6.  The applicants were both born in 1980 and are currently serving prison sentences in Burrel Prison, Albania. 7.  On 31 March 2001, at dawn, three persons wearing blue and white balaclavas robbed a minibus on the line between Tirana and Kukës. The aggressors were armed with two Kalashnikovs and a knife. Having taken the passengers' money and jewellery, they left the scene without causing casualties. 8.  Some hours after the event, the police searched houses near the scene of the crime, including that of Mr Lika (“the second applicant”), where he was having lunch with his father, his brother, B.L., and his friend, Mr Laska (“the first applicant”). 9.  The police officers conducted the said search in the absence of the applicants' lawyer. 10.  According to the police report of the search, the police found in the pocket of the first applicant's jacket two white T-shirts and a blue cloth, made into balaclavas. Moreover, near the house they found some grenades, but failed to find the stolen goods or the weapons that had been in the possession of the aggressors. 11.  The applicants, B.L, and the father were escorted to the police station for questioning. The first applicant requested, but was refused, the presence of his lawyer (H.B). He disputed having had in his possession a balaclava or other form of mask and accused the police of manipulating the evidence. 12.  On the same day, the police officers in charge of the investigation proceeded to the identification of persons and items by the victims of the robbery, pursuant to Articles 171 and 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP”). The applicants' lawyer was not present. 13.  As to the identification of persons, the applicants and B.L., wearing blue and white home-made balaclavas, and two other persons, wearing black balaclavas, were put in a row in the same room in order to be identified. Notwithstanding the fact that the police changed the position of the persons in the room, the victims consistently identified the persons wearing blue and white balaclavas as the aggressors, that is to say the applicants and B.L.. 14.  As to the identification of objects, the victims were asked to identify the balaclavas used by the aggressors, choosing among two black balaclavas, two white balaclavas and a blue one. The victims identified the white and blue balaclavas as those worn by the aggressors. 15.  At 9.30 p.m. on the same day the applicants and B.L. were arrested on suspicion of armed robbery. They were questioned by the police in the absence of a lawyer, notwithstanding the fact that B.L. was a minor at the time and that the applicants had explicitly requested a lawyer to be present. The first applicant accepted that he had in his possession a white T-shirt, transformed by F.N, a police officer in charge of the investigations, into a home-made balaclava. The second applicant stated that the white T-shirt which had been found in the possession of the first applicant was not his. 16.  On 2 April 2001 the applicants and B.L. were charged with one count of armed robbery and one count of illegal possession of arms. On the same day they were questioned by the prosecutor. The first applicant asked to be represented by H.B. The second applicant sought to be defended by counsel. 17.  On 29 June 2001 the General Prosecutor's Office (GPO) requested to inspect the criminal investigation file in respect of the second applicant. On 10 September 2001 the GPO consented to the case being committed to trial. 18.  On 11 September 2001, the prosecutor committed the applicants and B.L. to trial on charges of armed robbery and illegal possession of weapons. 19.  During the hearing of 26 November 2001 before the Puke District Court, (“the District Court”), the applicants contested the charges against them and requested the domestic court to declare null and void the identification carried out by the police of persons and objects, as it had been in breach of the relevant provisions of the CCP. Moreover, they accused the police officers in charge of the investigation of manipulating the evidence against them: the applicants therefore requested the court to summon the police officers as witnesses and to produce at the trial the items considered by the police to be balaclavas, but which were, in their view, simple T-shirts. The applicants requested the domestic court to exclude the illegal evidence against them. As to the charge of illegal possession of arms, the applicants maintained that the investigation had failed to find the weapons used by the offenders during the robbery and it had not been proved that the grenades found had been in their possession. Both applicants were represented by the same counsel, P.Gj. 20.  On 24 May 2002 the District Court dismissed the applicants' request to summon the police officers as witnesses, without giving reasons. Notwithstanding the fact that the court noticed certain irregularities during the investigation stage (such as the absence of a lawyer during the applicants' questioning and during the identification of persons and objects), the court found the applicants guilty of armed robbery on the basis of the eyewitnesses' identification of the applicants as the offenders. Moreover, the court found the applicants guilty of illegal possession of two Kalashnikovs and B.L guilty of possession of a knife. No weapons having been found, the applicants' conviction was based on eyewitness statements. The court sentenced the applicants to thirteen years' imprisonment and B.L. to five years' imprisonment. The applicants were ordered to serve their sentences in a high-security prison. 21.  On 29 May 2002 the applicants appealed to the Shkoder Court of Appeal, (“the Court of Appeal”), on the grounds that the District Court's judgment was the result of unfair proceedings. They argued that the identification had been conducted in flagrant breach of Articles 171-175 of the CCP as they had worn the same balaclavas during the identification parade. Their lawyers' request about the nullity of the acts concerning identification had been rejected by the trial court. They also stated that none of the material evidence (balaclavas), as requested by themselves, had been produced at the trial proceedings. Moreover, the authorities had failed to find the money and the weapons that had been used in the robbery. 22.  On 9 September 2002, the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court's judgment. 23.  On 7 October 2002 the applicants appealed to the Supreme Court. They relied on the same grounds of appeal as before the Court of Appeal. They also alleged that both of them had been represented by the same counsel before the lower courts, at a time when there were inconsistencies in their testimonies given during the criminal investigation. 24.  On 26 December 2002 the Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible as its grounds fell outside the scope of Article 432 of the CCP. 25.  On an unspecified date the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court about the unfairness of the proceedings. He relied on the same grounds as raised before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. 26.  On 17 September 2004 the Constitutional Court, sitting as a bench of three judges, declared the complaint inadmissible. It held that the applicant's complaints did not raise any fair trial issues, but mainly concerned the assessment of evidence, which was the function of the lower courts. 27.  The applicants alleged that they had been ill-treated by F.N. and other police officers during police questioning. They alleged that they had been tied up with ropes, beaten and hosed with cold water during the interrogations. 28.  At the hearings of 26 November 2001 before the District Court, the applicants alleged that they had been ill-treated by the police officers in charge of the investigation, in that the latter had attempted to force them to confess to the robbery and to reveal the location of the stolen goods and the arms used. B.L and the applicants gave the same description of the alleged ill-treatment. 29.  On 24 May 2002 the District Court rejected the applicants' requests on the ground that they had been submitted outside the six-month time-limit. No legal basis was mentioned in the judgment.
 