5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in the city of Kyiv, Ukraine. 6.  On 14 August 2001 the applicant and Mr Kh. had a meeting with an acquaintance of the applicant, Mr S. According to the applicant, they left the city in Mr S.’s car and at some point they had an argument about the recovery of a debt that escalated into a fight. Mr Kh. hit Mr S. with an empty bottle and then the applicant stabbed the latter with a knife several times. According to the applicant, he had used his pocket knife and had done so solely in self-defence. Mr S. subsequently escaped. 7.  The applicant and Mr Kh. took Mr S.’s personal documents, money and car keys, moved his car to the side of the road and left. 8.  Mr S. was picked up bleeding on the side of the road by Mr and Mrs Sh., who took him first to a police post and then, escorted by police, to a hospital. 9.  On 15 August 2001 the applicant was arrested. 10.  On 16 August 2001 a lawyer, chosen by the applicant’s mother, was appointed to defend the applicant. 11.  On 17 August 2001 the Boryspilskyy District Court of the Kyiv Region decided to keep the applicant in custody. 12.  According to the applicant he was beaten by the police and forced to confess. He maintained that he had lodged complaints about this fact with the prosecutor’s office, but received no reply. 13.  On 5 October 2001 the victim, Mr S., was questioned by the investigator. 14.  On 18 October 2001 Mr S.’s lawyer requested that Mr S. not take part in confrontations due to his worsened state of health. 15.  On 26 October 2001 the forensic medical examination concluded that the victim had about fifteen knife wounds on his chest and neck, including one deep wound in the right side of the chest, the latter being classified as a grievous bodily injury and the other wounds as light bodily harm. 16.  On 30 October 2001 the investigator refused the applicant’s request for a confrontation to be organised with Mr S. on the ground that the latter was ill. 17.  On 5 December 2001 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal held a hearing of the case. Mr S. participated at the beginning of the hearing, but during the break he felt unwell and was given urgent medical treatment. Mr S.’s lawyer requested that the court continue the examination of the case in Mr S.’s absence. 18.  On 18 December 2001 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a court of first instance, sentenced the applicant and Mr Kh. to ten and eight years’ imprisonment respectively for attempted murder and robbery with violence. The court noted the version of events as presented by the applicant and Mr Kh. (see paragraphs 6 and 7 above). The court further established that the applicant and Mr Kh. had conspired to kill and rob Mr S. They had prepared the knife and empty glass bottle in advance and used them in the attempted murder. Since there were no other witnesses to the crime, the court based its findings about the way the crime had been committed and about the conspiracy to kill on the statements made by Mr S. during the pre-trial investigation:
“Having passed the village of Bortnichi, Zh. [the applicant] asked him [the victim] to stop the car, and he did so. When the car had stopped he heard Zh. shouting “Stun” and felt a strong blow to the back of his head, and when the glass shattered around he realised that Kh. had hit him on the head with a bottle. At that moment Zh. started hitting him with something sharp in the chest, neck and head, and the pain caused him to lose consciousness for a moment. Shortly afterwards he felt pain in the left of his neck, which brought him back to consciousness to find that Zh. was standing next to the driver’s door and trying to pull him out of the car and was continuing to stab him in the chest with the knife. Kh., who was near Zh. at that moment, was constantly shouting “Finish him off or he will give us up”, repeating these words several times. Zh. and Kh. then pulled him out of the car together and Zh. stabbed him several more times in the chest and neck with the knife. Then he [the victim] pushed both of them, broke free and escaped. Having hidden in the roadside ditch, he heard Kh. asking Zh. whether he, S., was alive, and Zh. reply “I cut all his veins, he will bleed dry”. Then Zh., trying to calm Kh. down, said that he [the victim] would bleed to death like a chicken ...”
The court further noted that:
“From the statements of the victim S., examined by the court, it can also be seen from their criminal actions that the defendants aimed to murder him.
This is confirmed by the fact that the defendants attacked him together, each of them performed certain actions, they discussed together the results that could occur from inflicting the bodily harm on him and they further did not chase him, being sure that he would die ...
The statements of the victim are not refuted by anything, and are sufficiently confirmed by the objective evidence about the circumstances of the crime: the minutes of the examination of the crime scene, the examination of the material evidence, and the conclusions of the forensic medical examination of the bodily injuries inflicted on the victim.” 19.  The applicant appealed in cassation. In the appeal, the applicant’s lawyer noted in particular that the statements of Mr S. had been read out at the court hearings and that the court had based its conclusions mainly on those statements, even though Mr S. had refused to take part in a confrontation with the applicant during the pre-trial investigation and the defence had had no opportunity to question him in court. 20.  On 20 June 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of the first-instance court. It noted that there had been no violation of the law on criminal procedure that would warrant the quashing of the decision of the appellate court.