4.  The applicant was born in 1984 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Rubtsovsk, Altai Region.
5.  On 2 March 2011 the applicant was arrested. On an unspecified date he was charged with extortion and the murder of Vos.
6.  On an unspecified date a trial by jury was opened in the applicant’s case in the Altai Regional Court.
7.  On an unspecified date the jury returned a guilty verdict against the applicant and three other defendants. By a judgment dated 17 May 2012 the Regional Court sentenced the applicant to nineteen years’ imprisonment.
8.  On 6 September 2012 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the verdict on appeal, in view of contradictory conclusions contained in the jury’s verdict, and remitted the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration.
9.  On 30 January 2013 the jury returned a guilty verdict in respect of the applicant and three other defendants.
10.  On 19 February 2013 juror V. made a statement addressed to the trial judge. She alleged that Ch., Vos’s mother, had repeatedly talked to the jurors during the adjournments. Ch. had informed the jurors that it was the second trial and that the applicant and other defendants had already been found guilty of her son’s murder. Ch. had also advised the jurors to check out the information concerning her son’s murder on the Internet. V. had done so and, as a result, had been influenced by this information when finding the defendants guilty. It appears that the trial judge ordered an inquiry in response to V.’s allegations.
11.  On 25 February 2013 Ch. submitted a written statement denying V.’s allegations.
12.  On 26 February 2013 jury foreperson G. signed a statement in which she indicated that she “had not been aware” of any instances of undue influence on the jury by Ch.
13.  On 27 February 2013 the Regional Court sentenced the applicant to nineteen years’ imprisonment.
14.  On 28 February 2013 the trial judge asked the bailiffs’ service to conduct an inquiry in response to the statement made by juror V.
15.  On 18 March 2013 the deputy head of the bailiffs’ service responded to the trial judge as follows:
“It follows from the reports submitted by the bailiffs ... and the bailiffs’ group supervisor that on the relevant dates the jurors were supervised by the bailiff ... while they were in the courtroom or in the jurors’ room. None of the jurors contacted [the bailiffs’ service] as regards the [jurors’] security or interference with the fulfilment of the jury’s duties.”
16.  Following an appeal lodged by the applicant and two other defendants, on 8 August 2013 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the applicant’s conviction. As regards the applicant’s argument that Ch. had exerted undue influence on the jury, the court stated as follows:
“[The court] rejects as unsubstantiated the argument ... that the jury’s verdict was ... a result of unlawful influence exerted by Ch.
According to the trial record, the jury members were selected in compliance with the requirements set out in [the rules of criminal procedure].
The materials in the case file show that ... Ch. did not exert undue influence on the jurors.
[The court] discerns no violations of the rules of criminal procedure, including those alleged by [the defendants], that would justify the quashing of the verdict.”