5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Perm. 6.  On 21 October 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of extortion, kidnapping and fraud. Two days later the Leninskiy District Court of Perm authorised his detention. 7.  On 21 December 2006 the District Court held a hearing on extension of the applicant’s detention. The applicant asked to postpone the hearings for five days because his counsel was sick and could not attend. The District Court dismissed the request, assigned lawyer N. to represent the applicant, proceeded with the hearing and extended the applicant’s detention. The applicant’s objection to the participation of N. on account of their different defence strategies and N.’s limited knowledge of the case-file was also dismissed. 8.  The applicant and his counsel appealed, complaining, in particular, about a breach of the applicant’s right to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing. On 18 January 2007 the Perm Regional Court upheld the detention order of 21 December 2006, having also noted that the legal aid lawyer N. had been appointed because the detention matter “had to be examined immediately”. 9.  On 19 January 2007 the District Court once again extended the applicant’s detention. On 8 February 2007 the Regional Court held the appeal hearing without informing the applicant in advance about the hearing date. The applicant’s counsel attended the appeal hearing and made oral submissions. The Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the detention order of 19 January 2007. 10.  The applicant’s detention was further extended on several occasions. In particular, on 16 March 2007 the measure of restraint was prolonged until 4 April 2007. 11.  On 21 March 2007 the applicant was committed to stand trial before the Regional Court. Five days later, on 26 March 2007, the trial court scheduled a preliminary hearing for 3 April 2007 and ruled that, in the meantime, the measure of restraint in respect of the applicant should remain unchanged until the preliminary hearing. The decision was delivered in a written procedure (without the parties being present). 12.  The applicant appealed, complaining, among other matters, that that decision in the part relating to his detention was unlawful and that it had been delivered in his and his lawyer’s absence. On 14 May 2007 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the decision, having found, in particular, that the trial judge’s decision was no more than a restatement of the detention order of 16 March 2007 extending the applicant’s detention until 4 April 2007 (see paragraph 10 above). 13.  At the preliminary hearing on 3 April 2007 the trial court extended the applicant’s detention until 21 September 2007. 14.  On 1 June 2007 the applicant was convicted. On 22 September 2008 the Supreme Court upheld his conviction on appeal.