5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and is currently held in a detention facility in the Ivanovo region. 6.  On 6 January 2002 he was arrested on charges of several counts of aggravated murder, robbery, theft, use of forged documents and failure to report a crime. Another individual, Mr I., was also charged with the same offences. 7.  On 5 September 2002 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the applicant began to study the case file with his counsel, Ms K. The case file comprised four volumes of material totalling 1,214 pages. It follows from the schedule submitted to the Court that the applicant studied the case file as follows:
(a)  from 11.30 a.m. to 2 p.m. on 10, 11, 12 and 24 September 2002;
(b)  from 11.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. on 25 and 27 September;
(c)  from 11.30 a.m. to 2 p.m. on 2 October;
(d)  from 11.30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on 3 October; and
(e)  from 11.30 a.m. to 2 p.m. on 8 October. 8.  According to the applicant, the investigator had pressured him into studying the case file more quickly, promising him additional visits from his mother as a reward. He had also promised to give him copies of the case materials but never fulfilled his promise. 9.  On 8 October 2002 the applicant and Ms K. signed a statement declaring that they had studied the entire case file and had no particular requests to make. 10.  The trial started on 15 November 2002 in the Ivanovo Regional Court. The court ordered that the applicant and his co-defendant Mr I. be tried by jury. 11.  During the trial the applicant was represented by counsel Mr S., who had been retained by his mother. According to the applicant, Mr S. never asked for permission to study the case file. 12.  On 25 December 2002 the jury pronounced the applicant and his co-defendant guilty of aggravated murder, robbery, theft and failure to report a crime. 13.  On 9 January 2003 the Ivanovo Regional Court sentenced the applicant to twenty-three years’ imprisonment. 14.  On 14 January 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal (“кассационная жалоба”). On 20 January 2003 counsel Mr S. filed appeal submissions on his behalf. On 7 April 2003 the applicant lodged additional appeal submissions together with a request to attend the hearing. 15.  On 18 February 2003 a local newspaper published an article describing the offences committed by the applicant. 16.  The appeal hearing was scheduled for 25 June 2003. On 17 June 2003 Mr S. was informed of the hearing date by telegram. In anticipation of the hearing, the applicant was transported to Moscow and placed in remand centre IZ-77/3. 17.  On 25 June 2003 the appeal hearing took place in the Supreme Court of Russia. The applicant participated in the hearing by video link. Mr S. did not attend. 18.  According to the applicant, he had asked the court to adjourn the appeal hearing and to appoint counsel on his behalf. The judges had allegedly replied that there had been no legal basis for his request. Furthermore, he had filed additional appeal submissions which, according to him, had been faxed to the Supreme Court by a warder of the remand centre. In those appeal submissions he had complained, in particular, that he had not been afforded sufficient time to study the case file. He read the submissions out to the court. The quality of the video link was poor and the connection was interrupted several times. 19.  The Government disputed the applicant’s account of the appeal hearing. They stated that there was no evidence in the case file of a request to appoint counsel or of the additional submissions allegedly faxed to the Supreme Court on the day of the appeal hearing. 20.  On the same day the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 9 January 2003 on appeal. It held, in particular, that, by virtue of Article 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 24 below), it had no competence to examine the factual circumstances of the offences, which had been established by the jury. It then examined the legal issues raised by the applicant and found that the investigation and trial had been carried out in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.