5.  The applicant was born in 1984 and is serving his life sentence in a prison. 6.  On 10 December 2004 the bodies of two women, D. and S., were found in a village – in D.’s house – with numerous stab wounds. The prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings on the same day, and over the following days proceeded to interview those of the victims’ neighbours and relatives who might have known something about the incident. 7.  On 11 December 2004 the police searched the house of Dor., a resident of same village, and found clothes bearing blood traces. According to the case file, on the same day the applicant, who knew both D. and Dor., was summoned in the context of these proceedings by a prosecutor; however, he did not appear. No other details are available in the file in this regard. 8.  On 12 December 2004 police officers arrived at the applicant’s home and asked him to go with them to the investigator from the Tatarbunary prosecutor’s office (“the investigator”). The applicant agreed. On their way they picked up G., an acquaintance of his. 9.  From 10 to 11 a.m. on that date, at Tatarbunary police station, the investigator questioned the applicant as a witness in the context of the above-mentioned criminal proceedings. His testimony did not contain any confessions or incriminating remarks and did not provide any specific information relating to the circumstances of the crime. He submitted, inter alia, that he did not know who could have committed the murder and that on a number of occasions he had seen D.’s husband communicating with two suspicious men. According to the applicant, the police officers had then taken him and G. to a forest. D.’s husband had been there and had offered them money in exchange for their confession to the murder of D. and S., which had been ordered by Dor. The applicant alleged that they had refused and had been tortured by the police until he had finally agreed to plead guilty to the murder, which he had not in fact committed. 10.  A few hours later, at 2.20 p.m., while still at Tatarbunary police station, the applicant made a “statement of surrender and confession” (явка з каяттям). This statement commenced by noting that the applicant had been warned of his criminal responsibility if he refused to testify and that he had been advised of his right under Article 63 of the Constitution not to incriminate himself. In his statement, the applicant submitted that he and G. had murdered D. and S. after being incited to do so by Dor., who had wished to take revenge on the women because she believed that one of them had been having an affair with her partner and that the other one had facilitated the start of the affair. At noon on the day of the murder, Dor. had given them knives, which the applicant described in detail, and they had then gone away. At about 6.30 p.m. on that day they had again come to Dor.’s place and then gone to D.’s house. As they had been approaching D.’s house, they had seen her husband leaving home in his car. They had then entered the house carrying the knives given to them by Dor. in their hands. The applicant had entered first and had seen three women in the kitchen – D. and two others whom he did not know. He had approached one of the women and had stabbed her once or twice until G. had stopped him, saying that she was “from our village” and asking him not to harm her. The applicant had then stabbed D. and the third woman to death while G. had watched. The woman he had injured had sat with her face lowered and with her ears covered by her hands. After both of the stabbed women had fallen to the ground the applicant had gone away; G. had remained, talking to the injured woman.
As G. had been leaving the house he had encountered D.’s neighbour. Then G. and the applicant had gone to Dor.’s home, where they had met T., one of her relatives. Dor. had then arrived and had asked them to leave. G. had taken the applicant’s knife from him and had hidden it in one of some old disassembled bikes standing in the backyard of Dor.’s house. For half an hour they had hidden first in a field and then at a farm until, one after the other, they had gone back to Dor.’s house. The applicant had taken off his jacket because it had been covered with blood and had put on a leather one given to him by Dor. Then they had gone to the garden of G’.s home, where, using diesel fuel, the applicant had burned his clothes (a detailed description of which was provided by the applicant), including the jacket given to him by Dor. Thereafter they had gone to the applicant’s home and then to a disco bar. The applicant also submitted that the “sweater that I was wearing” was at his home; since 10 December 2004 he had not seen Dor. or T. On 11 December 2004 they had gone to Dor.’s house but she had not been at home; they had not checked whether the knife with which he had committed the murder was still in the place where G. had hidden it.
The statement of surrender and confession closed with a handwritten statement by the applicant to the effect that he had given the above evidence of his own free will, with no duress having been applied to him. 11.  From 4.30 p.m. until 6.04 p.m. on the same day, in order to clarify and verify information that the applicant had provided in his confession, the investigator conducted a reconstruction of the crime scene in the presence of attesting witnesses and a specialist on criminal procedure. As can be seen from the video recording of the reconstruction and the relevant verbatim record of this investigative step (which have been provided by the Government to the Court), the investigator invited the applicant – referring to him as “a suspect” – to tell him about the circumstances of the crime that he had allegedly committed. He did not inform the applicant of his right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present. The applicant repeated his confession and provided details in reply to the investigator’s questions. He submitted, inter alia, that he had not witnessed the moment at which G. had hidden the knife, but had only been made aware of the hiding place when G. had told him about it. A subsequent inspection of Dor.’s backyard by the participants in the reconstruction did not uncover any knife in the place indicated by the applicant. In G.’s garden, in the presence of G.’s parents, fragments of burned clothes – which matched the description provided by the applicant – were found. To the investigator’s question regarding whether the applicant had been forced in any way to give evidence during the reconstruction the applicant replied in the negative. The verbatim record of the reconstruction, as well as the record of the review of the reconstruction video, are both signed by the applicant without any statement or comment. 12.  On the same day, at 7.30 p.m., the investigator drew up an arrest report ordering the applicant’s detention as a suspect in the premeditated murder of D. and S. According to the report, the applicant was arrested on the grounds of his statement of surrender and confession, and his right to a lawyer was explained to him. The applicant signed the report and noted that he regretted what he had done. The applicant also signed a separate document explaining his rights as a suspect, including the right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer before his first questioning. When signing the document, the applicant noted that he wished to be legally represented. On the same day, the investigator appointed a legal-aid lawyer, Dym., for the applicant. 13.  On 13 December 2004 the applicant was questioned as a suspect in the presence of Dym. He repeated his earlier statements, elaborating on them in detail: he did not deny that he had murdered D. and S., but he did deny that he had done so for profit. He also submitted that he not had burned all his clothes, as he had stated before. Specifically, he had not burned his trousers (as they had been brand new) but had given them to G. so that he could wash them; he had hidden the leather jacket given to him by Dor. at his home, behind a sofa. On the same date the police officers inspected his home and, in the presence of the applicant’s mother, seized the jacket. The applicant’s mother confirmed that the jacket did not belong to her son. On an unspecified date, G’s mother testified that on the night of 11 December 2004 her son had asked her to wash his trousers, as they had been dirty. While washing them, she had noticed that the water had become blood-red. Her son explained this by stating that he had been involved in a conflict at a disco bar. 14.  On the same date N., the woman whom the applicant had allegedly injured (but not killed) at D.’s home, was questioned. No record of her questioning has been submitted to the Court. The trial-court judgment (see paragraphs 27 and 28 below) suggests that she provided an account of the events that was similar to that given by the applicant; she submitted, inter alia, that D. had addresed the applicant by name while he had been stabbing her. When shown passport photographs of the applicant and G. she identified the applicant as the person who had inflicted injuries upon her and had killed D. and S.; she identified G. as his accomplice. 15.  From 14 December 2004 onwards the applicant, in Dym.’s presence, repeatedly confirmed his confession during different investigative actions (his questioning as a suspect and as accused, the reconstruction of the crime scene, and a confrontation conducted between him and Dor.) and provided details of the murder. When doing so, however, he persistently denied that he had committed the murder for profit. He also stated that he must have been poisoned or placed under some kind of hypnosis by Dor. as in normal circumstances he would have never killed D., as he had known her well and had been on good terms with her. 16.  On 17 December 2004 the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert, who concluded that he had no bodily injuries. 17.  On 20 December 2004 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, G. and Dor. in connection with the aggravated murder of D. and S.; on 21 December 2004, in the presence of Dym., he was charged accordingly. After being informed of his rights, the applicant submitted in writing that he wished to be legally represented. 18.  On 21 April 2005 two sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant were also instituted in respect of (a) the contract murder of D. and S., committed for profit and with extreme brutality, and (b) the applicant having inflicted bodily injuries on N. Those proceedings were joined with those instituted on 20 December 2004. On the same date the applicant’s charges were amended accordingly. 19.  On 27 April 2005 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the applicant and Dym. were given access to the case file, which they then examined in full. 20.  On 03 June 2005 the applicant, G. and Dor. were committed to stand trial before the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal (“the Regional Court”), acting as a first-instance court. 21.  On an unspecified date in June 2005, during the preparatory hearing of the Regional Court, the applicant requested that Dym. be replaced by another lawyer, as the former had failed to provide him with qualified legal assistance. In particular, he had acquainted himself with the case file at a different time than that at which he had shown it to the applicant, while in official documents he had stated that they had been shown the file together. His request was allowed and, on 24 June 2005, Sk., a lawyer hired by the applicant’s relatives, was appointed to the applicant. 22.  During the trial the applicant denied any involvement in the murder of D. and S. and submitted that his confession had been obtained by means of ill-treatment inflicted by the investigating officers, on the orders of D.’s husband. He provided the account of events given in paragraph 9 above. G. made similar statements. 23.  On 25 July 2005 the Regional Court, sitting as a court of first instance, found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. 24.  The applicant and Sk. appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the applicant’s voluntary surrender to the police and other self-incriminating statements had been obtained by the police by means of ill-treatment and in breach of his defence rights. The prosecution also appealed, alleging that the gravity of the offence called for the imposition of penalties stricter than those imposed by the first-instance court. 25.  On 21 March 2006 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, allowed an appeal lodged by the prosecution (having found that the gravity of the crime imputed to the defendants called for the imposition of more severe penalties) and remitted the case for fresh consideration, having also instructed the Regional Court to verify the allegations made by the defendants. 26.  On 11 December 2006 the criminal case was remitted to the prosecutor’s office for further investigation, and on an unspecified date it was sent back to the Regional Court for a new trial. 27.  On 15 January 2008 the Regional Court found the applicant guilty of (i) the premeditated double murder of D. and S., committed in a group, to order and for profit and with particular cruelty, and (ii) causing light bodily injuries to N. It sentenced him to life imprisonment. In doing so, the court referred to various pieces of evidence, which included the identification of the applicant by N. and the fact that she had heard D. addressing the applicant by name when he had been stabbing her; the testimony of the applicant’s and G’s mothers; the results of forensic examinations, which had revealed, inter alia, that blood discovered on the applicant’s sweater had not belonged to him, contrary to his statements, but could have belonged to one of the victims; the statements of witnesses that they had seen the applicant and G. at Dor.’s home during the evening of 10 December 2004; and the confessions made by the applicant “during the reconstruction of the crime scene carried out in the presence of his lawyer” and during other investigative actions conducted in the lawyer’s presence. 28.  The court noted that it considered the applicant’s denial of his guilt during the trial as constituting an attempt to escape criminal responsibility. It went on to note that the applicant had made self-incriminating statements of his own free will and in the presence of a lawyer and that neither the applicant nor the lawyer had raised any complaint when signing the records of the relevant procedural actions. It furthermore observed that at a different stage of the pre-trial investigation the applicant had given a similar detailed account of events that had tallied with the evidence given by N. The list of items of evidence referred to by the court in this context included the applicant’s voluntary surrender to the police and the “records of reconstructions of the crime scene”. 29.  The Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s allegation of ill‑treatment. Having examined the applicant’s medical file and having watched the video recordings of procedural actions undertaken with his participation, it concluded that there was no evidence that the applicant had suffered any physical injuries at the hands of the police. It also observed that in the course of the investigation the applicant had never complained of any ill-treatment but that, in the presence of Dym., he had consistently repeated his confession (including to a forensic psychiatrist), which contained information that had not been known to the police and could only have been known to the perpetrator. The checks conducted by the investigating authorities following his confessions had confirmed the accuracy of his statements. 30.  In a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court the applicant stated, inter alia, that his initial confessions made on 12 December 2004 had been at the heart of his conviction and that this evidence had been obtained under duress and in the absence of a lawyer. More specifically, no lawyer had been present either during his initial questioning as a witness on 12 December 2004 or later on that date, during the reconstruction of the crime scene and when he had made his statement of surrender and confession to the police. His right to remain silent and to legal counsel had not been explained to him until the investigator had obtained, by means of ill-treatment, detailed confessions from him. He furthermore submitted that N. had given false evidence and had been in league with D.’s husband. The applicant’s lawyer, in lodging a separate cassation appeal, also submitted that the applicant had repeated his confession in Dym.’s presence as he had “had no trust in the latter” and had continued to be affected by his ill‑treatment. 31.  On 12 August 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Regional Court of 15 January 2008 (see paragraph 27 above), with some amendments introduced at the request of the prosecution. It noted, inter alia, that the applicant’s guilt had been proved by the statements of N., who had witnessed the crime, and that the accuracy of her statements had been confirmed by other evidence, including by the fact that the applicant had given a similar account of events in his statement of surrender and confession to the police, together with the following statements that he had made. The court furthermore relied on the fact that following the applicant’s initial confessions a sweater bearing traces of the blood of one of the victims had been revealed at his place. 32.  As regards the applicant’s complaint concerning the purported breach of his rights of defence, the Supreme Court dismissed them as unfounded. It noted that as soon as the applicant had been detained as a suspect on the basis of his statement of surrender and confession to the police, he was immediately provided with a lawyer, in accordance with the requirements of the domestic law. 33.  The Supreme Court also dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s allegation that he had been ill-treated by the police, having observed that no bodily injuries had been found on the applicant when he had been searched on 12 December 2004 and following his forensic medical examination five days later (see paragraph 16 above). 34.  The applicant was served with a copy of the above-mentioned judgment on 6 October 2008. 35.  On numerous occasions after the criminal proceedings had been completed the applicant lodged requests with the Regional Court, where the case file was kept, to be provided with copies of his cassation appeals and bills of indictments, as he needed them in connection with his intention to lodge an application with the Court. The Regional Court refused those requests, citing, inter alia, the absence of any legal obligation for it to provide copies of such documents as cassation appeals and noting that the bills of indictments had already been handed over to the applicant. 36.  On 11 February 2009 the applicant lodged his present application with the Court. 37.  By a letter of 4 June 2009 the Court asked the applicant to submit, inter alia, copies of his appeals in cassation against the judgment of 15 January 2008 (see paragraph 30 above). 38.  On 26 August 2009 the applicant asked the Regional Court to provide him with copies of his appeals in cassation. The applicant referred to the Court’s letter and enclosed a copy thereof. No reply was received by the applicant to this request. 39.  In 2010 the applicant again unsuccessfully tried to obtain copies of certain documents in his case file. In his request, he did not mention that he needed them to support his application to the Court. 40.  According to an information note from the State Department for the Execution of Sentences provided to the Court by the Government, after his conviction the applicant maintained contact with his mother and a cousin and, on 12 August 2010, was visited by Sk.