5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and is serving a prison sentence in Kotlas, Arkhangelsk region. 6.  On 23 September 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. He remained in custody pending investigation and trial. 7.  On 9 April 2004 the Solombalskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk found the applicant guilty of battery and sentenced him to six months’ community work. The applicant was represented by a State-appointed lawyer. On 28 May 2004 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. It is apparent from the text of the appeal judgment that the applicant was not represented before the appeal court. 8.  On 8 July 2004 the Regional Court found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to 13 years’ imprisonment. The applicant was again represented by a State-appointed lawyer. The applicant appealed against his conviction, alleging that the trial court had erred in its assessment of the evidence. On 20 October 2004 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. It is apparent from the text of the appeal judgment that the applicant was not represented before the appeal court. 9.  On an unspecified date, the correctional facility where the applicant was serving the prison sentence asked the Regional Court to advise as to the execution of the sentence for battery of 9 April 2004. The court fixed the hearing for 18 March 2005. 10.  On 5 March 2005 the Regional Court forwarded to the correctional facility a request to inform the applicant of the date, time and place of the hearing. The applicant signed a statement acknowledging receipt of the notice on 17 March 2005. The relevant part of his statement read as follows:
“I, Aleksandr Leonidovich Dementyev, hereby acknowledge that I have been notified about the hearing to be held at the Arkhangelsk Regional Court concerning the execution of the sentence imposed by the Solombalskiy District Court on 9 April 2004. I have been informed that my attendance at the hearing is not mandatory and that I have a right to participate through a legal representative.” 11.  On 18 March 2005 at 11 a.m. the administrative office of the correctional facility where the applicant was serving a prison sentence informed the Regional Court by phone that the applicant had chosen not to be represented at the hearing. The message was worded as follows:
“[The applicant] has chosen not to be represented by a lawyer at the hearing on 18 March 2005 concerning the execution of the sentence imposed by the Solombalskiy District Court on 9 April 2004.” 12.  On 18 March 2005 at 2 p.m. the Regional Court reconsidered the term imposed on the applicant sentence by the verdict of 9 April 2004. The court converted it into a prison sentence and added it, in part, to the term of imprisonment imposed on the applicant by the murder verdict. As a result, the applicant’s overall prison sentence was increased by one month to take into account his conviction for battery of 9 April 2004. After having examined the applicant’s statement - confirming that he had been apprised of the hearing and his right to attend - and the transcript of the telephone message from the correctional facility stating that the applicant had chosen not to be represented at the hearing by a lawyer, the court decided to hold the hearing in the applicant’s absence. The prosecutor and a representative of the regional department of corrections who attended the hearing considered it acceptable to proceed in the applicant’s absence. 13.  On 31 March 2005 the applicant received a copy of the decision of 18 March 2005 whereby he was also advised of his right to lodge an application for supervisory review of the said decision. No possibility of lodging an appeal was mentioned.