5.  The applicants were born in 1970 and 1965 respectively and live in Moscow. 6.  On 13 June 2000 the prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation against the applicants on suspicion of fraud and tobacco smuggling. 7.  On 24 November 2000 the applicants were arrested. On 27 November 2000 the prosecutor authorised their pre-trial detention. They remained in custody during the investigation and study of the case file. 8.  On 12 January 2004 the City Court set a trial date of 19 January 2004. The court ordered that the applicants remain in custody pending trial. The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended on several occasions. 9.  On 3 February 2005 the jury delivered a verdict of not guilty in the applicants’ case. On 4 February 2005 the City Court pronounced the judgment and ordered the applicants’ release. 10.  On 22 July 2005 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 4 February 2005 on appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. 11.  On 29 July 2005 the City Court ordered the applicants to be remanded in custody pending a new trial. The court reasoned as follows:
“It can be seen in [the judgment of the Supreme Court] that the verdict was quashed in view of breaches of the rules of criminal procedure by both defendants, which influenced the opinion of the jury. Therefore, the court considers that, if released, [the applicants] might interfere with the establishment of the truth and the administration of justice by putting pressure on witnesses.
Regard being had to the above, to the gravity of the charges and in order to ensure compliance with the objectives of the criminal proceedings, the court grants the prosecutor’s request to remand [the applicants] in custody.” 12.  On 20 September 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 29 July 2005 on appeal. 13.  On 13 February 2006 the jury delivered a verdict of not guilty in the applicants’ case. On 16 February 2006 the City Court pronounced the judgment and ordered the applicants’ release. In the operative part of the judgment, the court noted that the applicants had a right to rehabilitation and could apply for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage by bringing a claim to the court which delivered the judgment in their criminal case. They could also bring a civil action seeking compensation in respect of non‑pecuniary damage resulting from the criminal prosecution against them. 14.  On 21 September 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 15.  According to the official version of events, on 22 August 2002 the first applicant destroyed certain documents which had been admitted as evidence in the criminal case against him, and on 28 August 2002 he assaulted a trainee investigator. 16.  On an unspecified date a criminal case was opened against the first applicant on multiple charges, including the use of violence against a law‑enforcement officer and the destruction of official documents. 17.  On 30 July 2003 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow found the first applicant guilty and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. 18.  On 19 November 2003 the City Court upheld the first applicant’s conviction on appeal. 19.  It appears that the first applicant finished serving his prison sentence on 29 July 2005.