40. The applicants appealed to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office stating, inter alia, that there had been a “campaign” against them because of their application to the Commission. In its decision of 8 December 1995 the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the applicants’ arguments and stated that, although the investigation had been completed by September 1995, it was still necessary to detain Mr Assenov because there was a clear danger that he would resume his criminal activities. However, the view was expressed that prolonged detention in the premises of the Shoumen police would be harmful to the applicant’s “physical and mental development” and that he should therefore be moved to the Boychinovzi juvenile penitentiary. The transfer took place three and a half months later, on 25 March 1996. 41. On an unspecified date in 1996, Mr Assenov again challenged his detention on remand before the Shoumen District Court. On 28 March 1996 the court requested the case-file from the District Prosecutor’s Office. Noting that an application had already been examined on 19 September 1995, it rejected the new petition as inadmissible (see paragraph 75 below). 42. On 21 March 1996 the investigator opened a separate case-file to deal with the robbery charges, in connection with which he questioned Mr Assenov and ordered his continued detention on remand. The following day the investigator drew up a report summarising the facts in the robbery case and sent it to the prosecutor proposing that an indictment be prepared. 43. On 3 July 1996, a district prosecutor sent the robbery case back to the investigator with instructions to see one further witness. On 23 August 1996 the investigator returned the case-file because the proposed witness had died. On 26 September 1996, the district prosecutor drew up an indictment in the case and, four days later, submitted it to the Shoumen District Court. The Court held a hearing on 6 February 1997, where it heard four witnesses and adjourned the hearing to 29 May 1997 because of the non-attendance of two other witnesses. 44. In the meantime, on 20 September 1996, the investigator completed the preliminary inquiry into the burglary case. On 25 October 1996, this case was sent to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office with a proposal to indict Mr Assenov. It appears that on 31 January 1997, the burglary case was referred back for further investigation. 45. Between 5 July and 24 September 1996, Mr Assenov was again held at Shoumen police station, before being transferred to Belene prison. 46. Throughout 1996 the applicants continued to submit requests for Mr Assenov’s release to the prosecuting authorities. By decisions of 21 February and 17 June 1996 these requests were dismissed by the district prosecutor, on the grounds that the applications raised no new arguments, that there was still a danger of the applicant reoffending if released and that the cases