4.  The applicants were born in 1964 and 1975 respectively and lived in Moscow. 5.  On 5 April 2005 the Presnenskiy District Court in Moscow found the applicants and their co-defendants guilty of extortion and gave them a custodial sentence. On 31 October 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the conviction on appeal. 6.  On 26 January 2006 the Presidium of the City Court quashed the appeal judgment of 31 October 2005 for formal defects and ordered a new appeal hearing. It did not mention the matter of the defendants’ detention. No ordinary appeal lay against that decision but the second applicant complained to the Supreme Court about the City Court’s failure to render a decision on his measure. On 13 December 2006 a judge of the Supreme Court rejected his complaint, finding as follows:
“The fact that [the Presidium of the City Court] unjustifiably (необоснованно) omitted to rule on the preventive measure is not a ground for setting aside its decision because it appears from the ... City Court’s decision of 26 July 2006 and the ... District Court’s decision of 31 August 2006 that the matter of detention was addressed in subsequent judicial decision which maintained the custodial measure in respect of [the second applicant].” 7.  On 26 July 2006 the City Court held a new appeal hearing and quashed the initial conviction for formal defects, ordering a re-trial. It also held that there were no grounds for varying the preventive measure and maintained it without setting a time-limit or relying on any provisions of the domestic law. 8.  On 21 August 2006 the District Court held a preliminary hearing and fixed the trial date for 31 August. It maintained the custodial measure, without citing any reasons, references to the domestic law or time-limits. 9.  On 31 August 2006 the District Court returned the case file to prosecutor and extended the applicants’ detention, referring to the gravity of the charges but without setting a time-limit. On 30 October 2006 the City Court rejected the applicants’ appeals against the extension order. 10.  On 16 January 2007 the District Court extended the applicants’ detention until 28 February 2007, relying on the gravity of the charges and unspecified circumstances that indicated a risk of perverting the course of justice. On 21 February 2007 the City Court quashed the detention order of 16 January because of an incorrect date in its text. It maintained the custodial measure without giving reasons. On 27 February 2007 the District Court issued an identically worded detention order which was upheld on appeal on 16 April. 11.  On the same date the District Court granted a further extension of the applicants’ detention until 30 April 2007, relying on the gravity of the charges. The extension order was upheld on appeal on 25 June 2007. 12.  Further extensions were approved by the District Court on 27 and 28 April (upheld on appeal on 25 June), 8 and 16 May (upheld on appeal on 23 July), and 13 June 2007 (upheld on appeal on 1 August). 13.  On 11 October 2007 the District Court found the defendants guilty and gave them custodial sentences.