5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and, at the time of his latest communication with the Court, was detained in Kirovograd.
6.  The applicant, who had a number of prior drugs-related convictions, was targeted in an undercover operation in the form of a test purchase of drugs.
7.  According to the decisions of the domestic courts, P., apparently a private individual recruited by the police as an undercover agent, was supplied with cash in front of attesting witnesses and, subsequently, out of their sight, made three purchases from the applicant and returned with syringes filled with opium, which he handed over to the police in the presence of the witnesses. The first purchase was video-recorded, apparently with a hidden camera (see paragraph 15 below).
8.  The applicant was subsequently convicted of selling P. small quantities of an opioid substance on three occasions, namely on 26 February and 6 and 9 March 2007 (see paragraph 21 below).
9.  On 9 March 2007 the applicant was arrested. At the opening of his subsequent trial the applicant admitted that at the time of his arrest he had had a drug-filled syringe in his sleeve and, in trying to get rid of the drug, had ejected the liquid over his sweater and had thrown it on the ground near him. At some point in the proceedings he started denying that he had a syringe on him at the moment of arrest, even though he continued to admit that that day he had purchased drugs for his own consumption (see paragraph 19 below).
10.  The police had pushed the applicant to the ground and handcuffed him. According to the applicant, after he had been immobilised on the ground the police had continued to drag him around, causing him pain and humiliation.
11.  On the day of the arrest the two arresting officers filed reports with their superiors, stating that because the applicant had attempted to destroy evidence during the arrest they had deployed force (“були застосовані заходи впливу”) to prevent him from doing so, and had handcuffed him.
12.  On 15 March 2007 the applicant’s lawyer requested the investigator to order a medical examination for the applicant. The lawyer stated that the applicant had been beaten up by the police while being arrested, and also subsequently at a police station. On the same day the applicant was examined by a medical expert, who noted that the applicant had abrasions on his right hand and shin and on both knees, which could have been sustained on 9 March 2007. Abrasions on his legs could have been caused by a fall.
13.  On 8 May 2007 the prosecutors refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers who had taken part in the applicant’s arrest. The applicant did not appeal against that decision but continued to allege, before the courts which were dealing with his criminal case, that he had been ill-treated by the police at the time of his arrest. The text of his submissions in that respect has not been submitted to the Court. Those courts (see paragraphs 21, 24 and 26 below) rejected the complaints as unsubstantiated, finding that the police had used force against the applicant during his arrest lawfully, and that the prosecutors had examined the applicant’s complaints in proper fashion.
14.  On the day of the arrest and on several other occasions in the course of the investigation the applicant’s rights as a criminal suspect were explained to him and the investigator attempted to question him. However, the applicant stated that he wished to remain silent.
15.  On 20 April 2007 the police investigator, in the presence of two attesting witnesses, watched a videotape and noted in a report that the tape showed the applicant selling drugs to P. as part of the test purchase. The applicant’s lawyer asked to watch the tape. On 27 April 2007 the investigator refused this request on the grounds that P.’s real identity was being protected and the showing of the tape would lead to the disclosure of P.’s identity and put his life and health in danger.
16.  The applicant submitted to the investigating authority that a certain B. had been with the applicant on the day of his arrest and could confirm that he had bought drugs for his own consumption. The applicant asked for B. to be found and examined as a witness. The applicant identified him by his first and last name and stated that B. lived in “one of the neighbouring streets” but that he did not know the exact address. The investigator ordered the police to search for B. The police reported that their search had been unsuccessful.
17.  P. was questioned by the investigator. He described how he had purchased drugs from the applicant on three occasions as part of a test purchase operation.
18.  The bill of indictment against the applicant, sent to the Kirovograd Kirov District Court as the trial court, identified P. as one of the witnesses to be summoned in the course of the trial. It also identified the police report summarising the video recording of the first test purchase (see paragraph 15 above) as one of the elements of proof against the applicant.
19.  The applicant admitted that he had bought and kept drugs for himself, but not for sale, on 9 March 2007, and that on that occasion he had been accompanied by B. The applicant denied buying or selling drugs on two other occasions. At the opening of the trial the applicant admitted that at the time of his arrest he had had a drug-filled syringe on him and, in trying to get rid of the drug, had ejected the liquid over his clothes. At a later point in the proceedings he started denying that he had had a syringe on him at the time of his arrest.
20.  It appears that during the trial the applicant asked the trial court to disclose to the defence the video recording of the first test purchase and to call and examine P. (the undercover agent), B. (see paragraph 16 above), and the forensic expert who had compiled a report stating that the applicant’s clothes and a syringe found on him on the day of the arrest contained traces of an illegal drug. Those requests were refused, for unknown reasons.
21.  On 26 June 2007 the trial court found the applicant guilty of drug trafficking and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. The court found that the applicant had sold drugs to P. on three occasions in February and March 2007. The court relied on:
(i) the in-court statements by the police officer who had arranged the test purchase and one of the attesting witnesses who had certified the records of that operation (see paragraph 7 above). The witness had described the operation in detail, to the effect that, on three occasions, banknotes with certain numbers had been handed over to P. to buy drugs from the applicant; P. had then returned with filled syringes stating that he had purchased them from the applicant. The police officer gave largely similar evidence;
(ii) written statements by P. and another police officer involved in the organisation of the test purchase, obtained at the pre-trial stage;
(iii) the fact, documented in a police report, that a banknote used by the police for use in the test purchase had been found on the applicant at the time of arrest. It is not clear from the trial court’s judgment on which of the three dates the banknote had been used;
(iv) results of a forensic expert analysis showing that the applicant’s sweater contained traces of drugs, as did the syringes the undercover agent had bought from the applicant.
22.  According to the decisions of the domestic courts, between September 2007 and January 2008, in preparation for his appeal the applicant examined the case file on at least twenty-one occasions.
23.  The applicant and his lawyer appealed, challenging the trial court’s factual and legal findings. They also complained about the court’s refusal to summon P., to order an inquiry into the applicant’s complaints of ill‑treatment by the police, and to examine the video recording of the test purchase. They questioned whether the video actually existed and adequately reflected the events, given that neither P.’s pre-trial evidence nor records connected to the test purchase indicated that it was video-recorded.
24.  On 25 March 2008 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction, finding that no serious procedural violations had been committed in the proceedings and that the conviction had been based on sufficient evidence. The Court of Appeal went on to note that, in addition to the evidence cited by the trial court, the applicant’s guilt was also evidenced by the investigator’s report on the examination of the video recording of the test purchase (see paragraph 15 above).
25.  The applicant appealed in cassation. The parties have not provided a copy of that appeal. The text of the Supreme Court’s decision on the appeal indicates that the applicant raised arguments largely similar to those raised in his first appeal.
26.  On 4 September 2008 a judge of the Supreme Court found that the applicant’s appeal was unsubstantiated, and refused to order a cassation review of the case. In particular, the judge noted that the witnesses on whose statements the conviction had been based had been duly questioned, and that the Court of Appeal had lawfully rejected the applicant’s complaints of lack of access to the case file.
27.  In order to substantiate his application, in particular as regards the complaints of an unfair trial, the applicant submitted a number of requests to the trial court, which had kept the case file, for copies of various procedural documents, including records of court hearings, and his cassation appeal.
28.  On 10 October 2008 the trial court rejected the applicant’s request, stating that the domestic law did not provide for any procedure for a convict to examine a case file after completion of criminal proceedings, when the convict was already serving his sentence. The trial court gave similar responses to the applicant’s new requests on 30 March 2009 and 27 May 2013. On 28 October 2008 the Court of Appeal also gave a similar response.