 2006 the Zaporizhzhya Court held a preparatory hearing. It decided to keep the earlier chosen preventive measure in respect of the applicant. 27.  On 18 June 2008 the trial court allowed a request by the prosecutor for the charge regarding B.’s murder to be severed into a separate set of proceedings. That part of the case was sent to the Prosecutor General’s Office for additional investigation. There is no information on any further developments in those proceedings or their outcome. 28.  On 17 December 2008 the trial court severed into a separate set of proceedings another charge against the applicant – concerning suspected abuse of office leading to grave consequences (the falsification of the criminal case against V.) – and remitted it to the prosecution authorities for additional investigation. 29.  The remaining charges against the applicant, in respect of which the Zaporizhzhya Court continued his trial, concerned several counts of kidnapping and murder, as well as abuse of office on account of his having sold the evidence. 30.  On 19 February 2009 the Zaporizhzhya Court delivered a judgment by which it acquitted the applicant of kidnapping and murder for lack of evidence of his guilt. The applicant was, however, found guilty of abuse of office in respect of his having sold evidence. He was sentenced to five years and nine days’ imprisonment. Given that the applicant had already served that term, he was released in the court room. As a preventive measure until the verdict became final, he was placed under an undertaking not to leave the town. 31.  On the same date the trial court issued a separate ruling (see paragraph 59 below) with a view to bringing to the attention of the Prosecutor General’s Office certain shortcomings in the pre-trial investigation, which it considered to have been superficial and inadequate. The court also noted that throughout 2005-2008 the investigator in charge had given numerous interviews to various television and print media depicting the applicant and the other co‑accused as guilty, without changing their names (see paragraphs 41-43 below). The Zaporizhzhya Court held that such behaviour had been in breach of the accused’s right to presumption of innocence and had amounted to exerting pressure on the court. 32.  On 29 October 2009 the Supreme Court quashed the lower court’s decision of 17 December 2008 (see paragraph 28 above), as well as both the judgment and the separate ruling of 19 February 2009 (see paragraphs 30 and 31 above). It criticised the Zaporizhzhya Court, in particular for not having made any specific recommendations as to how the investigation could be improved. As regards the separate ruling, the Supreme Court noted that it had wrongly been issued in respect of the part of the proceedings remitted for additional investigation. The criminal case was remitted for fresh examination by a first-instance court. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the part of the trial court’s decision placing the applicant under an undertaking not to leave town as a preventive measure. 33.  Pursuant to a decision of the President of the Supreme Court, the case was referred to the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Lugansk Court”) as a first-instance court, which started the trial on 22 February 2010. 34.  On 25 January 2012 the Lugansk Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention following a request made by the prosecutor. The case file before the Court does not contain a copy of that order. 35.  On 6 February 2012 the trial court severed the charge of abuse of office (concerning the illegal sale of evidence) into a separate set of proceedings and remitted it to the prosecution authorities for additional investigation. 36.  On 20 March 2012 the Lugansk Court found the applicant guilty of abuse of office leading to grave consequences (concerning the falsification of the case file in respect of V.) and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment, with no right to hold public posts for three years. It also found the applicant guilty of perjury and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment on that count. As regards the last-mentioned charge, the court held that the prosecution had become time-barred and that the applicant was not therefore to serve that part of the sentence. By the same judgment, the trial court acquitted the applicant of the other charges (creating a criminal gang, as well as several counts of kidnapping and aggravated murder) for want of evidence. It decided to keep the applicant in detention as a preventive measure until the verdict became final. 37.  On 17 August 2012 the Rubizhne Town Court (“the Rubizhne Court”) held a preparatory hearing for the applicant’s trial in respect of the abuse-of-office charge regarding the illegal sale of evidence, which had been remitted for additional investigation on 6 February 2012 (see paragraph 35 above). It observed that, while the issue of a preventive measure had not been dealt with within that set of proceedings, the applicant was already detained in a different context under the judgment of 20 March 2012. Accordingly, the Rubizhne Court ordered his pre-trial detention as the most appropriate preventive measure pending trial in respect of the severed charge also. 38.  On 12 December 2012 the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters (“the Higher Specialised Court”) modified the Lugansk Court’s judgment of 20 March 2012. It held that the applicant was to be absolved from serving the sentence altogether, given that the only charge which had entailed the imposition of that sentence (abuse of office on account of the falsification of the case file in respect of V. – see paragraph 36 above) had become time-barred as well. The Higher Specialised Court therefore ordered that the applicant be released. 39.  The applicant, however, continued to be detained as a preventive measure in the context of his trial on the charge of abuse of office concerning the illegal sale of material evidence, which remained pending (see paragraph 37 above). 40.  On 24 January 2013 the Rubizhne Court allowed a request lodged by the applicant for the criminal proceedings to be discontinued because the only remaining charge against him (abuse of office on account of the illegal sale of evidence) had become time-barred. The applicant was released in the court room. 41.  In 2005 a thirty-minute documentary “The Deadly Agreement” (Смертельна угода) was broadcast on one of the national television channels, STB. As indicated during the programme, it was created with the support of the Security Service of Ukraine and the Ministry of the Interior (specifically, its Main Department for the Organised Crime Combatting). The documentary was about the agreement between V. and the law-enforcement officials, and the subsequent murder of V. and B. The applicant was named as the person who had proposed the agreement and as B.’s murderer. The programme comprised, in particular, short films, in which the roles of the applicant and the other persons concerned were played by professional actors. One of those short films depicted the applicant murdering B. Furthermore, there were numerous interviews given by the investigator in charge, as well as by several officials of the Security Service. They shared their version of the events of the case in the form of what appeared to be factual statements, without specifying at what stage the proceedings had reached at the times of the various interviews. The fate of V. was described with a lot of emotion. The programme also contained extracts from the applicant’s questioning of 8 November 2004, during which he confessed to having falsified the criminal case against V. and to having murdered B. (see paragraph 17 above). 42.  The above-mentioned programme was transmitted on STB at least twelve times between 2005 and 2008, and possibly later. 43.  In addition, the investigator in charge of the applicant’s case gave numerous interviews (making the same assertions as those made in the aforementioned programme) to various printed media. 44.  In 2012 the applicant was detained, with brief interruptions, in the Lugansk SIZO. According to the applicant, he was detained there from 20 March until 28 December 2012; however, according to the Government’s submissions and the documents in the case file, the period of his detention in that facility was from 25 January until 20 December 2012. 45.  According to the applicant, the cells were extremely small and lacked proper ventilation; the sanitary conditions were very poor; the toilet was not separated from the living area and the applicant was obliged to take meals in its close vicinity; and the bed was infested with bedbugs. Furthermore, the applicant was allegedly often deprived of the daily hour‑long outdoor walk provided for by law. 46.  The Government submitted that they were not in a position to provide a description of the material conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Lugansk SIZO given that, following the outbreak of the armed conflict in the Eastern Ukraine in 2014, Lugansk was on non-Government controlled territory. 47.  On 25 January 2012, upon the applicant’s arrival at the Lugansk SIZO, he underwent a medical examination, chest X-ray and blood analysis, with no particular health concerns being reported. At the same time, the doctors documented his medical history – namely, that he had suffered from hepatitis and had had surgery on account, in particular, of an inguinal hernia and an umbilical hernia. According to the applicant’s medical records, he did not raise any health-related complaints at that stage. 48.  On 30 January 2012 a dermatologist and a psychiatrist examined the applicant in the Lugansk SIZO and reported the absence of any acute health concerns. At the same time, he was registered for medical monitoring on account of hypertension, chronic pancreatitis and chronic cholecystitis. 49.  Following complaints made by the applicant of headaches, dizziness and numbness of the tongue, on 28 November 2012 he was examined by a doctor of the Lugansk SIZO, who diagnosed a hypertensive crisis and administered him some medications. It was recommended that the applicant be examined by a general doctor of the inter-regional hospital attached to the Lugansk SIZO and that he undergo an electrocardiogram. 50.  On 29 November 2012 the applicant underwent an electrocardiogram, which showed that he had a rotated heart and indications of left ventricular hypertrophy. 51.  On 6 December 2012 a general doctor of the inter-regional hospital attached to the Lugansk SIZO examined the applicant and diagnosed him with: ischemic heart disease, stable effort angina, diffuse cardiosclerosis, cardiac insufficiency and high-risk hypertensive heart disease. Certain medications were prescribed to the applicant and it was recommended that he undergo inpatient medical treatment in the SIZO’s medical unit and that his blood pressure be monitored. 52.  The Government were not able to provide further factual details as to whether the applicant had undergone the recommended medical treatment because they did not have access to the Lugansk SIZO’s documentation (see also paragraph 46 above). 53.  According to the applicant, he was not hospitalised. 54.  On 24 January 2013 the applicant was released (see paragraph 40 above). 55.  The case file contains an extract from the applicant’s clinical record from the cardiological department of the town hospital, in which he underwent inpatient medical treatment from 10 until 22 April 2013 on account of headaches and chest pain, accompanied by shortness of breath. According to the applicant’s explanation summarised in that record, he had been suffering from headaches and hypertension since 2000 and his health had been deteriorating because of stressful circumstances in his life since September 2004. A limited improvement in the applicant’s health condition was reported at the time of his discharge. 56.  The case file also contains a report of the ultrasound scan of the knee joints that the applicant underwent on 5 July 2013. He was diagnosed with a “Baker’s cyst” (a pocket of fluid forming a lump behind the knee) in respect of both knees. 57.  The applicant lodged a civil claim against the State Treasury seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage in respect of his unlawful criminal prosecution and detention under the Compensation Act (see paragraph 62 below). 58.  Courts at three levels of jurisdiction (the Kramatorsk City Court on 10 December 2013, the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal on 17 January 2014 and the Higher Specialised Court on 17 February 2014) rejected his claim as being without basis. They held that the Compensation Act did not provide for compensation in the applicant’s situation because he had been acquitted only in part.