4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Metsamor. 5.  On 23 July 2011 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of threatening to use violence against the investigator in charge of the criminal case against his ex-wife. 6.  On 25 July 2011 the applicant was charged with the same crime. 7.  On the same date the investigator filed a motion with the Armavir Regional Court seeking to have the applicant detained for a period of two months. 8.  On the same date the Regional Court examined and granted the investigator’s application, ordering the applicant’s detention for a period of two months, namely until 23 September 2011. It found that the motion was substantiated, since the applicant partially admitted his guilt and the case materials provided sufficient grounds for believing that he might abscond and obstruct the investigation, having regard to the nature and degree of dangerousness of the offence in question. 9.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal seeking to cancel the detention order and claiming that the investigating authority had not obtained any materials or evidence to substantiate the reasons for which it had sought to detain him and that they failed to take into account the applicant’s personality. 10.  On 11 August 2011 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant’s detention was based on a reasonable suspicion, and found the grounds invoked by the Regional Court in justification of detention to be sufficient. It also noted that less severe measures were insufficient to safeguard the applicant’s proper conduct. 11.  On 19 August 2011 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the decision of 11 August 2011 of the Court of Appeal. 12.  On 9 September 2011 the investigation into the applicant’s case was concluded and the case was transferred to the Regional Court for trial. 13.  On 13 September 2011 the applicant’s criminal case was set down for trial. By the same decision the trial court decided that the applicant’s detention on remand was “to remain unchanged”. 14.  On 17 September 2011 the Cassation Court returned the applicant’s cassation appeal as it was unsubstantiated and did not met the formal requirements imposed by law. 15.  On an unspecified date the applicant filed a motion with the Regional Court seeking to be released. He argued, inter alia, that there were not sufficient reasons to keep him in detention. 16.  On 13 December 2011 the Regional Court examined and dismissed this motion. The Regional Court found that the applicant’s detention was ordered by its decision of 13 September 2011. It also noted that the existing materials of the case were sufficient to conclude that the applicant’s detention was justified. 17.  On 19 December 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. 18.  On 28 December 2011 the Criminal Court of Appeal left the appeal unexamined. The Criminal Court of Appeal found that there was no possibility under domestic law to appeal against the decision of the District Court “to leave the applicant’s detention unchanged”. 19.  The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. 20.  On 20 March 2012 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible for lack of merit. 21.  On 11 May 2012 the applicant filed a new motion with the Regional Court seeking to be released. He argued, inter alia, that the collection of evidence against him had been finalised and that there were not sufficient reasons to keep him under detention. 22.  On 4 June 2012 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s motion having regard to the dangerousness and nature of the alleged offence and the fact that the applicant might abscond and obstruct the investigation. 23.  On 14 June 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. 24.  On 19 June 2012 the Criminal Court of Appeal left the applicant’s appeal unexamined on the same grounds as indicated in its decision of 28 December 2011. 25.  The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. 26.  On 17 August 2012 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible for lack of merit. 27.  On 6 August 2012 the Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged, imposing a sentence of one and a half years’ imprisonment.