5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in the Tyumen region. 6.  On 2 May 1997 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. He was given a written note explaining that he could not be obliged to give evidence against himself, his spouse or close relative and that he was entitled to legal assistance from the moment that the arrest record or the detention order was read out to him. He signed the explanatory note and asked for legal assistance. 7.  At 6.30 p.m. on the same day the applicant was questioned. He was not assisted by a lawyer. According to the applicant, he was threatened that if he did not confess the investigator would order his cellmates to rape him. The applicant confessed to the murder. 8.  At 8.20 p.m. on the same day the arrest record was read out to him. 9.  On 3 May 1997 the applicant was brought to the scene of the crime where he repeated his confession and gave details of the murder. He was not assisted by a lawyer. 10.  On 8 May 1997 the applicant was provided with a lawyer. 11.  At the trial the applicant retracted his confession. He admitted that he had been at the victim’s house on the evening of the murder. However, he denied killing her. 12.  On 15 January 2001 the Kondinskiy District Court of the Khanty-Mansiyskiy Region convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. It relied on the applicant’s confession statement of 2 May 1997, testimony by several police officers that the confession had been made by the applicant without any pressure and statements by witness Kh. that he had seen the applicant in the victim’s house several hours before the murder. The court also relied on the autopsy of the victim describing the injuries and establishing the cause of death. 13.  On 18 October 2006 the Khanty-Mansiskiy Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal. It found, in particular, that the District Court’s reliance on the applicant’s confession statement had been lawful. The applicant had been questioned and had confessed before the arrest record had been read out to him. He had not therefore been entitled to legal assistance during that questioning.