4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Vladimir. 5.  On 28 September 1998 he was convicted of theft by a competent court and given a suspended sentence of two years' imprisonment with a three-year delay in the execution of the sentence. 6.  On an unspecified date the authorities brought a different set of criminal charges against the applicant. The Court is in possession of a letter written by the prosecutor's office of the Vladimir Region and dated by 30 April 1999 which contains the following statement: “...your son A.A. Isayev was arrested on 15 January 1999 in accordance with Section 122 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure of the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic, after which, taking into account the circumstances of the case including his engagement in criminal activities during the service of a previous sentence, he was placed in detention and charged”. According to the Government, the authorities did not arrest the applicant on 15 January 1999 as at the material time he was already in detention on account of a different criminal investigation against him, which ended in his conviction by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Vladimir on 12 April 2000. 7.  Between 7 and 9 June 2000 the applicant and his legal counsel studied the case file. 8.  On 7 June 2000 and on 1 August 2001 the applicant requested that his case be examined by a jury. 9.  On 2 July 2001 the criminal case against the applicant and his two co‑defendants was forwarded to the Vladimir Regional Court (“the trial court”) for trial. 10.  On 16 July 2001 the trial court set the examination of the case for 30 July 2001. 11.  On 30 July 2001 the trial court, composed of judge Sh. and two lay judges (народные заседатели) K. and S. started the examination of the case. The applicant was represented by legal counsel. However, at the hearing he sought leave to be represented also by his mother and by Mr Kuvshinov. The trial court dismissed his request. 12.  The applicant and his legal counsel appealed against the above decision to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (“the appeal court”). On 15 October 2001 the appeal court held that it was not possible to examine the applicant's appeal against an interlocutory decision. 13.  On 15 November 2001 the trial court, which was now composed of judge Sh. and lay judges G. and Ka., allowed Mr Kuvshinov to defend the applicant along with his legal counsel. 14.  On the same date the trial court rejected the applicant's request to have his case heard by a jury on the ground that the jury trial had not been set up in the Vladimir Region. 15.  On 4 December 2001 the trial court dismissed the applicant's objection to the composition of the trial court. Regarding the lay judges, the trial court held that they had been elected by the Vladimir Regional Council of People's Deputies (Владимирский областной совет народных депутатов) during its session of 4‑11 April 1990 in accordance with law. According to the presidential decree of 25 January 2000 their terms of office had been extended until the court received a new list of lay judges confirmed by the regional legislature. 16.  On 24 December 2001 the applicant received a similar answer from the President of the Vladimir Regional Court. 17.  On 29 April 2002 the trial court found the applicant guilty of two premeditated murders, damage to private property and several other crimes and sentenced him to twenty years' imprisonment with confiscation of his possessions. The sentence started to run from 15 January 1999. 18.  The applicant appealed against the conviction. In the additional grounds of appeal he complained, among other things, that the judgment had been adopted by a court which had not been established in accordance with law. 19.  On 19 December 2002 the appeal court upheld the applicant's conviction for murders, modified the judgment in respect of the other charges and reduced his sentence to nineteen years' imprisonment with confiscation of the possessions. In particular, it found that the trial court had been established in accordance with law. 20.  On 12 February 2002 the local newspaper Molva published an article in which it allegedly accused the applicant's representative, Mr Kuvshinov, of causing delays in the examination of the applicant's case. Defamation proceedings brought by Mr Kuvshinov against the newspaper ended in a friendly settlement on 16 April 2003. The parties did not appeal against the settlement, and it entered into force on 28 April 2003.