5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and is serving a prison sentence in the Sverdlovsk Region. 6.  On 29 April 2003 the applicant was apprehended and taken into custody in the Chechen Republic. It appears that his detention was extended pending trial. 7.  On 12 November 2003 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic found the applicant guilty of numerous offences including, but not limited to, the assassination of a law-enforcement officer, trafficking and possession of illegal firearms, terrorism, theft and rape, and sentenced him to twenty-one years’ imprisonment and confiscation of his property. The court dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s allegations that the investigating authorities had subjected him to physical and mental pressure to make him confess. The court further stated, in the operative part of the judgment, that the applicant had a right to appeal against the conviction within ten days following the receipt of the text of the verdict and that he had a right to ask the appeal court to ensure his participation in the appeal proceedings should he decide to appeal. 8.  The applicant received a copy of the judgment of 12 November 2003 on 22 November 2003. 9.  On 24 November 2003 Ms Kh., a lawyer retained by the applicant, lodged a statement of appeal. Ms Kh. referred to the excessive severity of the sentence and sought, inter alia, to have the applicant’s conviction for trafficking and possession of illegal firearms quashed, citing a lack of evidence. She reiterated the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment and claimed that the applicant’s confrontation with one of the witnesses had been carried out in contravention of the applicable rules of criminal procedure. She did not indicate that the applicant wished to participate in the appeal hearing. 10.  The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation scheduled the appeal hearing for 29 January 2004. According to the applicant, he retained another lawyer, Ms A., immediately before the appeal hearing. At the hearing Ms A. asked the court for an adjournment, arguing that she had not had sufficient time to study the case file. The court granted her request and scheduled the hearing for 19 February 2004. 11.  On an unspecified date Ms A. filed an additional statement of appeal in which she asked the appeal court to acknowledge a violation of the applicant’s rights as set out in Article 5 of the Convention. In particular, she argued that, following his arrest, he had been detained in the absence of a court order and that his pre-trial detention had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons. 12.  On 4 February 2004 Ms A. informed the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of the applicant’s wish to attend the appeal hearing. 13.  On 11 February 2004 the applicant filed a similar request with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 14.  On 19 February 2004 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation decided to proceed with the appeal hearing in the applicant’s absence. As the court reasoned, the applicant had filed his request for participation too late and, in any event, only his lawyer had submitted the statement of appeal. After hearing the judge rapporteur, Ms A. (the applicant’s lawyer), and the prosecutor, the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s conviction in substance. The court removed the confiscation of property from the applicant’s sentence and reclassified the charge of theft.