The applicant had been in pre-trial detention since 21 October 2008 in connection with proceedings ( КОК бр.

    On the same date the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan (the District Court) ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention for a period of two months, namely until 8 May 2008

    On 21 February 2011 the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention.

On 4   September 2004 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Chita authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention.

    The Government submitted that the domestic courts had given sufficient and relevant reasons for the applicant’s pre-trial detention.

The only ground for awarding the applicant compensation is the termination of the criminal proceedings against him rather than any alleged procedural irregularity in the pre-trial detention.

    On 27 December 2003 the pre-trial investigation was completed and charges were brought against the applicant under Articles 161   §   2 and 109 §   1 of the Criminal Code.

    The applicant’s pre ‑ trial detention was subsequently extended by the Warsaw Regional Court on 2 July, 28 September and 7 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010.

complained of by the applicant consists of the overall incompatibility of her detention on remand with her state of health, coupled with her old age (she was 78 years old at the time of her arrest and had pre-existing

    The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long.

He alleged that his pre-trial detention had been founded exclusively on the gravity of the charges brought against him. A.     Admissibility 40.

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

    The applicants complained that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long.

    In the instant case, the Government has not provided arguments susceptible to justify the length the applicant’s pre-trial detention throughout the period in question.

    The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.

Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicants’ pre-trial detention.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICANT’S PRE-TRIAL DETENTION 5.