5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Nizhniy Novgorod Region. 6.  On 27 April 1990 the applicant was convicted of threatening to murder, hooliganism, robbery, rape and murder under Articles 207, 206 § 2, 146 § 2, 117 § 4 and 102 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR (the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) and sentenced to death. 7.  On 5 June 1990 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the above judgment on appeal, having amended the legal qualification of the charge of murder under Article 102 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR. 8.  On 14 September 1991, by virtue of Presidential decree no. 8‑1/140‑90, the death penalty was replaced by twenty years’ imprisonment. 9.  In 1997–2008 the domestic courts, at three levels of jurisdiction and on several occasions, brought the legal qualification of the crimes of which the applicant had been convicted into line with the newly enacted Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Federal Law no. 63-FZ of 13 June 1996) and its subsequent amendment (Federal Law no. 162-FZ of 8 December 2003). On each occasion the final sentence – twenty years’ imprisonment – remained unaltered. 10.  The last decision in this connection was taken by the Supreme Court of Russia on 26 June 2008. 11.  On 27 February 2004 new criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of murder. 12.  Police officers allegedly intimidated the applicant and forced him to confess. The applicant alleged that he was subsequently forced to confirm a self-incriminating statement in the presence of legal-aid counsel. 13.  The applicant did not complain about the alleged ill-treatment, because he considered such a remedy ineffective. 14.  On 29 February 2004 the applicant’s custody was changed to detention on remand pending trial. 15.  On 27 May 2004 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the case was sent to the Chelyabinsk Leninskiy District Court for trial. 16.  According to the applicant, at the court hearing of 26 July 2004, while questioning witness M. and victims T. and P., the trial judge P. three times read out an extract from the judgment of 27 April 1990 relating to the applicant’s previous conviction for murder. 17.  According to the Government, the reading out of the 1990 judgment against the applicant was done only once, on 23 August 2004, at the stage of the examination of the case file at the request of the prosecutor during the determination of the term of the applicant’s sentence, and the defence raised no objections. 18.  At the court hearings of 23 August 2004 and 2 September 2004 the applicant asked the court to obtain the attendance of an expert whom he wished to question. His requests were refused by the court. 19.  On 23 August and 25 October 2004 the applicant sought the withdrawal of the judge, without success. In dismissing the applicant’s request for the withdrawal of the trial judge on 23 August 2004 the court indicated that the partial announcement of the applicant’s unspent conviction of 1990 did not constitute a predisposition of the court to deliver a finding of guilt, but served the purpose of full and comprehensive examination of the applicant’s personality as he had earlier been convicted of an analogous crime – premeditated murder. In dismissing the applicant’s challenge of 25 October 2004 the court indicated that the applicant had failed to provide justification for his application for the withdrawal of the judge. 20.  On 29 November 2004 the Chelyabinsk Leninskiy District Court convicted the applicant of threatening murder, bodily harm, murder, and destruction of property, and sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment, taking into account that the applicant had not fully served the sentence handed down on 27 April 1990. 21.  The applicant appealed, claiming in particular that the court which convicted him had been biased and predisposed to deliver a finding of guilt. The applicant referred to the fact that while questioning witness M. and victims T. and P. the judge had read out extracts from his conviction of 27 April 1990, thus “creating an atmosphere of guilt”. He further indicated that he had challenged the judge in view of his attitude, although to no avail, and deplored the fact that the transcript of the trial omitted to mention the judge’s reading out of the judgment of 1990. 22.  On 21 February 2005 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 29 November 2004 on appeal. As regards the applicant’s complaint relating to the alleged bias of the trial judge, the Regional Court held as follows:
“The [applicant’s] arguments concerning bias on the part of the [trial] court – its predetermination to deliver a finding of guilt, the selective record of the course of the trial, and the violation of his rights by the reading out of the judgment of 27 April 1990 – had been addressed during the trial and had been reasonably dismissed as unsubstantiated. The transcript of the trial complies with Article 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation ... The [applicant’s] conviction of 27 April 1990 had not been expunged, therefore the reading out of the judgment [in question] cannot be regarded as having breached [his] rights.”