5.  The applicant was born in 1989 and is currently serving a prison sentence. 6.  In the afternoon of 12 May 2004 a minor, K., was found dead in his apartment, with several knife wounds. On the same day the local prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings in connection with the murder. 7.  The applicant (14 years old at that time) was a school acquaintance of K. Before the incident, K. had invited the applicant to his home on many occasions. 8.  At 5 p.m. on the same day the police visited the applicant’s home. In the presence of his mother the applicant confessed and the police took him to the police station. 9.  The police did not draw up arrest order and the applicant did not have his procedural rights explained to him on that day, as required by Article 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the applicant, he was questioned about the incident and subjected to ill-treatment by the police. 10.  At 7.50 p.m. on the same day the applicant was examined by a medical expert, who reported abrasions on the applicant’s hand, back, waist and shoulder. The expert opined that the injuries were light and had been inflicted between twenty-four hours and six hours before the examination. The applicant remained in police custody. 11.  At 9.30 a.m. on 13 May 2004 the applicant was given access to a lawyer he had chosen himself. His procedural rights were explained to him, including the right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself, to be informed of the charges against him, to have a meeting with a lawyer before being questioned, to seek to examine evidence, to seek withdrawal of an investigator, to participate in investigative actions, and to lodge complaints. 12.  Between 11.05 a.m. and 3.40 p.m. that day an investigator from the prosecutor’s office questioned the applicant in the presence of the lawyer and a teacher. During that questioning the applicant stated that he had entered the victim’s apartment, using a key he and a schoolmate had stolen from K. beforehand; the applicant’s plan was only to steal money, but when K. arrived unexpectedly and a fight broke out between them he grabbed a knife and stabbed him several times; he then took money and left the apartment. 13.  At 5.10 p.m. on 13 May 2004 an investigator from the prosecutor’s office drew up an arrest order in respect of the applicant, relying on Articles 106 and 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 14.  On 15 May 2004 the applicant was questioned once again. In the presence of the lawyer the applicant confirmed his previous statements. 15.  On 16 May 2004 the local court remanded the applicant in custody as a preventive measure and noted, inter alia, that the applicant had been arrested as a suspect at 5.10 p.m. on 13 May 2004. At the court hearing the applicant was represented by the lawyer. They both submitted, inter alia, that the applicant had acknowledged guilt. 16.  On 6 July 2004 the applicant’s father requested that criminal proceedings be instituted against the police officers, claiming that after arrest the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment, and that the lawyer was allowed in only the next morning. 17.  On 15 July 2004 a forensic medical expert confirmed the conclusions of the medical expert of 12 May 2004. 18.  On the same day the applicant was questioned once again in the presence of the lawyer. He was clear that it was K. who had initiated the fight and that all he could remember was when he found himself holding a knife and K. lying on the floor: he was really scared then. He further submitted that after he was arrested police officers had beaten him up, thus making him confess in detail. 19.  On 17 July 2004 the investigator of the local prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings into the alleged ill-treatment for lack of corpus delicti. 20.  On 18 July 2004 the applicant was further questioned in the presence of the lawyer. The applicant once again stated that he could not remember what happened during the fight with K. until the moment when the latter was lying dead on the floor. 21.  Following the completion of the investigation the case was referred to court for the applicant to be tried. 22.  On 5 November 2004 the Mykolayiv Region Court of Appeal (“the trial court”), having regard to the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment, ordered additional inquiries in relation to those allegations. 23.  On 12 November 2004 the local prosecutor once again refused to institute criminal proceedings into the alleged ill-treatment for lack of corpus delicti. 24.  When questioned by the trial court, the applicant admitted that he had entered K.’s apartment and stolen the money. He could not explain how the murder was committed, as he could not remember what had happened. 25.  On 26 November 2004 the trial court found the applicant guilty of aggravated murder and robbery and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The judgment was based on the self-incriminatory statements made by the applicant on 13 May 2004 and later and other documentary, oral and material evidence. In the operative part of the judgment the trial court ordered that the term of imprisonment be counted from 12 May 2004. 26.  The applicant and his representative appealed against that judgment, alleging, inter alia, that the applicant had committed the murder when mentally disturbed and in a fight with the victim. They further insisted that the applicant’s procedural rights had been infringed, as he had been subjected to ill-treatment and his status as an arrested person had not been formalised straight after the arrest. 27.  On 24 February 2005 the Supreme Court held a hearing in the case and the applicant submitted that there had been an accomplice, A., in K.’s apartment who had committed the murder. He alleged that he had been afraid to tell the truth earlier because he had been threatened by the accomplice, who was much older than him. 28.  The Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s submissions, finding that the applicant’s guilt had been well established by the evidence in the case file and there had been no indication that the applicant’s rights had been violated in the course of the investigation. However, it changed the applicant’s sentence for robbery, reclassifying it as theft. 29.  On 17 June 2005 the prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation of the applicant’s allegations concerning involvement of the accomplice A. in the crimes. 30.  On 10 February 2006 the investigation was terminated as no evidence of A.’s involvement had been obtained.