5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and is currently serving a life sentence in Ladyzhynska Prison no. 39. 6.  Late in the evening of 20 April 2005 Mr and Ms L., the applicant’s upstairs neighbours, were killed in their apartment. Ms L. was 65 years old and Mr L. was a similar age. 7.  On 21 April 2005 a criminal investigation was launched into the murder as having been committed by unknown persons. 8.  On the same date the police inspected the crime scene and questioned several neighbours and members of L.’s family. The persons in question made written statements as to what they knew about the victims and the events of the night before. The questioning appears to have taken place at the police station (see paragraph 21 below). 9.  In particular, the police questioned the applicant’s adult stepson, Mr Lo., who described in detail his own actions on the evening before. He stated that he had gone out for a while and that, upon his return home after midnight, he had seen his mother asleep in one room and the applicant drinking some alcohol and watching a film in another room. He noticed that the applicant had a black eye, but did not attach any importance to that. The applicant’s stepson also submitted that there had often been conflicts in the victim’s family and that Mr L.’s son, who lived separately, had earlier served a prison sentence. 10.  The applicant’s wife stated that she had not seen or heard anything suspicious. When she had woken up some time after midnight, she had seen her son and the applicant drinking and talking. 11.  The police also questioned the son of the deceased Mr L., who stated that he had been with a friend at the time of the events. That friend, who was also heard as a witness, confirmed the aforementioned. 12.  The applicant was also questioned, and confessed to the double murder. He submitted that there had been a longstanding conflict between him and Ms L., who had often complained about the noise caused by the refurbishment of his flat and about the construction of a roof over his balcony below her own flat. The applicant noted that, when smoking on the balcony during the evening on 20 April 2005, he had heard extensive swearing and cursing by Ms L., and had heard his name mentioned. He had picked up a knife (“just in case”), and gone upstairs. Having opened the door to him, Ms L. had allegedly insulted him, and a fight had ensued. He had stabbed Ms L. to death. Mr L. had attacked the applicant with a stool, but with no success. The applicant had hit him with the same stool and stabbed him with the knife. Subsequently, the applicant had thrown away the knife, the broken legs of the stool and his blood-stained T-shirt. 13.  All the aforementioned statements began with a note that the requirements of Article 63 of the Constitution had been explained to their authors. All these persons, save the applicant, signed next to the reference to that constitutional provision, in addition to signing at the end of the document. As to the applicant, he signed each page of his statement and added a note at the end: “This has been accurately written from my words, and I am willing to repeat my statements in court”. The applicant also made an additional written statement that he confirmed his submissions and that, relying on Article 63 of the Constitution, he did not wish to make any further statements. 14.  It is not known where the applicant was between his questioning on 21 April 2005 and his arrest on 22 April 2005 (see below). The applicant did not state that he was detained during that period. 15.  On 22 April 2005, at 11.30 a.m., the applicant was arrested as a suspect. He wrote in the arrest report that he had no statements or complaints to make. 16.  About half an hour later the applicant and the lawyer, Mr T., who had been appointed for him at some point earlier that day, signed a report on “the familiarisation of the suspect with his defence rights”. This document contained extensive pertinent quotations from the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant wrote in that report: “My rights are clear and I understand them”. 17.  From noon to 1 p.m. on 22 April 2005 the applicant was questioned in the lawyer’s presence and signed a typed summary of his account of the events of 20 April 2005, similar to that given on 21 April 2005, as being accurate and complete. He supplemented it with a handwritten note as to how and where he had thrown the knife and the stool legs. 18.  On the same date, from 2.40 to 4 p.m., a videotaped reconstruction of the crime was conducted in the presence of the applicant’s lawyer. The applicant again repeated his confession and stated that he was testifying of his own free will. All the participants, including two experts and two attesting witnesses who were also present, watched the video recording and signed a report to that effect, making no additional remarks or statements. 19.  At 4.30 p.m. on 22 April 2005 the applicant was placed in a cell at the Kerch Temporary Detention Centre (“the ITT”). 20.  The aforementioned investigative activities of 22 April 2005 were documented on pages 56-63 of the case file. 21.  Also on 22 April 2005, the applicant’s stepson, Mr Lo., gave some additional written explanations. He submitted that he had found out about the murder on the morning of 21 April 2005 from the police, who had invited him and the applicant, among others, to the police station for questioning. Upon his return home, Mr Lo. had noticed that a knife had gone missing from the kitchen. He gave the description of that knife. 22.  On 29 April 2005 the applicant was formally charged with double murder. 23.  During his questioning on 30 April 2005, in the presence of his lawyer, he again repeated his confession. 24.  On the same date the pre-trial investigation was declared complete. The applicant and his lawyer signed in confirmation of having studied the investigation file. According to handwritten notes by both of them, they had no statements or remarks to add. 25.  On 8 August 2005 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the Crimea Court”), acting as a court of first instance, commenced the trial. 26.  According to the minutes of the court hearing of 25 August 2005, at that stage the applicant was represented by a new lawyer, Mr N. The applicant stated that he did not object to being represented by that lawyer. He also maintained his confession, stating that he understood the accusations and that he sincerely regretted what he had done. 27.  According to the minutes of another court hearing, held on 5 September 2005, the applicant’s lawyer submitted the following arguments in defence of his client: he emphasised that the applicant had voluntarily confessed to the crime and had shown sincere remorse; he noted that the applicant had never sought to abscond and had consistently cooperated with the investigation; and, lastly, he drew the court’s attention to the fact that the applicant had no previous criminal record and that he had two minor children to support. Accordingly, the lawyer asked the court not to sentence his client to life imprisonment. 28.  On 7 September 2005 the Crimea Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment (which was to run as from 22 April 2005). The court relied on the applicant’s confession statements given during the pre-trial investigation, with reference to pages 56-63 of the case file (see paragraph 20 above). The court noted that the applicant had maintained those statements throughout the judicial proceedings. It also heard, inter alia, the applicant’s wife and her son, who had seen him late on the night of the incident with a fresh bruise on his face. They identified the knife found in the garbage bin, where the applicant said he had thrown it, as the one which had gone missing from their kitchen after the murder. The court further took into account the results of a number of forensic examinations. Lastly, the court noted that the applicant had committed the crime while drunk. 29.  The applicant appealed in cassation. He submitted that the first-instance court had distorted his motives and the facts of the case, ignoring the allegedly aggressive and provocative behaviour of the victims and wrongly concluding that he had murdered them while drunk. He stated that he had drunk alcohol only after the murder. Furthermore, the applicant complained that his voluntary surrender to and cooperation with the police had not had any mitigating effect on his sentence. He also noted in this connection that he had no previous criminal record and that he had shown sincere remorse. Lastly, he complained that he had not been legally represented at the initial stage of the investigation, and that the lawyers later appointed for him had behaved passively and failed to properly defend his interests. 30.  On 8 December 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as unfounded. It noted that he had merely been seeking the mitigation of his sentence and had not contested the legal classification of the crime, denied his guilt, or challenged the admissibility of the evidence. 31.  Until 26 May 2005, when he was transferred to the Simferopol Pre-Trial Detention Centre (SIZO), the applicant had been detained at the Kerch Temporary Detention Facility (ITT). 32.  Between 2 and 30 June 2005 he underwent a medical examination in Simferopol Psychiatric Hospital with a view to establishing the state of his mental health. 33.  Between 30 June 2005 and 28 April 2007 the applicant was held in the SIZO, except from 4 to 27 July 2005, when he was held in the ITT. 34.  On 28 April 2007 he was transferred to Ladyzhynska Prison no. 39 in the Vinnytsia Region to serve his sentence. 35.  On 10 September 2008 he sent a letter to the Court acknowledging receipt of the Registry’s letter of 24 August 2006 and apologising for the delayed reply, without giving further details. 36.  On an unspecified date in October 2008 the applicant additionally submitted that “the SIZO administration had shown a lack of respect for [his] correspondence and [him] personally”, having allegedly opened the Registry’s letter of 24 August 2006, which he had received on 9 September 2006. To substantiate his submission, he provided the aforementioned letter with the SIZO date stamp of “4 September 2006” in its upper right-hand corner.