5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Penitentiary no. 72 in Voznesensk. 6.  On 16 September 2003 a Ms D. was robbed and murdered in her apartment. 7.  On 26 November 2003 the applicant’s acquaintance, Mr M., a drug addict who was detained on suspicion of an unrelated offence at the time, stated that the applicant had asked him to sell some gold jewellery and dentures and had admitted that he had robbed and murdered Ms D. Later, during the judicial proceedings, Mr M. would retract that statement (see paragraph 24 below). 8.  On 1 December 2003 the investigator of the Yevpatoriya City Prosecutor’s Office (hereafter “the Yevpatoriya Prosecutor”) ordered the police to ensure the applicant’s presence (здійснити привід) for questioning as a suspect. 9.  On 6 December 2003 the applicant was taken by the police from a hospital in Mykolayiv, where he was undergoing treatment for drug addiction, to the Yevpatoriya City Police Department. He was held there without his detention being documented from 6 p.m. on 6 December till 11:30 a.m. on 7 December 2003. According to the applicant, during that time he was questioned and subjected to beatings and psychological pressure with a view to extracting a confession. 10.  Early in the morning on 7 December 2003 the applicant wrote a “statement of voluntary surrender to the police”, in which he confessed to having robbed and murdered Ms D. 11.  Thereafter, at 11.30 a.m., the investigator drew up a report on the applicant’s detention as a suspect. His “voluntary surrender to the police” and risk of absconding were cited as the grounds for the detention. 12.  Also in the morning on 7 December 2003 the applicant’s mother signed contracts for his legal representation with two lawyers – Mr A. and Mr K. According to the applicant, the choice of Mr K. had been imposed on them by the investigator. 13.  The applicant and the two lawyers signed a record of the explanation of the applicant’s procedural rights to him. 14.  On 7 December 2003, from 11.45 to 12.40 a.m., the applicant was questioned as a suspect in the presence of his two lawyers. He retracted his initial confession as allegedly obtained under psychological pressure. 15.  On the same day, from 2.45 to 4.20 p.m., the applicant was questioned again, this time in the presence of Mr A. alone. He signed a record confirming that the provisions of Article 63 of the Constitution (privilege against self-incrimination and right to legal assistance) had been explained to him. The applicant retracted the statements he had made during the previous questioning and upheld his initial confession. He submitted that he had realised that there was serious evidence against him and that he wished to confess. 16.  Thereafter, on 7 December 2003 the investigator conducted a reconstruction of the crime with the participation of the applicant and his lawyer, Mr A. The applicant gave a detailed account of the robbery and murder. 17.  Prior to the applicant’s placement in the Yevpatoriya Temporary Detention Facility on the same date, he was physically examined by a police officer in the presence of two attested witnesses, who issued a report stating that no signs of injury had been detected. 18.  On 12 December 2003 the Yevpatoriya Prosecutor issued an order for samples of the applicant’s blood and saliva to be taken by a forensic medical expert. 19.  On 13 December 2003 the applicant and his lawyer, Mr A., signed a record attesting that his procedural rights, including his right to legal assistance, had been explained to him. The applicant was questioned as an accused, in the presence of Mr A. He maintained his confession. 20.  On the same day the investigator, in the presence of an attested witness and the lawyer, Mr A., took a blood sample from the applicant intravenously. 21.  On 25 May 2004 the applicant refused the services of the lawyers Mr K. and Mr A. and asked to be represented by another lawyer, Mr F. His request was granted. 22.  On the same day the charges of violent robbery and murder for profit were officially brought against the applicant. His procedural rights were explained to him again, and he was questioned as an accused in the presence of Mr F. The applicant retracted his confession and denied any involvement in the crime. 23.  On an unspecified date the case was sent for trial. However, on 25 June 2004 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the Crimea Court of Appeal”), sitting in first instance, remitted it for additional pre-trial investigation. 24.  On 19 November 2004 the Crimea Court of Appeal, sitting as a first-instance trial court, acquitted the applicant, having found that there was insufficient proof of his guilt. The court held that, given the circumstances of the applicant’s confessions, they could not been regarded as voluntary. Thus, his initial confession had been given while the applicant was in unreported detention in violation of his procedural rights. The court also questioned the voluntary nature of the confession he had made during his repeated questioning and the reconstruction of the crime conducted on 7 December 2003 in the presence of only one of his lawyers. It was considered suspicious that only two hours after he had already been questioned in accordance with the procedural requirements he had been questioned again unexpectedly, in the absence of one of his lawyers. Furthermore, the applicant’s statements of confession were found to contradict the facts of the case. Lastly, the court noted that Mr M. had retracted his incriminating statements against the applicant during the judicial proceedings and had stated that he had been forced to sign blank sheets while detained in respect of an unrelated offence, in exchange for the investigator’s promise to supply him with drugs (see also paragraph 7 above). The applicant was released in the court room. 25.  Also on 19 November 2004 the Crimea Court of Appeal issued a separate ruling (see paragraph 42 below) noting that: on 6 December 2003 the applicant had wrongly been taken to the police department instead of the prosecutor’s office; he had been unlawfully detained there from 6 p.m. on 6 December till 11:30 a.m. on 7 December 2003 (as confirmed by police records); he had confessed to the crimes he was charged with without his constitutional right not to incriminate himself and his right to legal assistance having been explained to him; and that a police officer, and not a medical expert, had checked him for signs of injury. 26.  The court issued another separate ruling noting that the taking of a blood sample by a non-specialist had endangered the applicant’s life and health. 27.  In both the aforementioned separate rulings the court decided to inform the Prosecutor’s Office of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea of the violations in question and to instruct it to take appropriate measures. 28.  On 10 March 2005 the Supreme Court, following a hearing which the applicant’s lawyer attended, quashed the aforementioned judgment and both separate rulings and remitted the case for additional investigation. 29.  On 4 August 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of keeping and selling cannabis. During his questioning on the same day he admitted that he had had some cannabis on him for his own use. 30.  On 12 August 2005 the applicant stated that he had not sold any drugs to anybody. He also denied knowing Mr V.K., to whom, according to the police, he had sold a joint. 31.  On 15 August 2005 he requested to be represented by the lawyer Mr F., who had already represented him in the proceedings regarding the robbery and murder of Ms D. His request was granted. 32.  On the same date the applicant was questioned as a suspect in respect of the drug-related offence, in the presence of Mr F. Relying on Article 63 of the Constitution, he refused to make any statements. 33.  During his questioning in the presence of his lawyer on 17 August 2005 the applicant admitted his guilt as regards keeping drugs, but denied having sold any. 34.  On 15 September 2005 the applicant was released subject to a commitment not to leave the town. 35.  On 16 September 2005 the two criminal cases against the applicant were joined. 36.  On 20 September 2005 he was indicted for the robbery and murder of Ms D., as well as for storage and sale of drugs. Relying on Article 63 of the Constitution, he refused to make statements. 37.  On 26 January 2006 the Yevpatoriya Prosecutor issued a decision not to open a criminal case in respect of the applicant’s allegation of coercion by the police in December 2003, which he had raised in the framework of the criminal proceedings against him. The decision was based on the questioning of the police officers concerned, the findings of an internal enquiry undertaken by the police, and the report of the applicant’s examination of 7 December 2003, according to which he had had no visible injuries. The prosecutor also noted that all the investigative measures involving the applicant had been conducted in the presence of his lawyer. Lastly, it was observed that neither the applicant nor his lawyers had ever complained to the prosecution authorities of his ill-treatment in police custody. 38.  On 15 February 2006 the Crimea Court of Appeal, sitting in first instance, found the applicant guilty of violent robbery, murder for profit, and storage and distribution of drugs, and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment with confiscation of all his personal property. As regards the robbery and murder of Ms D., it relied, inter alia, on the applicant’s “voluntary surrender to the police” and his subsequent confessions made in the presence of his lawyer. The court also noted that the applicant had admitted to having committed those crimes during his forensic psychiatric examination, when no pressure was alleged to have been put on him. Furthermore, the court relied on the statements witness Mr M. had made during the pre-trial investigation. As to his retraction of those statements in the course of the judicial proceedings, the court noted that Mr M. had explained that by the fact that the applicant had been acquitted and that that had made him doubt his involvement in the robbery and murder of Ms D. The applicant’s conviction for storage and distribution of drugs was based, in particular, on his confession and on the statements of several witnesses. As regards the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment, the court dismissed it as unsubstantiated, having relied on the prosecution authorities’ findings. It was noted in the judgment that the applicant had been detained for the first time on 7 December 2003. He was remanded in custody pending the entry into force of the judgment. 39.  The applicant appealed in cassation, maintaining that he had incriminated himself under duress and in the absence of legal assistance. In substantiation, he noted that, while the police had admitted having taken him to their department at 6 p.m. on 6 December 2003, his detention had remained undocumented till 11:30 a.m. on the following day. According to him, his repeated confession on 7 December 2003 could not be relied on either, as it had been made in the absence of one of his lawyers. The applicant contended that, apart from his confessions, the only evidence against him was the contradictory statement of Mr M. He further argued that the findings of the prosecutorial investigation into his allegation of ill-treatment were superficial and unreliable. He also complained that the investigator had taken a blood sample from him in the absence of a medical specialist. Lastly, the applicant alleged that the drug-related offence charge had been fabricated. 40.  On 11 May 2006 the Supreme Court found against the applicant. It noted that his allegation of a violation of his right to legal assistance did not stand up to scrutiny as the investigative measures had been taken with the participation of his lawyer. The Supreme Court found his allegation of ill-treatment by the police to be equally unsubstantiated, relying on the prosecutor’s finding in that regard. It noted that the applicant’s confession following his arrest on 7 December 2003 had contained factual details that could only have been known to the person who had committed the robbery and murder in question.