6.  The applicant was born in Tirana in 1978 and is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment. 7.  On 6 June 2001 two people were killed. K was an eye-witness to the incident. 8.  On 9 June 2001 the prosecutor decided to proceed with the identification of the perpetrator and invited K to participate. K was given eight photographs and he pointed to the applicant as the perpetrator, after having given a physical description of him. The applicant’s lawyer was not present. 9.  On 9 June 2001 the police unsuccessfully searched the applicant’s home. His whereabouts were unknown. 10.  On 9 July 2001 the prosecutor charged the applicant with the offences of murder in aggravating circumstances and unlawful possession of firearms. The notification of the prosecutor’s charges was acknowledged by the signature of a lawyer officially-appointed to represent the applicant. 11.  On 21 July 2001 the Tirana District Court (“the District Court”) ordered the applicant’s arrest. However, the order could not be enforced as the applicant could not be located. 12.  On 3 October 2001 the police unsuccessfully conducted a further search of the applicant’s home. His whereabouts remained unknown. 13.  On 11 October 2001 the applicant was declared a fugitive from justice by the District Court in accordance with Article 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP”). 14.  On 12 October 2001 the prosecutor decided to commit the applicant for trial. The applicant’s officially-appointed lawyer was duly informed. 15.  On 21 December 2001 the prosecutor submitted his final conclusions in which he requested that the applicant be sentenced to life imprisonment. On the same day the applicant’s officially appointed lawyer submitted his final conclusions in which he challenged the lawfulness of the identification procedure which had been conducted in the absence of the applicant’s lawyer. He requested that the sentence of imprisonment be less than twenty-five years having regard to the fact that the applicant was not a recidivist and that he was young and had a low level of education. 16.  On the same day the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. It would appear that the applicant was living in Greece at the material time. 17.  On 28 December 2001, in accordance with Article 48 § 3 of the CCP, the applicant’s father authorised a lawyer to represent the applicant and lodge all necessary appeals. 18.  On 31 December 2001 the lawyer lodged an appeal against the applicant’s conviction. The appeal, which also bore the applicant’s signature, was based on points of fact and law. 19.  On 26 April 2002, following proceedings in absentia, the Tirana Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld the District Court’s decision. It found that the applicant had been declared a fugitive after unsuccessful attempts to trace his whereabouts and that the first-instance court’s notifications had been addressed to his officially-appointed lawyer in accordance with the law. 20.  On 17 May 2002 the applicant appealed, through his family‑appointed lawyer, to the Supreme Court. He complained inter alia that his absence during the lower courts’ proceedings had adversely affected him and that he had not been notified of the proceedings in accordance with the law. The applicant stated that he did not deny the charges against him but the circumstances of the case were unique and required a different view of the merits of the case. The appeal bore the applicant’s signature and that of the lawyer appointed by his family. 21.  On 15 January 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal. It held that the District Court had properly notified the applicant at his home address. Moreover, his brothers and mother were summoned as witnesses at one of the first-instance court’s hearings. The Supreme Court considered that the non-participation of the applicant in the trial reflected his own choice, as evidenced in his appeals, rather than of a lack of opportunity afforded by the lower courts to appear at his trial and to contest the charges. The Supreme Court dismissed, as unsubstantiated, the applicant’s argument that the sentence of imprisonment would have been less severe had he attended the proceedings. 22.  Still living in Greece, the applicant was informed on 14 June 2003 of the outcome of the above proceedings, namely that he had been sentenced to life imprisonment in Albania. On the same day he surrendered to the Albanian police in order to seek justice in respect of his conviction and allegedly unfair trial in absentia. 23.  On 12 January 2005 the applicant authorised a lawyer to introduce a constitutional appeal. 24.  On 15 January 2005 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal. He stated that he had been tried in absentia and his interests had not been properly defended before the first-instance court. The officially appointed lawyer had been appointed by the prosecutor instead by the court. The applicant had never been notified of any documents concerning his case. Moreover, the applicant alleged that he had been declared a fugitive on the basis of inconclusive evidence. The fact that he surrendered after the completion of his trial was a further sign that he had not been properly notified of the proceedings. He also contended that his signature on the appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court had been forged. 25.  On 1 February 2005 the Constitutional Court, having noted that the applicant’s appeal had been submitted in an envelope postmarked 17 January 2005, declared the complaint inadmissible as having been filed out of time. 26.  In a letter of 15 February 2005 the applicant’s lawyer informed the Constitutional Court inter alia that, as the time-limit had expired during a weekend (on a Saturday), whereas all domestic procedural rules provided for an automatic extension of the legal time-limit to the following working day, he had posted his constitutional appeal on the following working day, namely on Monday 17 January 2005. 27.  On 24 February 2005 the Constitutional Court replied that the applicant had been informed of the grounds for its decision of 1 February 2005. His complaint had been filed out of time on the basis of the postmark on the envelope in which the complaint had been sent to the Constitutional Court.