6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently serving a prison sentence. Before his arrest, the applicant had been living as a vagrant in Yevpatoriya for several years. 7.  During the evening of 19 April 2005 L., a vagrant woman, was murdered by suffocation. Her corpse was found on the morning of 20 April 2005 beneath a balcony of a multi-storey building in Yevpatoriya. A criminal investigation was opened. 8.  The police started by interviewing the victim’s relatives and acquaintances and the residents of the building where the corpse was found. A number of interviewees stated that throughout the day and the evening of 19 April 2005, they had seen L. with the applicant; some of them had seen the applicant quarrelling with L. and drinking alcohol on that day; certain interviewees described L. as a very aggressive woman. 9.  In the afternoon of 20 April 2005 the police found the applicant and his acquaintance, V., and took them to a police station for questioning about the incident. When questioned, V. stated that he, L., and the applicant had been living as vagrants. In the evening of 19 April 2005 they had been drinking alcohol with another man under the balcony of the building where L. used to sleep. He and the applicant had decided to buy some more alcohol and left the company for that purpose. When they returned, L. was alone. They had offered her some more drink and then decided to leave her. V. had walked away, but had had to wait for the applicant at a distance. When the applicant rejoined V. about fifteen minutes later, the applicant said that L. had insulted him. The next morning the applicant had called an ambulance for L. 10.  The police then questioned the applicant. They allegedly ill-treated him and forced him to confess to the crime. The applicant stated in particular that in the evening of 19 April 2005 L. had insulted him and hit him in the face; in reply, he had squeezed her throat. The next morning he had called an ambulance. 11.  Following those statements, V. was released and the applicant was taken to the prosecutor’s office for further questioning by an investigator. 12.  At 7.30 p.m. on 20 April 2005 the investigator formally arrested the applicant. The applicant admitted in the arrest report that L. could have died as a result of his action. 13.  At 7.40 on the same date the investigator started to question the applicant in the presence of a legal-aid lawyer. The applicant repeated his statements. According to the applicant, the lawyer arrived only at the end of the questioning. 14.  The applicant was then presented for examination to a forensic medical expert, whose report stated that the applicant had a bruised left eye and a granulating wound on his upper lip. The applicant explained that those injuries had been caused by L. and a man. The expert opined that the injuries had been light and that the bruise on the eye had been sustained two to four days before the examination while the wound on the lip could have been sustained on 19 April 2005. 15.  At 8.30 on 20 April 2005 the applicant and his lawyer participated in a reconstruction of the crime, in which the applicant showed how he had committed the crime. 16.  On 21 April 2005 the applicant was charged with the murder of L. When questioned on that day in the presence of his lawyer, the applicant admitted that his actions might have caused L.’s death but insisted that he had had no intention of killing her. 17.  On 23 April 2005 the Yevpatoriya Town Court (“the town court”) extended the applicant’s preliminary detention to ten days. 18.  On 30 April 2005 the town court ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial. 19.  On 25 June 2005 the applicant was questioned again in the presence of his lawyer. The applicant confirmed his earlier statements and emphasised that he had had no intention of killing L. 20.  On 8 July 2005 the town court committed the case for trial. 21.  During the trial the applicant, assisted by his lawyer, contended that there had been no fight between him and L. on the evening of 19 April 2005. He claimed that L. had hit him in the mouth only once, and that in response he had squeezed her throat for a while but had had no intention of killing her. The next morning he had approached L. assuming that she was well, but instead had discovered her dead. He had therefore called an ambulance. Had he known that L. had died, he would never have returned to her that morning. 22.  On 26 July 2005 the town court found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. The court allowed a civil claim in favour of L.’s mother in the amount of 10,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH). The court found that on the night of 19 April 2005 the applicant and L. had been preparing to sleep under the balcony of a building; a quarrel had started between them and L. had hit the applicant in the face. In response, the applicant had squeezed L.’s throat, which had caused her death. 23.  The court made those findings on the basis of the initial confession that the applicant had made to the police on 20 April 2005; the self-incriminatory explanations that he had given in the course of further questioning and during a reconstruction of the crime; his submissions during the trial that he had squeezed L.’s throat; the indirect witness evidence, material and documentary evidence; and the assessments of the forensic medical expert, including his opinion as to the injuries to the applicant’s face. The court did not call or question V. as a witness. According to the applicant, he had requested that V. be examined in the courtroom. 24.  The applicant appealed, claiming that the town court had failed properly to assess the evidence in the case. V. had not been heard during the trial, despite the fact that he had accompanied the applicant throughout the day and evening of 19 April 2005, and could therefore have clarified many important facts. According to the applicant, he had informed the court of appeal that he would like to be present at the appeal hearing. 25.  On 4 October 2005 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the Court of Appeal”) dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unsubstantiated. It found that the conclusions of the first-instance court had been well-founded on the material of the case file and that the applicant’s guilt had been properly established by various pieces of evidence, including his initial confession to the police. There had been nothing to suggest that the applicant’s self-incriminatory statements had been obtained unlawfully. The appeal hearing was held without the presence of the applicant and his lawyer but with the participation of the prosecutor, who made oral representations. 26.  The applicant appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court, expressing his general disagreement with the earlier proceedings. He claimed that on 20 April 2005 he had been forcibly arrested by police officers and had made self-incriminating statements at the police station while “under the influence of police officers”. He had then been taken to the prosecutor’s office where he had been questioned by an investigator. The applicant contended that a legal-aid lawyer had not appeared until the end of the questioning at the prosecutor’s office. He further claimed that V. had not been questioned by the lower courts even though his evidence might have changed the outcome of the case. The applicant also requested that he be summoned for a hearing concerning his cassation appeal. 27.  On 17 October 2005 the applicant wrote to the Minister of Internal Affairs claiming that on 20 April 2005 he had been arrested by force and then pressed by police officers to incriminate himself. The applicant contended that the investigation of his case had been conducted improperly, the material had been falsified, the courts had not considered the case fairly, and in particular had not examined V. as a witness. This complaint was redirected to the Supreme Court for consideration together with the applicant’s appeal. 28.  On 25 July 2006 a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court considered the applicant’s case in private. Having examined the case file, it found that the applicant’s submissions were unsubstantiated. His contentions of ill-treatment were not supported by the material of the case file. He had been assisted by a lawyer but had not previously complained of ill-treatment. V.’s testimony would not have been relevant to the applicant’s alibi, as the applicant and L. had been alone at the time of the crime; the applicant had rejoined V. fifteen minutes after communicating with L. The panel concluded that there had been no grounds for scheduling an oral hearing and dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 29.  After his conviction the applicant requested copies of various procedural documents from his case file, which he said were essential for his application to the Court. Some time later the applicant was sent copies of the requested documents.