6.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in the Stavropol Region. 7.  By a judgment of 5 December 2000 following a guilty verdict delivered by a jury, the Stavropol Regional Court convicted the applicant and his co‑defendant of murder, robbery and the illegal acquisition, storage and carrying of arms. The applicant was sentenced to sixteen years' imprisonment and confiscation of property and ordered to pay pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the victim. 8.  The applicant, who was being held in custody, appealed against the judgment to the Supreme Court of Russia. He submitted, inter alia, that the judgment had been based on evidence which had not been thoroughly examined, that the investigating authority had failed to verify his co‑defendant's statements by way of a scene-of-crime reconstruction, that the court had dismissed his request for examination of additional witnesses, that no psychiatric and psychological examination had been conducted and that he had had no motive to commit the murder and robbery. He requested the appeal court to quash the judgment and order a fresh examination of the case. 9.  On 21 February 2001 the Supreme Court examined the applicant's appeal. It heard a public prosecutor who requested that the judgment should be upheld. The applicant, who had not been apprised of the hearing, was not present. He was not represented by counsel at the hearing. 10.  By a decision of 21 February 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the judgment. It found that the trial court's presiding judge had conducted the trial impartially and ensured that the case had been thoroughly examined. There had been no need for a scene-of-crime reconstruction by the investigating authority, as the evidence collected in the case had been sufficient. The applicant's unsuccessful request for examination of evidence had not concerned evidence which could have had a significant impact on the outcome of the case. The applicant's submission that he had had no motive to commit the murder and robbery could not serve as a ground for quashing a jury-based judgment, and the applicant had been informed of this by the trial court. The applicant's complaint about the authorities' failure to order a psychiatric and psychological examination had not been based on law, as neither the investigating authority nor the trial court had had doubts about the applicant's mental health and no request for such an examination had been made before or during the trial.