5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and is currently serving a life sentence in prison. 6.  On 26 August 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. 7.  On 28 August 2004 the Prymorskyy District Court of Odessa (“the District Court”) ordered the applicant to be placed in pre-trial detention for two months. The applicant was placed in the Odessa no. 21 Pre-Trial Detention Centre (“the Odessa SIZO”). 8.  On 20 October and 17 November 2004 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to three and four months respectively. 9.  On 24 December 2004 and 26 January 2005 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to five and six months respectively. 10.  The applicant was not present at those hearings and he was allegedly not given the investigator’s submissions so that he could prepare his objections. 11.  According to the applicant, in the course of investigation he was ill‑treated, with the purpose of making him confess to the murder. 12.  On 24 February 2005 the case was referred to the Court of Appeal for trial. 13.  On 29 April 2005 the Court of Appeal, acting as a court of first instance, found, inter alia, that the applicant and two co-defendants had committed murder with particular cruelty and for financial gain. The court sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment. The judgment was based on various pieces of evidence including an acknowledgment of guilt by the applicant and other defendants during the trial. 14.  After the hearing the applicant was handcuffed and escorted to the high security wing of the Odessa SIZO. 15.  On 4 October 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 29 April 2005, following which it was made final. For the period of consideration of the case by the Supreme Court the applicant was detained in Kyiv no. 13 Pre-Trial Detention Centre, where he was allegedly not provided with sufficient facilities, such as a table and chair, to prepare his defence. 16.  Following the Supreme Court’s decision of 4 October 2005 the applicant repeatedly submitted applications to have his case reviewed on grounds of exceptional circumstances. He also asked the authorities to provide him with a lawyer to assist him with the preparation of these applications. All his applications were rejected as unsubstantiated; a lawyer was not provided because the criminal proceedings were already finished. 17.  On several occasions the applicant requested copies of certain material from his criminal case file. The requests were granted, but with delays. 18.  In 2008 the applicant instituted three separate sets of court proceedings against, respectively, the judge who had presided over his criminal case before the first-instance court, the Supreme Court chamber on criminal cases, and the General Prosecutor, claiming that he had been unfairly convicted and that his applications for review of his case on grounds of exceptional circumstances had been arbitrarily rejected. All these proceedings are pending. 19.  According to the applicant, he was not allowed family visits during his pre-trial detention. 20.  During his post-conviction detention until 16 February 2010 the applicant was allowed to see his relatives no more than once every six months. Subsequently, he was granted family visits once every three months. 21.  The visits lasted no longer than four hours. No more than three adult visitors could be present at once. The applicant maintains relations with his wife, mother, adult brother, and his son born in 1992. 22.  In February 2010, upon arrival for the visit, one of his four relatives was not admitted to see the applicant because of the limitation on the maximum number of adults per visit. Since then, one person out of the four has had to be excluded when planning a visit to the applicant. 23.  During the meetings the applicant communicated with the visitors via glass partition. The applicant’s conversations with the visitors were listened to by a prison officer. 24.  On 1 February 2006 the applicant sent a letter to the Court, the first page of which had been stamped by the detention facility. 25.  Up to October 2006 the applicant’s letters to the Court were accompanied by covering letters from the detention facility briefly stating the nature of the applicant’s submissions.