6.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is detained in Verona, Italy, in connection with criminal charges unrelated to the present case.
7.  In the early morning of 22 July 2005 a sales clerk, G., was attacked in a shop in Kharkiv where she worked. She suffered multiple cuts, including a penetrating chest wound, which led to pneumothorax. She was hospitalised in an intensive-care unit.
8.  According to the subsequent findings of the domestic court which convicted the applicant of aggravated robbery (see paragraph 18 below), the applicant had attacked G., whom he had known previously, and seized a certain amount of cash belonging to her employer, the company that ran the shop.
9.  According the applicant’s account, which he maintained throughout the proceedings before the domestic courts and before this Court, G. owed him money and he had gone to the shop to collect the debt. However, G. had attacked him with scissors and, trying to defend himself, he had hit her back, seized the scissors from her and stabbed her with them. When the shop’s alarm had gone off, he had taken the money and run away.
10.  According to the applicant, late on 22 July 2005 he was arrested by the police and taken to a police station where he was questioned about the incident. Allegedly, his request for a lawyer was ignored.
11.  In a statement (объяснение) dated 22 July 2005 taken by a police officer, the applicant gave the account of events as set out in paragraph 9 above.
12.  On 23 July 2005 a number of reports were drawn up: (i) an arrest report according to which the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery; (ii) a record stating that the applicant’s procedural rights as a suspect had been explained to him, including the right to remain silent, to have a legal aid lawyer appointed and to consult him prior to the first questioning; (iii) a record stating that the applicant, having been informed of the right to legal assistance, had decided to waive it; (iv) a transcript of the applicant’s questioning as a suspect: the applicant’s account of events was as set out in paragraph 9 above.
13.  On 25 July 2005 the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert. He repeated his account of the fight with the victim (see paragraph 9 above), adding that in the course of the fight the victim had hit him in the jaw with a mug. He stated that he had not been ill-treated by the police. The expert noted that the applicant had a hematoma on his jaw and a number of cuts on his right hand, and concluded that the injuries were consistent with the applicant’s account.
14.  According to the applicant, at the close of the pre-trial investigation and then, subsequently, in preparation for his appeal, he had not been given sufficient time to study the case file.
15.  On 17 October 2005, at the opening of the trial before the Kharkiv Kyivsky District Court (“the trial court”) the applicant stated that he wished to defend himself and waived his right to legal assistance. He subsequently alleged that he had been forced to do so by the police guards present in the courtroom.
16.  In the course of the trial the applicant repeated the account of events set out in paragraph 9 above.
17.  Also in the course of the trial the applicant asked the trial court to call certain witnesses, without clearly identifying them. He claimed that they could have testified to the existence of the victim’s debt to him and to his good character. The trial court refused his applications in that respect (see paragraph 19 below).
18.  On 18 October 2005 the trial court convicted the applicant of aggravated robbery and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. The court relied on, inter alia: (i) the applicant’s admissions in the course of the trial; (ii) the victim’s court testimony, denying, in particular, having borrowed any money from the applicant, as well as her statements incriminating the applicant given in the course of a reconstruction of the crime scene and confrontation with the applicant; (iii) money and clothes with brown spots seized from the applicant on 22 July 2005;[1] (iv) testimony given by D., the applicant’s girlfriend, who denied any knowledge of the applicant having lent any money and stated, on the contrary, that he himself had been borrowing money from her; (v) the testimony of the victim’s sister and son, equally denying knowledge of any debt. The sister stated that at 7 p.m. on 22 July 2005 in the hospital, the victim had told her that she knew the attacker; (vi) the pre-trial statement of M., a sales clerk in a neighbouring shop, who had stated in the course of the pre-trial investigation that he had seen someone looking like the applicant enter the victim’s shop and then run away from it after the alarm had gone off; he had then discovered the victim injured.
19.  As far as the applicant’s requests to call additional witnesses were concerned, the trial court stated that he had failed to indicate the names and addresses of those individuals, whom he had supposedly informed about the debt and who could have overheard a telephone call he had had with the victim’s son in that connection. The trial court considered those allegations to be an obfuscation tactic on the part of the applicant and pointed out that his girlfriend, with whom he had lived for two years, did not know of any debt. On the contrary, she had testified that he had had no money to lend.
20.  On 14 November 2005 the applicant appealed to the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”). He raised, notably, various matters concerning the assessment of the evidence. He asked the Court of Appeal to provide him with a lawyer.
21.  On 6 January 2006 the applicant reiterated the latter request.
22.  On 2 February 2006 the Vice-President of the Court of Appeal asked the regional Bar association to assign a lawyer for the applicant. There is no indication of any follow-up.
23.  On 20 July 2006 the Court of Appeal held a hearing in the presence of the applicant and the prosecutor, and upheld the applicant’s conviction.
24.  On 21 July 2006 the applicant asked the trial court to appoint a lawyer for him, for the preparation of an appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court. On 28 August 2006 the trial court replied that, as his conviction had been upheld on appeal, there were no lawful grounds for appointment of a legal aid lawyer. The applicant was free to hire such a lawyer himself.
25.  On 4 December 2006 the applicant lodged a handwritten appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. He raised various matters of fact, disagreeing with the lower courts’ assessment of the evidence. He also complained that he had not been provided with a lawyer before the first police interview on 22 July 2005, had been forced to waive his right to legal assistance on 17 October 2005 under duress from the police (see paragraphs 10 and 15 above), and that the Court of Appeal had failed to appoint a lawyer for him.
26.  On 28 February 2007 a Supreme Court judge, sitting in private, rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal on points of law. The judge considered that the applicant’s appeal concerned only matters of fact and assessment of the evidence, which were not grounds for the opening of proceedings.
27.  Following his arrest, in July and August 2005 the applicant was allegedly held in a police station, a hospital and a police temporary detention facility.
28.  On 17 August 2005 the applicant was transferred to the Kharkiv pre‑trial detention centre (“SIZO”). According to him, he was held in a cell that had twenty-four sleeping places, with more than fifty other inmates.
29.  According to the Government, at the SIZO the applicant was held in the following cells:
Cell no.
Dates 
Cell area, in square metres
Number of sleeping places
Square metres per sleeping place
657
17/08/05-18/08/05 1.34
250
07/06/06-16/07/06
no information as that cell no longer existed at the time when the Government submitted their observations
276
 
17/07/06-28/08/06
05/10/06-14/12/06
30.  On 28 August 2006 the applicant was transferred from the SIZO to Kharkiv correctional colony no. 18, where he served the rest of his sentence until being released on 3 October 2012. From 5 October to 14 December 2006 he was returned to the SIZO to enable him to study the case file in preparation for his appeal on points of law.
31.  On arrival at the SIZO, the applicant was examined by a doctor, who noted that he had no health problems at the time. The doctor noted, however, that in 1999 the applicant had been treated for tuberculosis, which was currently inactive. The applicant was recommended periodic courses of prophylactic treatment to prevent the reactivation of his tuberculosis, which he subsequently underwent in the course of his detention. In September 2011 he was diagnosed with the first signs of a cataract in the left eye. Glasses were prescribed and issued to him. On one occasion in October 2011 he was diagnosed with high blood pressure and was given the relevant medication. No other complaints in this respect were recorded. On several occasions in the course of his detention the applicant was treated for seasonal influenza, back pain and headaches.
32.  On 28 January 2008 the applicant’s representative engaged a lawyer practising in Kharkiv to visit him in prison and advise him on legal matters. From 6 to 18 February 2008 the lawyer examined the applicant’s criminal case file.
33.  In a letter to the Court of 12 December 2008, the applicant submitted that the domestic authorities were refusing to provide him with certain documents, which could prove his innocence, for his application to the Court, namely:
(i)  the statement by M. and documents concerning the court’s efforts to summon that witness (see paragraph 18 (vi) above);
(ii)  the statement of the victim;
(iii)  documents concerning a civil claim for damages made by the shop that had been robbed;
(iv)  the transcript of a particular hearing before the trial court;
(v)  statements made by the applicant in the course of the investigation on 22 and 23 July 2005;
(vi)  search and seizure records of 22 July 2005.
The applicant added that he did have copies of the documents from the criminal case file but they were of poor quality, preventing him from sending them to the Court.
34.  On 23 August 2010 the Registry pointed out to the applicant that his application was incomplete and asked him to provide copies of:
(i)  his first appeal;
(ii)  his requests for the appointment of a legal aid lawyer;
(iii)  his appeal on points of law.
35.  On 4 September 2010 the applicant responded by providing copies of his first appeal and his request of 6 January 2006 to the Court of Appeal that a lawyer be appointed for him (see paragraph 22 above). He added that the trial court and the Supreme Court had not provided him with the remaining documents he had requested.