5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Yaroslavl. 6.  On 19 February 2009 the applicant, former head of the department of pharmacology at the Yaroslavl State Medical Academy, was arrested on suspicion of bribe-taking. 7.  On 20 February 2009 the Leninskiy District Court of Yaroslavl (“the District Court”) remanded the applicant in custody. The court held as follows:
“On the basis of [the submitted documents] it appears that [the applicant] is the head of the department of pharmacology at the [Yaroslavl State Medical Academy], so a person with organisational/executive functions; the witnesses in the case are students at the above [Academy], who had been taking or were to take pharmacology exams.
When questioned as a suspect [the applicant] refused to testify, citing Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
During the crime-scene inspection on 19 February 2009, 500-rouble and 1,000‑rouble banknotes were discovered in various parts of the [applicant’s office], the origin of which [the applicant] explained as personal savings.
One of the [witnesses] in the case made a statement expressing concern as to the possible exertion of pressure on him by [the applicant], as well as to the possible emergence of difficulties for him in further studies.
The above confirms the conclusions of the investigator that, if not detained, the suspect might exert pressure on witnesses, destroy evidence or otherwise obstruct the course of justice. ...” 8.  On 26 February 2009 the applicant was charged with eight counts of bribe-taking under Article 290 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code. 9.  On 3 March 2009 the Yaroslavl Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the decision of 20 February 2009 on appeal. 10.  On 11 March 2009 the applicant was dismissed from the post of head of the department of pharmacology at the Yaroslavl State Medical Academy. 11.  On 16 April and 17 June 2009 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 19 June and 31 July 2009 respectively. On both occasions the court held that the grounds relied on by the court when applying the custodial measure still persisted, and that the applicant was charged with eight counts of a serious crime, committed between December 2007 and February 2009 and punishable by three to seven years’ imprisonment. He was further suspected of having committed another fifteen similar offences, in respect of which he had refused to testify. He had confessed only in part and had refused to testify as either a suspect or an accused. Although the applicant had been dismissed from his post, he remained on good terms with his colleagues from the pharmacology department, including its acting head. He could therefore have access to information and documents which might be of interest to him. All of the above, as well as the position which the applicant had taken in the proceedings, gave the court grounds to believe that, if released, he might exert pressure on witnesses (the students at the Medical Academy), destroy evidence or otherwise interfere with the proceedings. In particular, according to the investigator’s submissions made before the court, two more witnesses in the case had explained that they had had problems passing their pharmacology exams and that they believed it to be a means of making them change their position in the case in respect of the applicant. Lastly, the court held that, in view of the above circumstances, the custodial measure could not be replaced by a more lenient preventive measure. 12.  On 28 April and 3 July 2009 the Regional Court upheld the above decisions on appeal. 13.  On 30 July 2009 the District Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 19 September 2009. The court held that some of the grounds on which it had relied when extending the applicant’s detention were no longer valid. However, it noted the gravity of the charges against the applicant, the fact that he was suspected of having committed a further fifteen similar offences and that three more criminal cases had been opened against him in that connection in February-March 2009, and the fact that on 29 July 2009 seventeen other criminal cases had been opened against him on suspicion of twenty-nine criminal offences. The court further relied on the applicant’s refusal to give evidence as either a suspect or an accused and the potential for him to influence the witnesses (the Academy’s students), destroy evidence and otherwise obstruct the course of justice. The court found unconvincing the applicant’s argument to the effect that the students had already taken their pharmacology exams and were on summer holidays, since this did not exclude the risk of the applicant’s meeting them outside the Academy. The court therefore found that it would not be appropriate to apply a more lenient preventive measure. 14.  On 14 August 2009 the Regional Court upheld the above decision on appeal. 15.  On 16 September 2009 the charges against the applicant were finalised to include twenty-six counts of bribe-taking and forgery of official documents under Articles 290 § 2 and 292 § 1 of the Russian Criminal Code. 16.  On 17 September 2009 the applicant was released against an undertaking not to leave the city of Yaroslavl. 17.  On 18 February 2010 the District Court convicted the applicant of twenty-six counts of bribe-taking under Article 290 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code and imposed a conditional sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment. 18.  On 5 March 2009 the applicant asked the investigator to allow his wife to visit him in the remand prison. 19.  On 23 March 2009 the investigator refused the request, because the applicant’s case was being investigated and a visit by his wife might obstruct the establishment of the truth. The applicant found out about that decision on 8 May 2009 after lodging a complaint with the investigating department of the Yaroslavl regional prosecutor’s office. 20.  On 13 May, 10 June and 24 June 2009 the applicant applied for permission for his wife and daughter to visit him. 21.  On 18 May, 15 June and 29 June 2009 respectively, the investigator again refused the applicant’s requests, relying on the ongoing investigation and the risk of the family visits obstructing the establishment of the truth. 22.  Meanwhile, on 1 June 2009 the District Court found unlawful the decision of 23 March 2009 refusing the applicant’s request to see his wife and obliged the investigator to reconsider the applicant’s request for a family visit. 23.  On 2 July 2009 the District Court found the decision of 15 June 2009 unlawful and obliged the investigator to grant the applicant’s request. 24.  On 24 July 2009 the investigator decided to allow the applicant’s wife to visit the applicant in the remand prison, but limited the visit to fifteen minutes. The decision further stipulated that the visit had to take place in the presence of the investigator. 25.  The applicant challenged the ruling that the visit was limited to fifteen minutes and had to take place in the presence of the investigator. 26.  On 11 August 2009 the Leninskiy District Court found the decision of 24 July 2009, in so far as it limited the duration of the visit and imposed the presence of the investigator, unlawful. The court further obliged the investigator to grant the applicant permission to see his wife in accordance with the domestic law. 27.  On 27 August 2009 the investigator decided to allow the applicant to see his wife. The decision did not impose a restriction on the duration of the visit. However, according to the applicant, it was never communicated to him or his wife. As a result, he did not see his family until 17 September 2009 when the custodial measure was lifted. 28.  In view of the repeated violations of the applicant’s rights, the Yaroslavl regional prosecutor’s office sent the head of the investigating department an information letter on the inadmissibility of the practice of limiting the constitutional rights of defendants and on the need to examine the issue of imposing disciplinary sanctions on the investigator in charge of the applicant’s case.