5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and is currently serving a prison sentence. 6.  In August and September 2001 a number of separate criminal proceedings were instituted in connection with stealing grain, farm animals and other items from different farms. These proceedings were eventually joined into a single criminal case (“the theft proceedings”). 7.  On 15 August 2001 the applicant – together with several other individuals including V.Z. – was arrested as a suspect in these proceedings. 8.  On 17 August 2001 the Magdalynivsky District Court (hereafter “the District Court”) remanded the applicant in custody pending pre-trial investigation of the above charges. 9.  On 23 August 2001 criminal proceedings were instituted in connection with the premeditated murder of a man whose body had allegedly been found by a villager in the forest near the applicant’s village (“the murder proceedings”). 10.  On the same day, whilst being interrogated in the theft proceedings, V.Z. allegedly told the police that on 1 August 2001 the applicant had fatally injured a woman, L.G., in a traffic accident and had killed her husband, A.G., in V.Z.’s presence in order to cover this crime. He also stated that they had hidden the bodies in the forest. According to the Government, criminal proceedings in connection with L.G.’s death in a traffic accident were also launched that day. 11.  Later the same day, the applicant and V.Z., unaccompanied by lawyers, were taken to the centre of the village where they lived and were asked by the police to give video-recorded testimonies about the circumstances of the deaths of L.G. and A.G. V.Z. repeated the statement he had made earlier that day. According to the record of the crime reconstruction, which referred to the applicant as the “suspect”, the latter –having been informed of his rights to defence and his right not to incriminate himself – agreed to give testimony and acknowledged that he had fatally hit L.G. with his car and had helped V.Z. to cover the victims’ bodies, but stated that it was V.Z. who had killed A.G. 12.  On the same day, in the absence of the applicant’s lawyer, a site inspection and a road examination were carried out. The investigation team and forensic experts also examined the applicant’s car in his absence. 13.  On 24 August 2001 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant in connection with the traffic accident which had resulted in L.G.’s death. The applicant’s wife was questioned by the police. 14.  On 31 August 2001 the applicant was informed in writing of his right to defence and was questioned, in the presence of his defense counsel, as a suspect in the premeditated murder of A.G. He repeated the statement he had made on 23 August 2001. 15.  On 26 September 2001 the applicant was charged with ten counts of theft and with causing a traffic accident which resulted in L.G.’s death. 16.  On 10 October 2001 the investigation into the premeditated murder of A.G. was suspended because it had been impossible to establish the offender. It was resumed on 10 February 2002. 17.  On an unspecified date the applicant was committed for trial on the charges of theft and causing a fatal traffic accident. 18.  On 11 February 2002 the District Court found the applicant guilty on several counts of theft and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. No verdict was reached on the other charge (see paragraph 21 below). By the same judgment, eleven other individuals, including V.Z., were convicted on various counts of theft in collaboration with the applicant and were sentenced to various penalties. 19.  On the same day, the applicant was charged with the premeditated murder of A.G. He was questioned in the presence of his defence counsel but made no statement. 20.  On 12 February 2002 the murder proceedings were stayed owing to the applicant’s unspecified illness. According to the applicant, his “illness” was invented by the authorities in order to protract the proceedings. 21.  On 25 July 2002 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (hereafter “the Court of Appeal”) upheld the conviction of 11 February 2002 with respect to the applicant’s co-defendants, quashed the conviction with respect to the applicant and remitted his case to the District Court for retrial. The Court of Appeal noted, in particular, that the District Court, having admitted the case for trial on both the charges of theft and causing a fatal traffic accident, had reached a verdict only on the theft charge. 22.  On 13 February 2003 the District Court disjoined the charge concerning the traffic incident and remitted it to the investigating authorities for further investigation together with the murder charge. 23.  On 19 February 2003 the District Court found the applicant guilty on several counts of theft and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. 24.  On 24 February 2003 the murder proceedings were resumed and joined to the criminal proceedings concerning the traffic accident. 25.  On 6 June 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 19 February 2003 and remitted the case for retrial. It noted, in particular, that the investigation was littered with deficiencies and procedural violations. 26.  On 7 July 2003, following a request by the applicant and his lawyer, the District Court remitted the theft case to the Magdalynivsky District Prosecutors’ Office, instructing it to join the proceedings to those concerning the traffic accident and the murder. 27.  On 24 September 2003 the investigator reclassified the applicant’s charges from premeditated to aggravated murder. On the same date, these proceedings were joined to the criminal proceedings concerning the theft and the traffic accident. 28.  On 25 September 2003 the investigator from the Magdalynivsky District Prosecutors’ Office ordered the applicant’s release from custody pending trial in connection with the theft charges. On the same date, without being released, the applicant was re-arrested on suspicion of the premeditated murder of A.G. 29.  On 26 September 2003 the prosecutor’s office asked the District Court to remand the applicant in custody in connection with the murder proceedings. 30.  On 27 September 2003, in the presence of his defense counsel, the applicant was questioned as a suspect in the murder proceedings. He maintained his innocence. 31.  On 29 September 2003 the District Court refused the prosecutor’s request to remand the applicant in custody in the murder proceedings, having found that the prosecutor’s decision to cancel the applicant’s detention on remand of 25 September 2003 had been unlawful. It noted, in particular, that the investigation of the murder case had featured artificial suspensions and other delays and that by joining and disjoining the various charges against the applicant, the investigation had been sidestepping the proper procedure for extending the term for the pre-trial investigation. Moreover, this tactic had allowed them to conduct various investigative activities in the absence of the applicant’s defence counsel. The court further found that the applicant should be considered as having been in detention since 15 August 2001 for the theft charges. 32.  On 7 October 2003, in the presence of his defense counsel, the applicant was charged with theft, causing a traffic accident and premeditated murder and was questioned as an accused. He admitted that he had fatally hit L.G. but denied killing A.G. 33.  On 8 October 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 29 September 2003 and remitted the matter to the District Court for fresh consideration. 34.  On 10 October 2003 the applicant was charged with the aggravated murder of A.G. and causing a traffic accident. 35.  On 13 October 2003 the applicant had a face-to-face confrontation with V.Z. 36.  On 14 October 2003 the District Court granted the prosecution’s request to remand the applicant in custody in the context of the murder proceedings. 37.  On 20 November 2003 the applicant was charged, within the criminal proceedings as joined on 24 September 2003, with aggravated murder, theft and causing a traffic accident. 38.  On 2 December 2003 the applicant and his defense counsel were granted access to the case-file. 39.  On 9 December 2003 a bill of indictment was drafted by the investigator. 40.  On 14 January 2004 the criminal case was sent to the Court of Appeal, acting as the first-instance court, for trial. 41.  On 30 January 2004, upon requests from the prosecutor and the applicant, the court remitted the case for additional investigation as it had been littered with procedural violations which could not be rectified during the trial. The court noted, in particular, that after 23 August 2001 a number of investigative actions had been carried out in respect of the applicant without his procedural rights having been explained to him. It further noted that all the investigative actions taken after 23 October 2001 had violated the applicant’s procedural rights because the term for the pre-trial investigation of the murder had expired. 42.  On 9 March 2004 the theft charges were disjoined into separate proceedings. The murder charges of 11 February 2002 were dropped. 43.  On 16 March 2004 the applicant was charged with aggravated murder and was questioned in the presence of his defence counsel. He maintained his innocence and confirmed the statements made earlier in this respect. 44.  On 19 April 2004 the applicant was committed for trial before the Court of Appeal, acting as a first-instance court, on charges of having caused the traffic accident which resulted in L.G.’s death and of the aggravated murder of A.G. 45.  During the trial the applicant acknowledged that he had fatally hit L.G. with his car but denied killing A.G., who, according to him, had been murdered by V.Z. 46.  On 27 April 2004 the criminal proceedings concerning the theft charges were suspended. 47.  On 21 May 2004 the Court of Appeal found the applicant guilty of causing the traffic accident which resulted in L.G.’s death and of the aggravated murder of A.G. The conviction for murder was based on the testimony of V.Z., which the trial court found to be corroborated by the statements made by the applicant’s wife, the results of the crime-scene inspection and the forensic expert’s examination of the victim’s body. The Court of Appeal found reasonable V.Z’s argument that he had no reason to murder A.G. as it was not him who had killed A.G.’s wife. The applicant’s testimony with respect to V.Z. was found by the court to be inconsistent in its details and therefore not truthful. 48.  The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment in combination with a three-year driving ban. The Court of Appeal stated that the term of imprisonment was to be calculated from 10 October 2003. 49.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, having noted, inter alia, that he had not been provided with legal advice during the questioning of 23 August 2001. 50.  On 5 October 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to fifteen years’ imprisonment. It found that the applicant’s guilt was proved by V.Z.’s testimony which was consistent and corroborated by other evidence and concluded that the lower court had correctly found the applicant’s accusation against V.Z. inconsistent in its details. Without particularly mentioning the applicant’s argument regarding the lack of legal assistance, the Supreme Court found no procedural violations serious enough to necessitate quashing the judgment. 51.  On numerous occasions the applicant complained to the Court of Appeal and other State authorities that his term of imprisonment had been calculated incorrectly in the judgment of 21 May 2004, and that the starting point should have been the date of his first arrest in connection with the theft charges, i.e. 15 August 2001, rather than 10 October 2003. In reply, the applicant was informed that the term of imprisonment had been properly calculated, because prior to October 2003 the applicant had been detained in relation to charges that were not linked to the murder charge for which he was convicted. 52.  On 4 April 2005 the criminal proceedings concerning the theft charge were renewed and on an unspecified date the case was referred for trial. 53.  On 10 June 2005 the District Court remitted the case for further investigation. 54.  On 17 June 2011 the criminal case was referred to the trial court for examination. 55.  On 24 May 2012 the District Court found the applicant guilty on several counts of theft and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment combined with the confiscation of all his property. Given the applicant’s conviction under the judgment of 21 May 2004, the trial court applied the rule of absorption of sentences, as provided by domestic legislation, and defined the final sentence for all his crimes as fifteen years’ imprisonment combined with the confiscation of his property and the three-year driving ban. The District Court included the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in the overall term of imprisonment and ruled that the latter had started running on 15 August 2001, when the applicant had been detained for the first time in the context of the theft proceedings. The parties did not appeal against this decision and it became final on 8 June 2012.