5.  The applicant was born in 1962. He is serving a prison sentence in the Orenburg region. 6.  The applicant was head of the security service of the Yukos oil company. 7.  On 19 June 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of four counts of murder and attempted murder. The report on the arrest indicated that the suspicion was based on “witness testimony and other materials”. 8.  On 21 June 2003 the prosecutor asked the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow to remand the applicant in custody. 9.  The hearing was held on the same day. Counsel for the applicant asked the prosecutor to submit to the court the materials showing the existence of a reasonable suspicion against the applicant. The prosecutor refused, referring to the confidentiality of the investigation. It appears from the hearing record that the following documents were examined at the hearing: the decisions to open criminal proceedings into the murders and concomitant procedural documents, the report on the applicant’s arrest, the record of his questioning and copies of his birth and marriage certificates and medical documents. 10.  On 21 June 2003 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow remanded the applicant in custody. The court found that the applicant was suspected of particularly serious offences, and that he might abscond, interfere with the investigation or re-offend. 11.  In his grounds of appeal of 23 June 2003 counsel for the applicant submitted that there was no reasonable suspicion of the applicant’s involvement in the commission of the murders. The prosecution had not submitted any materials justifying a reasonable suspicion against the applicant and the court had not taken into account the applicant’s character, state of health or family situation. 12.  On 15 July 2003 the Moscow City Court held an appeal hearing in camera. Three lawyers for the applicant and a prosecutor attended the hearing and made submissions. On the same day the City Court confirmed the remand order of 21 June 2003 on appeal. It found that the remand order had been lawful and the District Court had taken into account the applicant’s character, state of health and family situation. It further held as follows:
“At this stage the court has no doubt that there are sufficient grounds to suspect Mr Pichugin of the offence under Articles 33 and 105 § 2 (a) of the Russian Criminal Code. The Prosecutor General’s office submitted to the Moscow City Court materials confirming that there are sufficient grounds to suspect Mr Pichugin of the above‑mentioned offence.” 13.  On 13 August 2003 the Basmanniy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 19 November 2003. It accepted the prosecutor’s arguments that the applicant was charged with particularly serious offences and that he might abscond, destroy evidence or put pressure on witnesses. It also referred to the need for further investigation. 14.  On 15 August 2003 the applicant appealed. He complained that the prosecution had not demonstrated the existence of concrete facts in support of their argument that the applicant might destroy evidence or put pressure on witnesses. Nor had they justified the need for further investigation. The applicant asked the appeal court to take his frail health into account and to release him on bail or under the personal guarantee of a member of Parliament. 15.  On 27 August 2003 the Moscow City Court adjourned the appeal hearing at counsel’s request and allowed counsel to study the prosecutor’s request for an extension and supporting materials. On the next day one lawyer was given access to the materials. 16.  On 1 September 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 13 August 2003, finding that it had been lawful, sufficiently reasoned and justified. 17.  On 12 November 2003 the Basmanniy District Court ordered an extension of the applicant’s detention until 19 February 2004. It appears that the applicant did not appeal. 18.  On 12 February 2004 the Basmanniy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 19 April 2004. It noted that the applicant, the co‑defendant Mr P. and their counsel had started to study the case file and that they needed at least two months to go through all the materials. The court found no reason to vary the preventive measure. The applicant was charged with serious criminal offences perpetrated successively and in conspiracy with others. The court inferred from that that the applicant might abscond, re-offend, influence witnesses or destroy evidence, because he had worked in the security services and therefore possessed the technical skills to interfere with the investigation. 19.  In their grounds of appeal of 20 February 2004 counsel applied for the applicant’s release on bail or under the personal guarantee of a member of Parliament. The finding that the applicant might abscond, re-offend or interfere with the investigation was not supported by facts. 20.  On 20 April 2004 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 12 February 2003 on appeal. 21.  On 8 April 2004 the prosecution petitioned the Basmanniy District Court for an extension of the applicant’s detention until 19 June 2004. They submitted that the applicant and his counsel had not finished studying the case file and referred to the gravity of the charges and the possibility of his absconding, intimidating witnesses or destroying evidence. 22.  The applicant’s counsel argued in reply that the prosecution had used a stereotyped formula in all their requests for extension without submitting any evidence in support of their argument that the applicant might abscond or interfere with the investigation. The applicant had no intention of destroying evidence. Nor could he threaten witnesses, all of whom were in custody. They also requested that the applicant’s poor health be taken into account. 23.  On 13 April 2004 the Basmanniy District Court endorsed the prosecutor’s arguments and extended the applicant’s detention until 19 June 2004. 24.  On 23 April 2004 counsel lodged an appeal. They submitted that the detention order had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. The court’s conclusions had been hypothetical, it had not taken into account the applicant’s situation and had not considered the possibility of applying a more lenient preventive measure. 25.  On 20 May 2004 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 13 April 2004 on appeal. 26.  On 17 June 2004 the Moscow City Court ordered that the applicant and the co-defendant should remain in custody pending trial. 27.  In their grounds of appeal of 22 June 2004 counsel complained that the court had unlawfully extended the applicant’s detention of its own motion and in the absence of the applicant and his counsel. The court had given no grounds for the applicant’s continued detention, had not set a time-limit for the detention and had not taken into account that the applicant was seriously ill. 28.  On 11 August 2004 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the decision of 17 June 2004 on appeal. 29.  On 29 July 2004 the applicant asked to be released on bail or under an undertaking not to leave his place of residence. He alleged that his detention was unlawful and complained of frail health and a lack of adequate medical care in the detention facility. On the same day the Moscow City Court rejected his petition. 30.  On 30 July 2004 the Moscow City Court ordered that the defendants should remain in custody pending trial. It referred to the gravity of the charges. It also found that there was no evidence that their state of health prevented them from being held in custody or that they required urgent treatment. 31.  On 9 December 2004 the Moscow City Court extended the applicant’s and the co-defendant’s detention until 11 March 2005 with reference to the gravity of the charges. On 17 December 2004 the applicant appealed. On 31 January 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the detention order. 32.  On 10 March 2005 the Moscow City Court ordered a new extension of the defendants’ detention, referring to the gravity of the charges. The applicant appealed on 22 March 2005. 33.  On 13 May 2005 the Supreme Court discontinued the appeal proceedings against the detention order of 10 March 2005 on the ground that the applicant had already been convicted and sentenced. 34.  On 26 June 2003 the applicant and another person, Mr P., were formally charged with the attempted murder of Mr Kl. and Ms Ks. and the murder of Mr and Mrs G. 35.  The applicant denied his involvement in the murders and refused to testify. 36.  His co-accused Mr P. stated to the investigator that he had worked as a driver for Mr G. In August 1998 Mr G. had told him that the applicant had hired him to intimidate Mr Kl. and Ms Ks. He put Mr G. in contact with his acquaintances Mr K., Mr Pp., Mr Kb. and Mr E., who agreed to do the job. They were then asked to kill Mr Kl. and Ms Ks. They refused to take charge of Mr Kl., who had a personal guard. Later Mr G. told them that other persons had severely beaten Mr Kl. and had received a considerable reward for that. Mr K., Mr Pp., Mr Kb. and Mr E. then exploded a device in front of Ms Ks.’ flat. No one was injured. In 1999 the relationship between Mr G. and the applicant deteriorated. In 2000 Mr G. started blackmailing the applicant, threatening to disclose his involvement in the attempted murder of Mr Kl. and Ms Ks. and other criminal offences. Mr G. was afraid of the applicant and stated on several occasions that he was in danger of being murdered by him. He and his wife disappeared in November 2002. 37.  Mr K. stated that Mr P. had put him in contact with Mr G., who had asked him at first to intimidate Mr Kl. and Ms Ks. and then to murder them. He had refused to take charge of Mr Kl. but had agreed to intimidate Ms Ks. He later learnt from Mr G. that Mr Kl. had been assaulted by some other persons. On the eve of the planned attack on Ms Ks. he had a talk with Mr G. in his car. During the talk Mr G. went several times to ask for instructions from the applicant, who was waiting in a car parked nearby. He and his friends then exploded a hand-made device in front of Ms Ks.’ flat. As they did not receive the promised monetary consideration Mr K. phoned the applicant in January 1999 and asked for a meeting. During the meeting the applicant praised him for the explosion but insisted that Ms Ks.’ murder should be brought to completion. The applicant then cursed Mr G., who had received considerable sums of money to organise the murders of Mr Kl. and Ms Ks. but had not done the job properly. The applicant asked him to kill Mr G. and his wife and promised a reward of 50,000 dollars. Several days later Mr G. gave Mr K. a folder containing some documents and photographs. Mr G. said that he was afraid of being murdered by the applicant and asked Mr K. to give the folder to the police in the event of his murder or disappearance. 38.  Mr Pp., Mr Kb. and Mr E. confirmed Mr K.’s statements about the circumstances in which the explosion had occurred. However, they stated that they did not know the person who had hired them to kill Mr Kl. and Ms Ks. They did not give any testimony about the applicant’s involvement in the imputed offences. 39.  Mr S. stated that he had been Mr G.’s driver. Mr G. had told him that he was in conflict with the applicant, who had hired him to kill Mr Kl., Ms Ks. and others. Mr G. wanted payment for the job he had done but the applicant refused to pay. On 21 November 2002 he was supposed to drive Mr G. to Moscow for a meeting with the applicant. When he arrived at his house at the appointed time, he had learnt that Mr G. and his wife had been kidnapped by unknown persons the previous evening. He had seen blood in the yard. Mr and Mrs G. had not been seen since. 40.  The investigator questioned other witnesses who described the circumstances in which Mr Kl. and Ms Ks. had been attacked or Mr and Mrs G. had disappeared. None of them knew who had hired the killers, however, or gave any testimony implicating the applicant. 41.  The investigator also obtained a number of expert reports and collected material evidence that helped to establish the circumstances in which the imputed murders and the attempted murders had taken place. 42.  On 30 January 2004 the investigation was completed and the applicant and his counsel started to study the case file. 43.  On 17 May 2004 the investigator asked the court to set a time-limit for the applicant’s examination of the case file. On 21 May 2004 the Basmanniy District Court allowed the prosecutor’s request. It found that the applicant and his counsel had intentionally procrastinated in studying the materials and ordered that the applicant finish studying the case file by 4 June 2004. On 21 June 2004 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision on appeal. 44.  On 11 June 2004 the applicant and Mr P. were committed for trial. 45.  The applicant asked for a trial by jury. On 17 June 2004 the Moscow City Court fixed a preliminary hearing to examine the request. 46.  The preliminary hearing started on 28 July 2004. During the preliminary hearing the applicant’s counsel complained that they had been denied access to certain documents from the case file which allegedly contained state secrets. They asked to be given a reasoned decision by which the documents had been classified as secret and argued that those documents should not be admitted in evidence. They also reiterated their request that the applicant be tried by jury and asked that the trial be public. 47.  The judge asked the counsel to give an undertaking not to disclose the secret documents. The counsel refused to give such an undertaking because they had never been informed exactly which documents were secret and why they had been classified as secret. 48.  On 30 July 2004 the Moscow City Court ordered that the applicant be tried by jury, that the trial be held in camera because materials containing state secrets would be discussed during the trial, and that the applicant and his counsel be allowed access to those materials. It rejected the counsel’s request for a copy of the decision by which the materials had been classified as secret as having no basis in domestic law. 49.  On 22 September 2004 counsel for the applicant asked the presiding judge for a copy of the list of jurors of the Moscow City Court, arguing that the list had been published only in part. The prosecutor objected, stating that the defence could have obtained a copy of the list from the Moscow Government. The presiding judge rejected the defence’s request. Counsel then asked for the trial to be adjourned until the entire list of jurors had been published. That request was also rejected as having no basis in domestic law. 50.  On the same day the applicant was informed of the defendant’s rights, including the right to participate in the oral pleadings. 51.  The defence also asked that the trial be public. They submitted that only 60 documents out of more than 7,000 had been classified secret. They asked the court to ensure that only hearings in which the secret documents were examined remained closed to the public. The court dismissed the request, finding that it had already decided to hold the trial in camera and there were no reasons to reconsider that decision. 52.  On 1 October 2004 the jury was selected. The applicant filed several reasoned and unreasoned objections to the candidates, all of which were allowed by the presiding judge. After the jury was composed, the applicant was given an opportunity to file an objection to the entire jury, but he did not avail himself of that opportunity. 53.  On 4 October 2004 the court started the examination of witnesses. Before going to the witness stand each witness was informed of his rights and obligations under Article 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter “the CCrP”, see paragraph 103 below). All of them, except Mr K., Mr Pp., Mr Kb. and Mr E., signed declarations that they had been warned about criminal liability under Articles 307 and 308 of the Criminal Code for giving false testimony or refusing to testify. Mr K., Mr Pp., Mr Kb. and Mr E. signed declarations that they had been warned about criminal liability under Article 307 of the Criminal Code for giving false testimony. 54.  Mr K. confirmed his testimony given to the investigator at the pre-trial stage. Counsel for the applicant put many questions to him. Mr K. refused to answer one of the questions concerning Mr G.’s car. In reply to counsel’s question as to whether that refusal was motivated by fear, Mr K. stated that he did not wish to testify on that matter. 55.  Counsel for the applicant asked that Mr K. be reminded that refusal to answer questions could be criminally punishable. The presiding judge replied that the witness was entitled to refuse to answer questions. 56.  The defence asked the presiding judge for permission to question Mr K. about his character and the offences for which he was serving a sentence. This information was necessary to challenge his credibility. The prosecutor objected, referring to Article 335 of the CCrP (see paragraph 105 below). The presiding judge refused the permission, finding that the witness’s personality and previous criminal record were not relevant to the applicant’s case. She then warned counsel for the applicant that “they were not allowed to cast doubts on witness statements because it was for the jury to decide on their credibility in the deliberations room”. 57.  On 9 December 2004 the presiding judge dismissed the jury because seven jurors had refused to participate in the proceedings and the jury became inquorate. 58.  On 25 January 2005 a new jury was formed. The applicant again filed reasoned and unreasoned objections to the candidates, all of which were allowed by the presiding judge. He did not file an objection to the entire jury. On the same day the trial started afresh. 59.  On 3 February 2005 the President of the Moscow City Court asked the Ministry of Justice to apply to the Bar Council to disbar three of the applicant’s counsel who had failed to appear at the hearings scheduled for 28 January and 3 February 2005. On 18 April 2005 the Bar Council rejected the request to disbar them as unsubstantiated. 60.  On 14 February 2005 the defence again requested that the trial be public. The request was rejected. 61.  The court re-examined all the witnesses. They were again informed of their rights and obligations under Article 56 of the CCrP and signed declarations that they had been warned about criminal liability under Articles 307 and 308 of the Criminal Code for giving false testimony or refusing to testify. Mr K., Mr Pp., Mr Kb. and Mr E. were informed only about their rights under Article 56 of the CCrP and signed declarations that they had been warned about criminal liability under Article 307 of the Criminal Code for giving false testimony. 62.  The applicant’s co-accused, Mr P., and the prosecution witnesses confirmed their testimony given at the pre-trial stage. 63.  Counsel for the applicant again asked for permission to question Mr K. about his criminal record. He argued that the jurors should be informed that Mr K. had been convicted on many counts of murder and rape because that fact might undermine the credibility of his testimony. He further argued that while Russian law prohibited referring before the jury to the previous criminal record of the accused (see paragraph 105 below), no such prohibition existed in respect of a witness. The presiding judge rejected the request, finding that Mr K.’s criminal record was not relevant to the applicant’s case. 64.  Counsel for the applicant also asked Mr K. why he had not given any evidence against the applicant when questioned in 1999 and had not started to testify against him until 2003. He argued that that question was necessary to determine whether the witness had been subjected to pressure. The presiding judge dismissed the question as having no bearing on the case. She then addressed the jury, saying that the only question they had to answer was whether the witness’s testimony was truthful. They need not know his motivation for giving that testimony. 65.  Counsel for the applicant then asked Mr K. whether anyone had requested to see the folder with photographs and documents Mr G. had entrusted to him before his disappearance, why he had started giving testimony against the applicant five years after the murders and why he had asked the applicant to turn his head in profile during the identification parade. Mr K. refused to answer those questions. 66.  During the questioning of Mr S. the prosecutor asked him why Mr G. had visited Mr R. Counsel for the applicant objected, stating that the applicant had not been charged with Mr R.’s murder and that references to it might portray him negatively before the jury. The presiding judge dismissed counsel’s objection and allowed the question. Mr S. stated that he had heard from Mr G. that the applicant had hired him to murder Mr R. 67.  The remaining witnesses were also questioned and confirmed their statements given at the pre-trial stage. 68.  During the trial the defence filed many objections against the presiding judge, claiming that she was biased. The judge dismissed some of the objections and refused to examine the others because they did not contain new arguments. 69.  On 22 March 2005 the examination of evidence was completed. The prosecutor asked the court to adjourn the hearing until the next day so that he could prepare his closing speech. The defence asked to adjourn the hearing until 24 March 2005 for the same reasons. The court ordered an adjournment until 23 March 2005. 70.  In his closing speech the prosecutor referred to Mr S.’s depositions made at the pre-trial stage and before the first jury, which he had not repeated before the present jury. In particular, the prosecutor referred to Mr S.’s statements that Mr G. had killed a woman on the applicant’s order, that the applicant was a coward who had made a career thanks to his wife, a relative of some high-ranking manager of the Yukos oil company, and that after Mr G.’s disappearance he had phoned the applicant and had told him that Mr G. had left some documents which would be disclosed to the police in the event of his death. 71. In her address to the jury the presiding judge said, in particular, that the arguments and statements made by the parties in their pleadings could not serve as evidence. 72.  On 24 March 2005 the jury pronounced the applicant and Mr P. guilty on four counts of murder and attempted murder. 73.  On 30 March 2005 the Moscow City Court sentenced the applicant to twenty years’ imprisonment. It ordered that he should remain in custody pending the appeal proceedings. 74.  On 14 July 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the conviction on appeal. It held that the trial had taken place in camera because the case file contained documents classified as secret. Those documents had not been examined during the trial because the parties had not asked for their examination. It further held that the trial court had been composed lawfully. There was no evidence that the jurors who had participated in the applicant’s case had been included in the list of jurors in violation of the procedure prescribed by law. The mere fact that the list of jurors had not been published in its entirety had not rendered the court’s composition unlawful. The only reason for its publication was to afford citizens an opportunity to lodge a request for exclusion from the list or for rectification of their personal data. Lastly, the Supreme Court found that the witnesses had been questioned in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. 75.  On 14 July 2003 the applicant was allegedly brought to the investigator’s office, where he was met by two officers of the Federal Security Service who refused to give their names. They offered him a cup of coffee. He took a sip and fainted. He regained consciousness four or five hours later and was taken back to his cell. As he felt sick, he asked for a doctor. The doctor measured his blood pressure, said that he was in good health and left. After the incident the applicant found two injection marks: one on his left elbow and the other between his right thumb and index finger. 76.  On 16 July 2003 the applicant complained to the investigator that on 14 July 2003 he had been injected with psychotropic drugs to make him confess, and asked for a medical examination. On 18 July 2003 the investigator rejected the request. 77.  On an unspecified date an investigation was opened into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. On 24 July 2003 the applicant was examined by medical experts who found no injection marks on his body. 78.  On 30 September 2003 counsel challenged the investigator’s decision of 18 July 2003 before the Basmanniy District Court. On 17 October 2003 that court dismissed the complaint. It found that it had no right to interfere with the investigation and advised the applicant to complain to the prosecutor. On 3 December 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision on appeal. 79.  On 8 February 2004 the Prosecutor General’s Office discontinued the criminal proceedings against the two officers of the Federal Security Service who had questioned the applicant on 14 July 2003. It found that there was no evidence that the officers had injected the applicant with psychotropic drugs or had ill-treated him in any other way. The applicant did not challenge that decision before a court. 80.  On 19 June 2003 the applicant was placed in the Lefortovo detention centre in Moscow. 81.  On 20 June 2003 he was examined by the detention centre doctor, who noted that he suffered from chronic gastroduodenitis, duodenal ulcer, chronic haemorrhoids, and hypertension. On the same day a cardiogram, an X-ray examination and a blood sugar test were performed. His blood sugar level was found to be within the normal limits. 82.  On 23 June 2003 the applicant was again examined by a doctor, who prescribed him treatment for hypertension. 83.  On 24 June 2003 the applicant’s counsel complained to the director of the detention centre and to the Prosecutor General that the applicant had been given unidentified pills and drops in a white and blue bottle. After taking them he had slept all day long, urinated every hour and a half and had high blood pressure. Counsel suspected that the applicant had been given psychotropic drugs and asked for an inquiry. They also expressed concern about the applicant’s bad health. 84.  On 14 July 2003 the director of the detention centre replied that the applicant had been given pills and drops for hypertension. The frequent urination could be explained by his chronic prostatitis. 85.  On 18 November 2003 counsel complained to the Prosecutor General that the applicant was not receiving treatment for his numerous ailments. They asked the Prosecutor General to order the applicant’s medical examination by a panel of doctors. By letter of 9 December 2003 the Prosecutor General’s office informed the applicant’s counsel that their complaint had been dismissed. The applicant was receiving treatment and had been put on a special diet. 86.  According to the applicant’s medical records, during his stay in the Lefortovo detention centre he regularly complained of various ills, such as heartburn, haemorrhoids, hypertension, sore throat, and so on. He was examined every time by the detention centre’s general practitioner and prescribed treatment. 87.  He was also examined on several occasions by a surgeon and a dentist. Several cardiograms, X-ray examinations and blood and urine tests were performed. 88.  On 10 February 2004 Dr B., a doctor from Moscow City hospital no. 11, examined the applicant’s medical documents and concluded that he probably suffered from diabetes, which could cause a diabetic coma. 89.  On 2 March 2004 the applicant was examined by an endocrinologist, who found no indication of diabetes. 90.  On 24 September 2004 the applicant was transferred to a correctional colony.