4.  The applicant was born in 1989 and lives in Kresttsy, Novgorod Region. 5.  On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with theft. On 16 December 2003 the case was settled and the criminal proceedings were discontinued. 6.  On 28 July 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a murder. The applicant was 15 years old at the time of the arrest. 7.  On 29 July 2004 the Krestetskiy Federal Court of the Novgorod Region authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention noting as follows:
“Having heard the parties to the proceedings and examined the materials, [the court] has established that there is reasonable suspicion that [the applicant] has committed the crime. The other participants in the crime confessed and incriminated [the applicant].
Given that [the applicant] has been previously charged with criminal offences, that he is suspected of having committed a serious crime, it is impossible to apply a more lenient preventive measure.” 8.  On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with conspiracy to commit robbery. 9.  On 27 September 2004 the Novgorod Town Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 8 November 2004 noting as follows:
“Regard being had to the [applicant’s] character and the seriousness of the charges against him, the court considers that it is not possible to lift or replace the earlier imposed preventive measure because [the applicant] may interfere with the establishment of the truth or abscond.” 10.  On 4 November 2004 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 8 January 2005. It reiterated verbatim its earlier reasoning. 11.  On 7 December 2004 the investigator dropped the murder charges against the applicant for lack of corpus delicti. He further re-classified the charge against the applicant as robbery committed by a group of persons. 12.  On 30 December 2004 the Town Court extended the applicant’s pre‑trial detention until 28 January 2005. The court noted as follows:
“Regard being had to the seriousness of the charges, the [applicant’s] character and the negative references, the court does not discern grounds to change the earlier imposed preventive measure or to release [the applicant].” 13.  On 25 January 2005 the Novgorod Regional Court upheld the decision of 30 December 2004 on appeal noting that, in view of the seriousness of the charges, the applicant might interfere with the establishment of the truth, abscond or re-offend. 14.  On 14 February 2005 the Regional Court fixed the preliminary hearing of the applicant’s case for 24 February 2005. The court also ruled that the applicant should be detained pending trial. On 28 April 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the said decision on appeal. 15.  On 20 July 2005 the Regional Court rescheduled the preliminary hearing in the applicant’s case for 4 August 2005. The applicant and his lawyer were present. The lawyer asked for the applicant’s release into his mother’s care pending trial. The court dismissed the request and extended the applicant’s detention until 27 October 2005 noting that “the preventive measure earlier imposed on [the applicant] should remain unchanged”. Both the applicant and his lawyer appealed. 16.  On 21 September 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 20 July 2015 on appeal. The court decided to consider the matter in the applicant’s absence noting that the applicant had attended the hearing on 20 July 2005 and had been provided with an opportunity to be heard. The applicant’s lawyer and the prosecutor were present and made submissions to the court. As regards the extension of the applicant’s detention, the court ruled that the circumstances underlying the applicant’s remand in custody continued to exist. In this connection the court noted as follows:
“It follows from the materials of the case that [the applicant] has earlier committed another crime, that he had been absent from classes in school and had demonstrated anti-social behavior. He had not spent nights at home and had not lived with his mother for extended periods of time. His mother could not control his behavior; she did not pay due attention to his upbringing and had no influence over him. The [applicant’s] release into his mother’s care ... would not ensure his due behavior pending trial.” 17.  On 17 October 2005 the Regional Court extended the applicant’s and two other defendants’ detention until 27 January 2006. The court noted:
“The defendants are charged with particularly serious offences; the circumstances of their remand in custody have not changed. The court does not discern circumstances that would allow it to apply a more lenient preventive measure, including the [applicant’s] release into his mother’s care.” 18.  On 15 December 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 17 October 2005 on appeal. 19.  On 24 January 2006 the Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention and two other defendants’ detention until 27 April 2006. The court reiterated verbatim its reasoning of 17 October 2005. 20.  On 13 February 2006 the Regional Court found the applicant guilty of robbery and sentenced him to four and a half years’ imprisonment. On 27 September 2006 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld, in substance, the applicant’s conviction on appeal. 21.  On 2 August 2007 the Nevelskiy District Court of the Pskov Region released the applicant on parole.