5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and is serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Ivanovo Region. 6.  On 28 October 2000 victims B. and M. were killed in the latter's house. On 31 October 2000 the applicant was questioned in the Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor's office of Ivanovo in relation to the murders. Having been apprised of the privilege against self-incrimination, the applicant stated that he had spent most of the relevant day with his girlfriend Y. and his friend Ov., as well as several other persons (I., K. and V.), except for some time in the afternoon when Ov. and the applicant went to M.'s place but the latter was absent. The applicant added a note to the interview record alleging that he had been threatened with death or violence if he refused to make certain admissions. The record was also signed by a lawyer, Mr O. Immediately thereafter, the applicant signed a suspect arrest record, in which he indicated that he would like to be represented by O. 7.  On the same evening, the investigator twice heard Y., who stated at the second interview around midnight that the applicant had told her that he had killed victim M. The investigator also interviewed Ov., who confirmed in substance the applicant's account of the events but added that the applicant had told him that he had killed victims M. and B. with an axe; Ov. had also heard the applicant discuss an alibi with Y. 8.  On 1 November 2000 the applicant was brought for further interrogation. He was assisted by counsel and refused to testify. According to the applicant, a police officer or several officers exerted pressure on him and hit him on the head with a folder in order to force him to make self-incriminating statements. On the same day Y. gave a more detailed statement in addition to her second statement made on 31 October 2000. 9.  On 2 November 2000 the applicant refused the services of O., allegedly under pressure from unnamed officers. As follows from his written statement, he declined the services of counsel O. due to “contradicting positions on the case” and sought the appointment of a Ms Z. instead. The investigator appointed Z. as counsel and she assisted the applicant during the interview on the same day. The Government referred to the interview record from which it would follow that the applicant had made admissions on that date; that he had felt well and had been willing to give an oral testimony in the presence of counsel Z.; that he had been provided with an opportunity to have a consultation with counsel before the interview; and that he had had no complaints against any police officers. Ov. was also interviewed and provided a more detailed account of the events. 10.  On 3 November 2000 the applicant was examined by a medical expert. The applicant had scratches on his left elbow, bruises and scratches on his right arm and legs, several cuts and scratches on his hands, scratches below the ribs, and a scratch on his head. According to the expert, the above injuries had been sustained four to nine days before the date of the examination. 11.  On 10 November 2000 the applicant expressed a wish to be represented by O. again. However, on 7 December 2000 the applicant retained the services of another counsel, Mr S., who assisted him in the subsequent pre-trial and trial proceedings. 12.  On 20 December 2000 O. (instead of counsel S.) requested the investigator to order an expert report to verify if the applicant had been emotionally disturbed when, according to his version, he had seen victim B. kill victim M. in the latter's house. However, the investigator rephrased the question to the expert as whether the applicant had been emotionally disturbed when the victims had been murdered. 13.  Ov. and Y. were interviewed again in 2001. The investigator also interviewed K., who stated that on 28 October 2000 he had been together with the applicant until his departure in the evening; that Ov. told him that the applicant had killed M. and B. 14.  On an unspecified date, the applicant was charged with murder, robbery and destruction of property.  The case was referred to the Ivanovo Regional Court for trial by a jury. 15.  The trial judge considered that it was appropriate to accept in evidence the applicant's interview record of 2 November 2000 since the applicant's allegation of duress was unfounded. The applicant argued that he had seen victim B. kill victim M.; he admitted the arson of the house but pleaded legitimate self-defence in respect of causing injuries to victim B. during a violent fight. 16.  It also appears that a number of expert reports were presented to the jury. It transpires from the available material that one of the reports concluded that certain traces of blood at the crime scene and on the clothes of the applicant “could belong” to the applicant and victim B. who had the same blood group. 17.  The jury heard a number of witnesses, including witnesses K., V., I., who had seen the applicant in Ov.'s flat on the day of the murders or on the next day. The trial judge allowed the reading out of their pre-trial depositions. 18.  The jury also heard Ov. and the applicant was given an opportunity to put questions to him. At the court hearing Ov. alleged that he had previously made statements against the applicant under pressure from the police. The judge examined the allegation of ill-treatment and rejected it as unfounded. The judge thus allowed the reading out of his pre-trial depositions to the jury (see also paragraph 20 below). 19.  The trial judge twice summoned Y. However, the subpoenas could not be served on her and were returned to the court because she did not live at the address which she had provided to the domestic authorities during the investigation. There was no information about her whereabouts; her next of kin were not aware of her new place of residence. Having excluded Y.'s statement made on 31 October 2000, the trial judge, however, allowed the reading out of her subsequent statements (see also paragraph 21 below). 20.  In her summing-up to the jury on 16 October 2001, the trial judge reiterated the charges against the applicant and the evidence referred to by the parties and declared admissible. The judge explained to the jury that she had not been presented with any evidence indicating that Ov.'s testimony had been obtained under duress or otherwise in breach of law. Considering that the defence counsel had presented a distorted summary of the victims' injuries in his final speech, the judge reiterated the conclusions of the admissible expert reports. She also indicated to the jury that it was not their remit to decide on the putative self-defence issue. 21.  After several hours of deliberations, the jury returned a guilty verdict on the charges of murder, robbery and destruction of property. On 17 October 2001 the trial judge held the final hearing concerning civil claims, the sentence and other matters to be determined by the trial judge. Y. appeared before the trial judge on that day and explained that she had not received any court summons, which had been sent to her mother's home address. Her mother was unaware of her new place of residence. Having learnt about the trial the day before, she decided to come to the courthouse (see also paragraph 19 above). The trial judge allowed Y. to give her opinion concerning the applicant's personality in so far as this matter could be relevant to the sentence. On the same day, the applicant was sentenced to eighteen years' imprisonment and the confiscation of his property was ordered. 22.  The applicant submitted objections to the trial verbatim record, considering inter alia that Y. had in fact explained to the trial judge that the investigator had wrongly noted her new home address as her work address. The trial judge, however, rejected those objections as untrue. 23.  The applicant and his counsel submitted appeals to the Supreme Court of Russia. They argued that there had been various defects in the pre-trial investigation, in particular as regards the right to legal assistance; they contested the quality of the evidence, including the expert opinions, and the trial judge's summing-up to the jury. The applicant's counsel S. asked to be notified of the date for the appeal hearing and the applicant asked to be brought to that hearing. 24.  On 8 January 2002 the applicant requested the Regional Court to give him access to the case file in order to prepare his defence on appeal. On 1 February 2002 the Regional Court dismissed his request because Russian law did not vest in the accused a right to have access to the file in appeal proceedings. The applicant unsuccessfully renewed his request in February 2002. 25.  On 22 February 2002 the judge rejected a request by the applicant to have the trial verbatim record amended. Having examined the trial transcript, on 18 March 2002 the applicant's counsel submitted a statement of appeal. A handwritten inscription by the trial judge contained the instruction that “all participants in the proceedings be made aware of that document”. 26.  On 19 April 2002 the Supreme Court granted leave to the applicant to participate in the appeal hearing and ordered that he be brought to Moscow from the Ivanovo Region. As can be seen from a telegram dated 28 May 2002, the applicant's counsel had been informed that the appeal hearing was listed for 4 June 2002 at 10 am. According to the Government, the applicant was also informed accordingly on the same date. 27.  The applicant asserted that in April 2002 he had requested the Supreme Court to grant him access to the documents relating to the appeal proceedings, including the statement of appeal lodged by his lawyer and the written observations prepared by the prosecutor. He received no reply to this request. 28.  On an unspecified date, the prosecutor lodged his observations in reply to the applicant's appeal. A copy of those observations was not made available to the applicant or his counsel. 29.  On 31 May 2002 Moscow remand centre received a letter from the Supreme Court requiring them to make arrangements for the applicant's participation in the appeal hearing on 4 June 2002 at 10 am and for the applicant to be notified of the date of the hearing. 30.  On 4 June 2002 the Supreme Court heard the applicant by way of a video link and upheld the trial judgment. During the appeal hearing the applicant was not represented by a lawyer. The prosecutor was present at the hearing. 31.  The court refused to examine the applicant's arguments directed against the findings of fact made at first instance by the jury since this aspect of the case could not be challenged on appeal. It noted that the applicant had been informed of the special procedure for appeal against the verdict of a jury (see also paragraph 48 below). The appeal court examined the remaining arguments and dismissed them. Lastly, the court noted that the applicant had been given access to the case file before the trial in July-August 2001 and after the trial in December 2001-February 2002. The applicable legislation did not require photocopying of the file. 32.  In 2005 the Regional Court reconsidered the trial and appeal judgments in the light of the amended (more favourable) legislation and lifted the order for the confiscation of the applicant's property. 33.  The applicant complained to the district prosecutor that on 1 November 2000 an officer had hit him on the head with a folder; that he had been subjected to threats on 2 November 2000 and that he had been compelled to decline O.'s services. The prosecutor heard the investigator in charge of the case against the applicant and the officer who had allegedly beat him. On 6 December 2000 the district prosecutor refused to initiate criminal proceedings, noting the applicant's contradictory statements concerning the alleged threats or beating. The inquiry file was then lost. In the resumed proceedings, the district investigator heard the applicant and the investigator in charge of the case against the applicant. On 27 August 2001 the district investigator issued a new decision not to institute criminal proceedings. He referred to the medical report of 3 November 2000, which had revealed injuries sustained, according to the expert, four to nine days before the date of the examination (see paragraph 10 above). The investigator concluded that those injuries had been sustained before the applicant's arrest. He also noted that the applicant had made no health complaints during his detention in the temporary detention centre from 31 October to 3 November 2000. 34.  The applicant was informed of his right to appeal against the above refusals to a prosecutor or to seek judicial review. Instead, the applicant brought court proceedings accusing the town prosecutor of inaction in relation to the alleged threats on 31 October 2000. On 29 March 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Ivanovo discontinued the proceedings because the town prosecutor had never been asked to deal with the applicant's complaint. The court also held that the prosecutor's office had carried out inquiries but found no evidence of the alleged ill-treatment. Moreover, the District Court referred to the fact that the Regional Court had dealt with this issue at the applicant's trial and also found no evidence of the alleged ill-treatment. On 30 April 2002 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 29 March 2002, considering that only formal decisions were amenable to judicial review. In separate proceedings, the applicant complained about unlawful actions against him on 31 October 2000. On 15 May 2002 the Regional Court took the final decision to discontinue the case because there was no formal decision amenable to review. On 18 April 2003 the applicant again complained to a court about the alleged ill-treatment by the police and the inaction of the regional prosecutor's office. On 19 June 2003 the Regional Court took the final decision to discontinue the case. 35.  From 31 October to 3 November 2000 the applicant was kept in a temporary detention centre in Ivanovo. It appears that from 3 November 2000 to 14 May 2002 he was detained in Ivanovo remand centre no. 1. The applicant was kept in Moscow remand centre no. 77/3 from 14 May to 2 August 2002 in relation to the appeal proceedings in his criminal case. 36.  The applicant submitted that on 4 June 2002 he had spent six hours in a small cell in the remand centre with fifteen other persons. The cell had been overheated and had no ventilation. While the temperature outside on 4 June 2002 had exceeded 30ºC, the temperature in the cell had reached over 50ºC. He had not been given water for six hours and had not been allowed to use the toilet. 37.  The applicant subsequently submitted that the cell measured 18.6 square metres and that he had been detained with up to twenty other persons. 38.  According to the Government, on 4 June 2002 the applicant had been placed in an “assembly cell” measuring 18.6 square metres. This cell had no windows, ventilation, sanitary installations or water supply. However, the prison staff allowed the detainees to go to the toilet outside the cell and provided them with drinking water. Air access was ensured by an opening in the cell door. 39.  Later on the same day, the applicant had been transferred to cell no. 521 measuring 32.7 square metres for the purpose of participating in the appeal hearing before the Supreme Court by way of a video link. The cell was equipped with a ventilation system, water supply and a sink. Toilet facilities were separated from the main area. Drinking water had been made available to the applicant and the lights had been left on. During the summer period the window panes were removed and detainees were provided with fans. The outside temperature had not exceeded 21.4ºC on that day. The applicant had been provided with bedding and tableware in the remand centre. Detainees were provided with three hot meals a day. 40.  The applicant and certain other detainees complained about the conditions of detention in the Moscow remand centre. 41.  According to a letter from the Moscow Prosecutor's Office of 9 March 2004, the conditions of detention in cell no. 521 were acceptable; the outside temperature in Moscow on 4 June 2002 did not exceed +18º C, as indicated by the Moscow Weather Centre. 42.  According to letters from the Moscow Prosecutor's Office of 5 and 7 July 2004, the conditions in a cell measuring 18.6 square metres “did not meet the sanitary requirements” at the material time. After an inquiry the supervising prosecutor concluded on 5 July 2004 that up to late 2002 detainees awaiting an appeal hearing had been placed in the above cell with no window, ventilation, sanitary installations or water supply. Since late 2002 detainees awaiting appeal hearings had been placed in “assembly cell” no. 521. Although the applicant had not provided sufficient details, on the basis of information from the prison staff the prosecutor determined that the applicant had also been kept in cell no. 521 on 4 June 2002. The prosecutor also indicated that the document confirming that the applicant had received the letter from the Supreme Court concerning the appeal hearing did not bear his signature. He concluded that the remand centre staff had nonetheless ensured the applicant's right to participate in the appeal hearing. 43.  According to the applicant, on 23 January 2003 he handed over a letter to be dispatched by the prison administration to the Registry of the Court. In November 2003 the latter acknowledged receipt of his letter dated 14 September 2003 and informed him that no letter dated 23 January 2003 had been received. 44.  On 13 July 2004 the Registry of the Court, by registered mail, requested the applicant to provide by 24 August 2004 certain documents and information concerning his application pending before the Court. According to the acknowledgement-of-receipt card, on 5 August 2004 the letter was received by an unspecified person in the detention facility. According to the Government, on 5 and 15 August 2004 the applicant was called to the office in charge of correspondence in the facility in order to receive the letter, but refused to accept it. 45.  On 22 September 2004 the applicant's sister informed the Court by fax that the applicant had only received the letter on 21 September 2004 in an unsealed envelope. 46.  Following the applicant's complaint about the issue, on 3 November 2004 the Penitentiary Department of the Ivanovo Region replied that the delay in the delivery of the letter did not constitute a hindrance of the applicant's correspondence with the European Court; although the prison officer had been negligent, there had been no intention to delay the letter.