5.  The applicant was born in 1991 and lives in Chișinău. 6.  On 15 June 2014 the applicant had an altercation with two persons, one of whom was in an advanced state of intoxication. During the altercation, the applicant pushed the intoxicated person and punched the other one. As a result, the intoxicated person fell to the ground and received a serious head trauma. The scene was witnessed by the wife of the intoxicated person and a neighbour. 7. On the same day the applicant was arrested and placed in detention. On 18 June 2014 the Ialoveni District Court ordered the applicant’s remand in custody pending trial for a period of thirty days. The court considered that the detention was necessary because the applicant was accused of a serious offence and there appeared to be a risk of his interfering with the investigation, absconding and re-offending. 8.  The applicant appealed against the detention order and argued, inter alia, that he had a permanent abode, an employment and no history of violent behaviour. He also submitted that he could not influence any witnesses because they were in another village and that a restraining order to quit his town of residence would be sufficient to eliminate that risk. He also submitted that he had cooperated with the investigators from the beginning of the investigation and that he could not leave the country because his travel documents had been seized. 9.  On 1 July 2014 the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 10.  On 11 July 2014 the Ialoveni District Court examined the Prosecutor’s request for a prolongation of the applicant’s detention and a habeas corpus request lodged by the applicant. It found no reasons to detain the applicant in custody and ordered his immediate release under judicial control. The applicant had no right to leave the town without approval by the court and to communicate with the persons involved in the criminal investigation. The Prosecutor’s Office appealed. 11.  On 22 July 2014 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the Prosecutor’s appeal, quashed the above decision and ordered the applicant’s remand in custody for a period of thirty days. The reasons given by the Court of Appeal were that the applicant could abscond, interfere with the investigation and re-offend. The applicant was not arrested and, according to him, was told to go home. 12.  On 25 August 2014 the applicant was arrested at home and placed in detention. 13.  On 1 September 2014 the applicant lodged a habeas corpus request with the Ialoveni District Court. He argued, inter alia, that the case was not complex and that all witnesses had been heard in the beginning of the investigation. 14.  On 17 September 2014 the Prosecutor’s Office lodged an application for the prolongation of the applicant’s detention arguing, inter alia, that between 22 July 2014 and 25 August 2014 the applicant had absconded from the investigating authority. 15.  On 23 September 2014 the Ialoveni District Court upheld the Prosecutor’s request and prolonged the applicant’s detention for a period of thirty days. The reasons for detention were the same as before: risk of absconding, risk of interfering with the investigation and re-offending. 16.  The applicant appealed against the above decision and argued, inter alia, that there was no risk of absconding or interfering with the investigation. He submitted that, on 22 July 2014, when the Chișinău Court of Appeal had quashed the Ialoveni District Court’s decision of 11 July 2014 and had ordered the prolongation of his detention, he had not been arrested but advised to go home. He went home and nobody came after him until 25 August 2014. Between 11 July and 25 August 2014 he had not attempted to abscond or interfere with the investigation. 17.  On 7 October 2014 the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The court found that the risk of the applicant’s absconding was real because he had absconded from investigating authorities between 22 July and 25 August 2014. 18.  On 17 October 2014 the Public Prosecutor’s Office applied to the Ialoveni District Court for a prolongation of the applicant’s detention for another thirty days. One of the reasons relied upon by the Prosecutor was that the applicant had absconded from investigating authorities between 22 July and 25 August 2014. 19.   On 22 October 2014 the applicant requested access to the casefile with a view to obtaining a copy of the materials filed by the public prosecutor together with his application of 7 October 2014. He argued that the public prosecutor’s application was accompanied by a set of documents, while he had only received a copy of the application. The applicant lodged on the same date a habeas corpus request. 20.  On 22 October 2014 the Ialoveni District Court upheld the public prosecutor’s application and ordered the prolongation of the applicant’s detention for thirty days on the ground that there was a risk of absconding and interfering with the investigation. The applicant’s habeas corpus request was rejected while his request for access to the materials of the file was not examined. The applicant appealed and complained about the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention. He did not complain in his appeal about the lack of access to the materials in the casefile. 21.  On 4 November 2014 the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 22.  On 14 November 2014 the Public Prosecutor’s Office applied again to the Ialoveni District Court for a prolongation of the applicant’s detention. 23.  On 20 November 2014 the applicant lodged a habeas corpus request. 24.  On 20 November 2014 the Ialoveni District Court dismissed the public prosecutor’s request and upheld the applicant’s habeas corpus request. The applicant was released from detention and ordered not to leave his town and not to interfere with the investigation. 25.  Throughout his detention the applicant was held in Prison no. 13. 26.  According to the applicant, he was detained in overcrowded cells which lacked ventilation. His co-detainees smoked in the cells. The cells were equipped with squat toilets which were not properly separated. There was a sink with a rusted tap and the quality of water was very bad. The food was insufficient. 27.  On 9 March 2017 the Supreme Court of Justice convicted the applicant for hooliganism and unintentional infliction of severe bodily harm and sentenced him to a suspended sentence of two years’ imprisonment.