6.  The applicant was born in 1952 and died in 2013.
7.  On 21 February 2002 P., a businessman, contacted the police complaining that the applicant, who was then the director of a municipal housing management agency, was demanding money from him in exchange for permission to use some premises managed by his agency. The applicant had allegedly assured P. that some of the money would be used to bribe representatives of any supervising authorities who might enquire into the use of the premises.
8.  On the same day the police, in the presence of two attesting witnesses, gave P. several banknotes marked with a luminescent substance only visible in special lighting to be given to the applicant as the bribe, and an audio recorder.
9.  Later that day P. went into the applicant’s office and then came out saying that he had delivered the money.
10.  The police went in to arrest the applicant. The same attesting witnesses followed. In their presence, the luminescent substance was discovered on the applicant’s hand and pocket. The marked banknotes were discovered in one of the rooms adjoining his office. These investigative steps were video recorded.
11.  On the same day the applicant wrote and signed a statement confessing to having accepted the money from P. He subsequently retracted the confession, claiming that it had been extracted under “physical and psychological pressure” from the police.
12.  The applicant was charged with fraud, apparently because he actually had no statutory authority to let the premises in question.
13.  In the course of the pre-trial investigation a certain T.V.S., who was apparently an employee of the applicant’s agency, stated that, on an unspecified date, apparently prior to P.’s complaint to the police, the applicant had asked her to show the premises in question to P.
14.  The attesting witnesses made formal statements to the investigating authority describing the events of 21 February 2002 which they had observed. They stated, in particular, that they had entered the applicant’s office after the police and, when they entered, two police officers were already holding the applicant.
15.  In the bill of indictment the victim, the attesting witnesses and T.V.S. were identified as witnesses to be summoned in the course of the trial.
16.  In the course of the trial the applicant pleaded not guilty and argued that the banknotes had been planted on the agency premises by the police, who had also smeared his hand and pocket with the luminescent substance to frame him. The traces of the substance on his hand could come from shaking P.’s hand.
17.  According to the Government, P. testified in the course of the trial on two occasions in April 2004. It appears that he repeated the substance of his statements to the police (see paragraphs 7 and 9 above).
18.  The attesting witnesses were repeatedly summoned to testify at the trial but failed to appear as they could not be found at the home addresses they had given to the authorities. The court records submitted to the Court show that the hearings were adjourned and rescheduled on at least thirty-three occasions due to the “witnesses’ failure to appear” (судовий розгляд відкладено у зв’язку з неявкою свідків) and that the trial court repeatedly requested the help of police and of the prosecutor’s office in locating and escorting the witnesses to the hearings. It appears that those measures concerned both the attesting witnesses and T.V.S. However, despite those efforts, those witnesses failed to appear and their pre-trial statements were read out at the trial.
19.  On 5 October 2009 the Kharkiv Kominternivsky District Court convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced him to two years’ detention in a semi-open penal institution, but waived enforcement of the sentence as it had become time-barred (see paragraph 24 below). In convicting the applicant, the court relied on: the statements of P., the attesting witnesses and T.V.S.; audio and video evidence; police reports documenting the delivery of the marked banknotes to P. and their subsequent discovery, as well as the discovery of the luminescent substance on the applicant’s hand and pocket; statements of the police officers who had organised the investigative actions in question; the results of expert analysis confirming the discovery of the luminescent substance from the same source on the banknotes, on the applicant’s hand and in his pocket; and the applicant’s confession. The court dismissed the applicant’s allegation that his confession had been extracted under duress as unsubstantiated.
20.  The applicant appealed, arguing in particular that P., the attesting witnesses and T.V.S. had not been examined in the course of the trial as they failed to appear at the trial (“которые уклонились от явки в суд первой инстанции”).
21.  On 4 February 2010 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, stating that there was sufficient evidence of the applicant’s guilt. There was no reason to distrust the statements of the victim and the witnesses which were corroborated by the other evidence in the file, including audio and video evidence. The court perceived no reason for the witnesses to falsely testify against the applicant.
22.  In his appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court the applicant stated that the witnesses had ignored summons to appear at the trial and the trial court had failed to ensure their presence. The attesting witnesses had stated that, when they entered the office, the police officers already held the applicant (see paragraph 14 above). This showed that the police were behaving in a violent way towards the applicant and it was comprehensible why he could be intimidated and falsely confess under such pressure.
23.  On 9 June 2010 a Supreme Court judge denied the applicant leave to appeal on points of law. The judge noted that matters of fact were not subject to review by the Supreme Court, that the judicial decisions were based on properly assessed evidence and the conclusions were reasoned and gave no reason to doubt them. The criminal-law characterisation of the applicant’s actions was correct and the punishment lawful. There were no grounds to open review proceedings.