4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and is currently detained in the centre for persons in preventive detention on the premises of Schwalmstadt Prison. 5.  On 6 October 1987 the Landshut Regional Court convicted the applicant, inter alia, of two counts of rape combined with one count of sexual assault, of attempted rape and of aggravated robbery. It sentenced the applicant, who had acted with full criminal responsibility, to thirteen years’ imprisonment. Furthermore, after a first preventive detention order made in that judgment had been quashed by the Federal Court of Justice, the Regional Court, on 25 July 1988, again ordered the applicant’s preventive detention under Article 66 §§ 2 and 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 24 below). 6.  The Regional Court found that between June and August 1986 the applicant, having absconded during a leave from prison where he served a term of imprisonment for rape, had again raped a twenty-two-year-old woman and a sixteen-year-old girl on a farm track, had attempted to rape another randomly chosen woman and had stolen two cars by use of threats or force. It had endorsed the findings of medical expert W. who had diagnosed the applicant with a mental abnormality with schizoid and psychopathic elements which was not pathological and thus did not affect the applicant’s criminal responsibility, and with a propensity to commit serious sexual and property offences. 7.  On 10 April 2002 the applicant, having fully served his terms of imprisonment, was placed for the first time in preventive detention. 8.  On 13 December 2011 the Marburg Regional Court ordered the applicant’s preventive detention to continue also after 9 April 2012, when the applicant would have served ten years in that form of detention. 9.  The Regional Court considered that the requirements for an extension of that detention beyond ten years, laid down in Article 67d § 3 of the Criminal Code and modified by the Federal Constitutional Court’s judgment of 4 May 2011 (see paragraph 24 below), were met. 10.  Having heard the applicant, his counsel, the prosecution, psychiatric expert J. and a representative of Schwalmstadt Prison, the Regional Court considered that there was still a high risk that the applicant, owing to specific circumstances relating to his person and his conduct, would commit the most serious crimes of violence and sexual offences if released. The Regional Court referred to the applicant’s previous convictions of numerous counts of rape of randomly chosen victims who had suffered most serious mental damage and of robbery by potentially mortal stabs in the chest in this respect. It further noted that the applicant had not completed any of the therapies offered to him to reflect on his offences. 11.  Furthermore, the Regional Court found that the applicant suffered from a mental disorder for the purposes of section 1 § 1 of the Therapy Detention Act (see paragraph 24 below). It noted that expert J., in his report dated 15 September 2011, having regard to the relevant tool for the classification of diseases, the ICD-10[1], had diagnosed the applicant with a dissocial and schizoid personality disorder, which was to be classified as a mental disorder under the said Act. It further had regard to the report dated 27 December 2004, submitted in previous proceedings by psychiatric expert B., who had already diagnosed the applicant with a dissocial personality disorder with schizoid and psychopathic elements. 12.  On 13 March 2012 the Frankfurt am Main Court of Appeal, endorsing the reasons given by the Regional Court, dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 13.  On 13 June 2013 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to grant the applicant legal aid and declined to consider the applicant’s constitutional complaint (file no. 2 BvR 963/13). 14.  On 23 January 2013 the Marburg Regional Court, having heard the applicant in person, his counsel, the prosecution and a representative of Schwalmstadt Prison and having regard to the report of psychiatric expert J. dated 15 September 2011, again ordered the extension of the applicant’s preventive detention. 15.  The Regional Court endorsed the reasons given by the Frankfurt am Main Court of Appeal and by itself in the previous set of proceedings. It further took note, in particular, of the fact that the applicant had proved reliable during several leaves from prison under escort and had taken up work in prison. However, he still had not completed a necessary therapy aimed at preventing him from reoffending. 16.  On 14 March 2013 the Frankfurt am Main Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It referred to the conclusions in its decision dated 13 March 2012 and found that the factual findings and legal assessment made in that decision were still valid. In particular, the applicant kept refusing a necessary therapy. 17.  On 13 June 2013 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to grant the applicant legal aid and declined to consider the applicant’s constitutional complaint (file no. 2 BvR 1055/13). 18.  At the outset of the execution of the preventive detention order, the applicant was detained in a separate department for persons in preventive detention in Schwalmstadt Prison. From January 2013 onwards he has been detained in a separate building for persons in preventive detention on the premises of Weiterstadt Prison. In the latter building, detainees now disposed of two rooms, each measuring some 11 square metres, and could use the outdoor area during the day. Since spring 2013, the number of staff in the psychology service responsible for persons in preventive detention has been increased and specific therapies, notably a sex offender treatment programme, have been made available. On 20 December 2014 the applicant was transferred to the new centre for persons in preventive detention on the premises of Schwalmstadt Prison. 19.  In the Government’s submission, which was not contested by the applicant, both in Schwalmstadt Prison and in Weiterstadt Prison, measures were taken in the interim period between September 2011 and the entry into force of the new legislation on preventive detention on 1 June 2013 (in particular the Act on establishment, at federal level, of a difference between the provisions on preventive detention and those on prison sentences, see paragraph 24 below) by which the conditions of detention for persons in preventive detention and the offers of therapy were gradually improved. The Government submitted that these measures served to comply with the constitutional requirement of differentiating between preventive detention and imprisonment. 20.  The applicant refused any specific therapy addressing his offences throughout his preventive detention. In the period at issue, he participated in a weekly discussion group for persons in preventive detention. In May 2013 the applicant was repeatedly invited to participate in the sex offender treatment programme then available in Weiterstadt, which he refused. He worked in detention and was regularly granted leave from prison under escort. 21.  On 26 April 2012 the Marburg Regional Court dismissed the prosecution’s request to transfer the applicant to a psychiatric hospital for the further execution of his preventive detention under Article 67a § 2 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 24 below). 22.  On 18 November 2013 the Marburg Regional Court again extended the applicant’s preventive detention.