4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lived, prior to his arrest and conviction, in Moscow.
5.  On an unspecified date the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having murdered Ch. He was charged with unlawful purchase and possession of firearms and aggravated murder.
6.  On 11 July 2006 the investigator questioned Sh., who had witnessed Ch.’s murder. Sh. identified the applicant as the perpetrator. On 27 July 2006 she confirmed her earlier statements in the applicant’s presence. On an unspecified date Sh. was admitted to hospital and was unable to attend the trial.
7.  On 28 March 2007 the trial by a jury opened in the Moscow City Court.
8.  On 10 April 2007 the jury returned a guilty verdict. The twelve jurors held the applicant responsible for the murder by ten votes to two, and for unlawful possession of firearms by nine votes to three.
9.  By a judgment of 13 April 2007, the Moscow City Court sentenced the applicant to eighteen years’ imprisonment.
10.  On 18 April 2007 the applicant lodged a statement of appeal in which he alleged, inter alia, that Sh.’s statement had been read out during the trial in contravention of the applicable rules of criminal procedure. On 28 April 2007 he lodged a supplementary statement of appeal “in connection with newly discovered circumstances”. He wrote that he had found out that on several occasions the presiding judge had entered the room where the jurors had been deliberating and advised them to declare him guilty. The applicant asked the appellate court to take evidence from the jurors and to quash the conviction.
11.  On 14 May 2007 Judge Sht., who had presided over the applicant’s trial, refused to amend the minutes of the trial to take note of the applicant’s statement that the judge had been present during the jury’s deliberations, had advised them as to how to fill out the questionnaire and had made comments about the applicant’s character and guilt.
12.  On 21 May 2007 the applicant’s representative obtained a statement, certified by a notary public from N., a juror. The juror stated that during the trial the presiding Judge Sht. had often visited the deliberations room, that he had spoken of the applicant’s guilt as if it had been already established and that he had given them instructions on how to fill out the questionnaire.
13.  On 5 June 2007 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the conviction on appeal. It rejected the applicant’s complaint about the presiding judge’s interference with the jury deliberations in the following terms:
“The [applicant’s] allegations ... that the presiding judge breached the secrecy of jury deliberations and that he entered the deliberations room and told the jury how they were supposed to answer the questions [issued by the judge] are not substantiated.
It follows from the trial record that the defence did not object to the actions of the presiding judge and did not allege any breach of confidentiality of jury deliberations.
The [applicant’s] argument that he learned about those breaches only after the end of the trial is not grounds for quashing the conviction.
The additional documents submitted by the defence – the statement by one of the jurors certified by a notary public – may only give rise to an application to law-enforcement authorities, which would have to decide on the institution of criminal proceedings.
Moreover, the jurors rendered the verdict by a majority vote rather than unanimously ...”
14.  As regards the applicant’s argument that Sh., a witness, was not questioned in person during the trial and that the presiding judge allowed an earlier statement of hers to be read out, the Supreme Court noted as follows:
“The defence did not object to the reading-out of the statement by Sh., who did not appear in court on account of her undergoing treatment in hospital. Neither [the applicant] nor his counsel questioned the authenticity of the medical certificate submitted by Sh.’s counsel ...”
15.  By a letter of 16 July 2007, the Moscow city prosecutor’s office rejected the applicant’s complaint concerning the actions by the presiding judge by reference to the Supreme Court’s findings in the judgment of 5 June 2007.