4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Kharkiv, Ukraine. 5.  In June 1995 a certain G. was murdered and criminal proceedings were instituted. 6.  On 9 July 1995 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed the above-mentioned crime; on 11 July 1995 he was charged with the above-mentioned crime and remanded in custody. Alongside the applicant, three other persons (a certain B., K. and D., who were also suspected of the crime and who had been present when G. had been murdered) were also charged. At the later stage of the proceedings the charges against the applicant were disjoined from the rest of the charges and the outcome of the proceedings against B., K. and D. is not clear. 7.  According to the applicant, he was ill-treated during the initial period of the pre-trial investigation by the authorities with the aim of obtaining a confession. It is not clear whether the applicant complained of ill-treatment at the domestic level. Furthermore, on 10 July 1995 he was not provided with a legal-aid lawyer, notwithstanding his request. Apparently, the applicant was legally represented from 18 July 1995. 8.  During the pre-trial investigation B., K. and D. stated that the applicant had murdered G. Later, B. and K. changed their statements in the applicant’s favour, asserting that it was D. who had murdered G. 9.  By November 1995 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the case was transferred to the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Kharkiv. 10.  On 6 February 1996 the court remitted the case for additional investigation. On 9 April 1996 this decision was upheld by the Kharkiv Regional Court. 11.  By December 1996 the pre-trial investigation had been completed and the case was transferred back to the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Kharkiv. 12.  On 4 August 1998 the court remitted the case for additional investigation. On 3 November 1998 this decision was upheld by the Kharkiv Regional Court. On 19 February 1999 the presidium of the latter court rejected the prosecutor’s protest against that remittal. 13.  On 24 March 1999 the applicant was released subject to an undertaking not to abscond. It was noted in the release decision that the applicant had been detained for more than three years, the statutory time‑limit for the applicant’s detention on remand had already expired and there was no need for further detention given the applicant’s permanent place of residence and other circumstances of the case. 14.  On 5 July 1999 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the case was transferred to the Leninskyy District Court of Kharkiv. 15.  On 12 October 2000 the applicant was again remanded in custody. The aforesaid court held that the applicant had threatened his legal-aid lawyer and, as the latter refused to defend him, it was the applicant’s conduct which was thwarting the progress of the case. It also referred to the severity of the charges against the applicant and of the anticipated sentence. 16.  On several occasions the hearings were postponed because of the accused, victim’s, witnesses’ and defence lawyers’ failure to appear before the trial court. 17.  On 25 December 2001, although the applicant pleaded not guilty, the Leninskyy District Court of Kharkiv convicted him of murder and other crimes and sentenced him to thirteen years’ imprisonment. In doing so the court relied on statements by the accused, witness testimonies, forensic reports and other pieces of evidence. In particular, it established that on 20 June 1995, shortly after midnight, the applicant, B., K. and D., having quarrelled with G., had taken the latter to a desolate place and beaten him. After that the applicant had stabbed G. several times and he died. B., K. and D. had buried G. to conceal the crime. The court heard, inter alia, statements by B., K. and D. It found the statements by B. and K. exonerating the applicant untrue, as inconsistent with other pieces of indirect evidence. 18.  On 7 November 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (before June 2001 the Kharkiv Regional Court) quashed this judgment because the trial court had unlawfully refused to make an audio recording of the hearings, and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It also noted that during the retrial all the applicant’s submissions should be duly examined. 19.  The applicant appealed against this remittal but on 28 January 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation. 20.  In November 2002 the case was transferred to the Chervonozavodskyy District Court of Kharkiv. 21.  During the retrial the applicant maintained his “not guilty” plea. 22.  Again, as at the trial, the hearings were postponed on several occasions because of the participants’ failure to appear before the court. 23.  According to the applicant, on several occasions he requested the trial court to summon certain witnesses who in his view would prove his innocence. In particular, on 31 March 2004 he requested the court to summon over twenty witnesses, among whom were the experts who had drew up forensic reports in the case, the prosecutors and the investigators who had dealt with the case. Later, on 13 April 2004 he also requested the court to summon again D., one of the persons who had been present when G. had been murdered. The court, according to him, rejected the requests. 24.  In the course of the proceedings against him the applicant was legally represented by different lawyers appointed under the legal-aid scheme or privately hired. At least on three occasions (on 13 November 2000, some time after 25 September 2001 and on 9 April 2004) he refused their representation as, according to him, they had acted contrary to his defence interests and had colluded with the prosecution, and requested the trial court to replace them with either a particular or any other lawyer. The court dismissed these requests. In particular, on the latter occasion the court, finding that there was no need to replace the lawyer, had regard to the fact that several lawyers had defended the applicant, that the applicant had not been satisfied with any of their services, and that it had already allowed his requests to change his lawyer. 25.  During the retrial the applicant and his lawyer also made several, unsuccessful applications for release (for example, on some date in February 2001, on 2 December 2002, 22 January, 18 April, 13 and 21 November, and 29 December 2003), referring, inter alia, to lack of any justification for further detention, absence of any intention by the applicant to flee during the period when he had been released (that is from March 1999 to October 2000), deteriorated condition of the applicant’s health, impossibility for the applicant to obstruct the criminal proceedings against him as all necessary pieces of evidence had been already taken. In its decisions of 23 April, 17 and 21 November, and 29 December 2003 the court, dismissing these applications, referred mostly to the severity of charges against the applicant or of the anticipated sentence; it also reasoned that no information was available that the applicant could not be further detained because of his state of health or, after having obtained forensic medical report on the applicant’s state of health, that the applicant’s ailments could be adequately treated in detention or merely that the matter had been already examined and applications dismissed. 26.  On 9 April 2004 the applicant also unsuccessfully requested the court to give him the opportunity to familiarise himself with the case file. 27.  On 27 April 2004 the court convicted the applicant of murder and other crimes and sentenced him to seven years and six months’ imprisonment. The court made the same factual findings as in the judgment of 25 December 2001 and again found untrue the statements by B. and K. exonerating the applicant, because the applicant and B. were brothers whereas K. had complained that pressure had been put on him by the applicant and B. In finding the applicant guilty it accordingly relied on earlier, incriminating, statements by B. and K. and the statements by D. made at the pre-trial stage, and on other pieces of indirect evidence. The court also noted, inter alia, that on two occasions the applicant had tried to destroy certain pieces of evidence against him while he was being familiarised with the case file. 28.  The applicant appealed, complaining, inter alia, about the lower court’s failure to summon D. 29.  On 3 May 2007 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal essentially upheld the judgment. It did not expatiate on the above-mentioned complaint by the applicant. Additionally, the Court of Appeal rendered two special rulings (окремі ухвали) drawing the attention of the Kharkiv Regional prosecutor and the head of the Kharkiv Regional Judges’ Council to the procedural shortcomings of the respective authorities in charge of the case (in particular, that certain important pieces of evidence had been lost during the pre-trial investigation and that the judge of the Chervonozavodskyy District Court of Kharkiv had repeatedly failed to comply with procedural formalities to make the case file ready for examination by the appellate court, and had thus protracted the appeal proceedings for two years and six months). 30.  The applicant appealed in cassation; he did not complain about the lower courts’ failure to summon D. Nor did he complain that he had been ill-treated and not provided with a legal-aid lawyer in 1995. On 3 December 2007 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation. 31.  According to the applicant, shortly after his arrest in 1995 his personal belongings and the property of companies founded by him were embezzled by the domestic authorities. Although he complained quickly, the investigation was initiated only in June 1996 and subsequently was terminated as no person responsible had been identified. 32.  On 14 February 2001 the applicant requested the trial court to take measures to preserve the property of his late parents. According to him, the court rejected this request as it lacked clarity; all his subsequent, allegedly clarified, requests were disregarded by the trial court. 33.  On 9 April 2004 the applicant requested the trial court to return to him certain items of his property which had been seized by the investigator as evidence in the criminal proceedings against him. According to the applicant, the court disallowed this request. 34.  By letters of 12 May, 1 July and 15 December 2003, 24 September 2004 and 30 July 2009 the Registry requested the applicant to provide the copies of certain documents in his case. The applicant, in his turn, requested on several occasions the copies of the abovementioned and other documents but in vain. For instance, on 25 February 2008 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Chervonozavodskyy District Court of Kharkiv to make a copy of the case file. On 15 April 2008 the court rejected the request as not based on law. Eventually however the applicant provided the Registry with the necessary documents.