6.  The applicant was born in 1970 and is currently serving a term of imprisonment in correctional colony IK-3, Altay Region. 7.  On 14 September 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder and taken to the police station. 8.  On 15 September 2003 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). 9.  On the same day a certain Sh. was questioned on the issue of the applicant's involvement in the crime. He submitted, in particular, that
“... Yuriy [the applicant] grabbed Andrey [the victim] by his foot, stood up sharply and threw him through the broken window ...”
Sh. was then questioned as a witness. 10.  On 17 September 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Barnaul decided to remand the applicant in custody pending investigation. The decision was not appealed against and entered into force on 22 September 2003. 11.  On 24 September 2003 charges of murder were brought against the applicant. The applicant was placed in remand prison IZ-22/1, Barnaul. 12.  In the meantime, on 6 October 2003 the investigator instructed the head of the Oktyabrskiy District police station to establish the whereabouts of witness Sh., who lived in Barnaul, in order to be able to carry out the investigation with his participation. 13.  On 5 November 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District police operative agent produced a certificate to the effect that it had been impossible to discover the whereabouts of Sh.: he did not live at the address in Barnaul indicated by the investigator, and his partner had explained that Sh. had left for an unknown destination. 14.  On 13 November 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 15 December 2003. 15.  On 25 November 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court set a time-limit of 27 November 2003 for the applicant to study the material of the case file. 16.  On 27 November 2003 the Altay Regional Court upheld the decision of 13 November 2003 on appeal. 17.  On 27 November 2003 the investigation was completed and the case submitted to Oktyabrskiy District Court for trial. 18.  Following the applicant's complaint, on 5 December 2003 the Barnaul City Prosecutor's Office acknowledged the unlawfulness of the applicant's detention at the police station from 10.05 p.m. on 14 September to 6.15 p.m. on 15 September 2003. 19.  On 17 December 2003 Oktyabrskiy District Court held a preliminary hearing and ordered that the custodial measure in respect of the applicant should remain unchanged. On 8 January 2004 Altay Regional Court upheld the above decision on appeal. 20.  On 5 January 2004 Oktyabrskiy District Court adjourned the hearing until 8 January 2004 because of the failure of several witnesses, including witness Sh., to appear. The court ordered them to be compelled to attend. 21.  On 8 January 2004 the bailiff in charge of bringing Sh. to the court submitted that the attendance of Sh. could not be secured since he could not be found at his address in Barnaul, and, according to his partner, he had left to live permanently in Slavgorod. On the same day the court adjourned the hearing until 20 January 2004 and again ordered Sh. to be compelled to attend. 22.  According to the report of the investigator of the Oktyabrskiy District Prosecutor's Office of 20 January 2004, Sh.'s sister confirmed that in the second half of September 2003 Sh. had been in Slavgorod. He had told her that he had witnessed a crime in Barnaul and given a statement to the investigator. Fearing revenge from the applicant, Sh. had left for the Tyumen Region. The hearing was adjourned until 4 February 2004. 23.  On 22 January 2004 the Tyumen Region Prosecutor's Office was commissioned to establish the whereabouts of Sh. 24.  On 4 February 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court adjourned the hearing until 19 February 2004. 25.  On 17 February 2004 the investigator of the Slavgorod Interdistrict Prosecutor's Office reported that Sh. had not been found on the territory of the Slavgorod District of the Altay Region. 26.  At the hearing of 19 February 2004 the prosecutor requested the court, under Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to read out the statement made by Sh. at the pre-trial investigation stage. The applicant and his counsel objected to the reading out of Sh.'s previous statements and insisted that further searches for him be conducted and that he be made to attend the hearing. 27.  Having heard the participants of the trial, the court granted the prosecutor's request, declared Sh.'s failure to attend an emergency case in accordance with Article 281 § 2 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, due to the impossibility of establishing his whereabouts after all available measures had been taken, and proceeded with the reading out of depositions made by Sh. on 15 September 2003. 28.  On 19 February 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Barnaul convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to nine years' imprisonment. In convicting the applicant the District Court relied on the pre-trial statement by witness Sh. on 15 September 2003, which read as follows:
“On 14 September 2003 in flat no. 59 situated at [the address] the [applicant], the [victim] and myself were in the kitchen. The [applicant] had an argument with the [victim] because his money was missing. They started fighting and moved towards the window. During the fight one of them broke the window. Afterwards the [applicant] grabbed a knife and started brandishing it in front of the [victim]. The latter was pushing the [applicant] away and was leaning against the broken window. Then I saw the [applicant] grab the [victim] by his foot and throw him through the window.”
The District Court found that the above statements of Sh. were corroborated by the following evidence:
-  The testimony by witness P., who submitted as follows:
“On 13-14 September 2003 I was with G., the [victim], Z., the [applicant] and Sh. in the above flat; we were drinking alcohol. ... On 14 September 2003 around 6 p.m. G. and I went to the bedroom to sleep. Sh., the victim and the [applicant] remained in the kitchen. While I was in the bedroom I heard the sound of breaking glass, but I did not do anything. I was woken a couple of hours later by Sh. and [the applicant]. The [applicant] was holding a knife and demanding that G. return his money. [The applicant] threw himself at G. and cut his face; then G. knocked the knife out of his hand. Afterwards I went to the kitchen, saw the blood, saw the money under the chair and told the [applicant] about it. The [victim] was not in the kitchen; the window was broken; I asked about the [victim], and the [applicant] replied that the latter had his nose broken. Scared, I left the flat. ...”
-  The testimony by witness Ye. G. similar to the above statement of P.;
-  The testimony by witness L. G., who submitted that she had learned from Sh. that the applicant and the victim had had a quarrel over the lost money and that Sh. had seen the applicant throw the victim through the window.
-  The results of the forensic medical examination of the victim's body;
-  The record of the crime scene examination;
-  The record of the seizure of the applicant's shoes, sweatshirt and sports trousers; and
-  The results of biological expert examination of the blood samples discovered on the floor of the kitchen, on a fragment of the broken window, two knives and the applicant's shoes and sports trousers, the bloodstains on the applicant's trousers possibly linking the applicant to the victim. 29.  The applicant appealed against his conviction. In his appeal he complained, inter alia, that at no stage of the proceedings had he been given an opportunity to examine Sh., whose statements were determinative for the court's finding of guilt. 30.  On 20 February 2004 the applicant went on hunger strike until 5 March 2004. 31.  On 29 April 2004 the Altay Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal. As regards the applicant's specific grievances, it found as follows:
“[The applicant's] guilt in the [crime] is proved by statements by witness Sh., the eyewitness to the crime, from which it follows that [the applicant] had an argument with [the victim] because of the lost money. During the fight one of them broke the window. [The applicant] grabbed a knife and started brandishing it in front of the victim. The latter was pushing [the applicant] away and leaning against the window. Next [the applicant] grabbed [the victim] by the foot and pushed him out of the window. The victim fell out of the window and on to the ground.
The [trial] court had with reason made this statement the basis of the conviction. No grounds were established for a false accusation of the applicant by witness Sh.. [The applicant] submitted in the trial hearing that he and Sh. had been good acquaintances, that he trusted the latter. The [trial] court established that there had been no conflict between the witness and the victim. The statements from witness Sh. had been received in accordance with the requirements of the criminal procedural law and they are in conformity with other evidence in the case.
...
The appeal court detects no violations of the criminal procedural law leading to the quashing of the conviction. As regards the [applicant's] argument about the failure of the investigator to carry out a confrontation between him and Sh., it cannot be taken into consideration, since pursuant to Article 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the investigator was entitled, but not obliged, to carry out such an investigative measure. The statements by witness Sh. had been read out during the trial at the request of the prosecutor as it was impossible to locate him in person, after the prosecution and the court had taken sufficient measures to compel him to appear in court. In view of the above the [trial] court had with reason declared [his] failure to attend an exceptional circumstance. Furthermore, besides the statements by Sh., the [applicant's] guilt had been established by cumulative evidence set out in the judgment.
...”
On the same day the applicant renewed his hunger strike until 18 June 2004. 32.  On 17 June 2004 the applicant was transferred to Rubtsovsk prison UB-14/10 in the Altay Region to serve his sentence. 33.  The applicant brought proceedings against the Oktyabrskiy District Department of the Interior and the Ministry of Finance for compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by his unlawful detention from 10.05 p.m. on 14 September to 6.15 p.m. on 15 September 2003. 34.  On 5 November 2008 the Altay Regional Court, as the court of final instance, granted the applicant's claim in part and awarded him 500 Russian roubles (RUB) in non-pecuniary damage. 35.  On 13 October 2008 the Court dispatched a letter to the applicant informing him that his application was being communicated to the respondent Government and setting a time-limit of 24 November 2008 for a representative to be assigned. According to the stamp of the LIU-8 correctional facility, where the applicant had been serving his sentence at the material time, the letter in question reached that facility on 21 November 2008. However, it was not handed to the applicant until forty-two days later, on 2 January 2009. 36.  On 21 March 2009 the applicant's representative dispatched a letter to the applicant. The letter reached the LIU-8 facility on 1 April 2009 and was handed to the applicant three weeks later, on 24 April 2009. 37.  On 1 June 2009 the applicant's representative dispatched another letter to the applicant. The letter reached the LIU-8 facility on 9 June 2009 and was handed to the applicant over a week later, on 18 June 2009. 38.  On 18 June 2009 the applicant's representative dispatched a telegram to the applicant. The telegram reached the LIU-8 facility the following day. On 24 June 2009 it still had not been handed to the applicant. 39.  On 18 June 2009 the applicant raised with the Prosecutor's Office the issue of undue delays in handing out of correspondence by the administration of the LIU-8 facility. In its reply of 31 July 2009 the Barnaul City Prosecutor's Office informed the applicant that the matters complained of had been confirmed to have occurred and that a formal warning (представление) had been issued to the head of the facility in question. 40.  On 7 April 2010 the applicant's representative sent a parcel to the applicant enclosing a letter and human rights booklets. On 17 April 2010 it was returned to the representative, giving as the reason that the applicant had left the facility, whereas in accordance with the domestic law it should have been forwarded to the applicant's new address (Section 51 of the Internal Prison Rules approved by the Ministry of Justice on 3 November 2005, Decree no. 205). 41.  On 3 July 2010 the applicant submitted to the administration of IK-3 of the Altay Region a letter to be sent to his representative, which included the Court's request for information about the allegations of hindrance of the applicant's right to petition. On 10 August 2010 the letter was dispatched with twenty-three pages of enclosures missing, including written statements by the applicant's fellow prisoners. 42.  According to the applicant, on a number of occasions he could not make telephone calls to his representative, notwithstanding the approval of his written requests to this effect, due to the large numbers of inmates wishing to make phone calls and the limited time for telephone communication in the facility (from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.).