4.  The applicants were born in 1966 and 1975 respectively and are currently detained in Sevan Prison. They are brothers and used to live in and run their business activities from the town of Gavar before their conviction and imprisonment. 5.  On 5 November 2009 a resident of Gavar, H.H., reported to the police that at around 6.20 p.m. his car had been shot at by someone travelling inside a black sports utility vehicle (SUV) on a street in Gavar, as a result of which his son H. and his friend (who had been with him in the car) had received gunshot injuries and had been taken to hospital. 6.  On the same date the Gavar investigative department instituted criminal proceedings for attempted murder and illegal possession of firearms. 7.  In the course of the investigation, a number of people were questioned, including eyewitnesses and police officers. It was determined that at around 1 p.m. on 5 November 2009 the applicants and their friend H.P. had beaten up V.M., the son-in-law of H.H. Later that day the shooting in the street had taken place. The applicants had subsequently gone missing, and H.P. had left the country. 8.  During his interview H.H., who had been given the status of victim in the proceedings, stated, inter alia, that his car had been shot at by someone travelling inside a black SUV. He had seen the first applicant in the vehicle. As the car had driven away, he had recognised it as the second applicant’s car. 9.  A.S., a person close to the applicants’ family and employed by them in one of their businesses, stated in his interview that on the day of the events in question he had met the applicants and H.P. shortly after the shooting and had understood from their conversation that they had shot at H.H.’s car. 10.  S.G., the applicants’ relative, stated during his interview that on the day of the events in question the second applicant had called him to enquire about the incident. In particular, he had tried to find out who had been inside H.H.’s car and what exactly had happened to them. He had later been informed by his son that the people gathered at the scene of the incident had told him that the applicants had shot at H.H.’s car. He had then talked to the second applicant and tried to obtain more specific information from him. He had not denied anything, so it had become clear to him that it had been the applicants who had committed the offence. 11.  M.M., a friend of the mayor of Gavar who was the applicants’ relative, stated in his interview that he had lent his car to the mayor (who had allegedly then helped the applicants to leave town). He had later heard from the people gathered in the street that the applicants had shot at H.H.’s car and fled. He had found his car the next morning entirely covered in mud. 12.  At some point S.K., the first applicant’s friend, was questioned. He stated, inter alia, that in November 2009 the first applicant had called him to ask if he would put up some guests in his empty apartment in Yerevan for a couple of days. On the same day he had met the first applicant and given him the key to the apartment. The next day he had gone to the apartment, where he had found the first applicant and two other men whom he did not know. Several days later he had decided to visit the first applicant and his guests once again, but they had already left. He submitted that he did not know exactly why the first applicant and his guests had been visiting Yerevan and staying in his apartment. 13.  On 10 November 2009 a new set of proceedings was instituted for hooliganism. The applicants and H.P. were charged with aggravated hooliganism and a warrant was issued for their arrest. 14.  On 9 December 2009 H.P. was arrested. He was also charged with illegally crossing the State border. 15.  It appears that H.P. admitted to the charges. During his interview he stated, inter alia, that after the incident with V.M. on 5 November 2009, the applicants had given him various types of firearms, which he had put in the second applicant’s SUV. While driving together with the applicants, they had noticed H.H.’s car in the street, which had turned in their direction and started to follow them. They had then seen that H.H. was armed. The first applicant had screamed to open fire, which H.P. had done from the back seat, where he had been sitting. The applicants had then also fired their guns. The shooting had lasted for about twenty seconds, after which the second applicant had driven towards the centre of Gavar. Several seconds later they had heard shooting behind them. 16.  On 9 April 2010 the proceedings in respect of H.P. were severed from the main proceedings. On 11 May 2010 the Gegharkunik Regional Court convicted H.P. as charged, and he received a custodial sentence. 17.  On 5 May 2010 the proceedings were stayed on the grounds that the identity of the perpetrator of the attempted murder was unknown and, as regards the incident of hooliganism, the accused had absconded. 18.  On 15 June 2010 the applicants gave themselves up to the police and the main proceedings were resumed. During their interviews that day, the applicants refused to answer most questions and pleaded not guilty. 19.  During their interviews on 18 June and 21 June 2010 respectively the applicants pleaded not guilty and denied participating in the crimes they were being questioned about. 20.  On 3 September 2010 the proceedings for hooliganism were severed from the main proceedings and sent to court. 21.  On 7 September 2010 the main proceedings for attempted murder were once again stayed on the grounds that the identity of the perpetrator was unknown. 22.  By a judgment of 26 October 2010 the Regional Court found the applicants guilty of hooliganism. They received custodial sentences and were released. 23.  On 4 March 2011 the proceedings were resumed and the case was assigned to the Special Investigative Service. 24.  On 14 March 2011 the applicants were detained and charged with the attempted murder of two or more persons committed by a group and illegal possession of firearms. The applicants’ rights were explained to them and they exercised their right to be represented by a lawyer. 25.  On 16 March 2011 H.P. was charged with the same offences as the applicants. 26.  On 18 April and 3 May 2011 respectively the applicants were interviewed, but they refused to answer any questions. 27.  According to the Government, on 18 May 2011 a face-to-face confrontation was held between the first applicant and H.H., who maintained his previous statements. During the confrontation, the first applicant maintained his innocence and exercised his right to pose questions to H.H., who gave self-incriminating answers. On the same day a confrontation was held between the second applicant and H.H., who again maintained his previous statements. However, the second applicant refused to answer H.H.’s questions and did not ask him any questions. 28.  On 19 May 2011 the applicants were again questioned in respect of the alleged attempted murder, but they refused to answer questions and maintained their innocence. 29.  According to the Government, at the end of the investigation the applicants and their representative acquainted themselves with the material in the criminal case file. On 16 June 2011 the applicants’ representative lodged a request with the investigator, asking, inter alia, that a confrontation be held between the applicants, A.S. and H.P. This request was refused by the investigator as ill-founded. In particular, the investigator stated that the confrontations requested by the applicants could not be conducted at that stage of the proceedings because (a) a warrant had been issued for A.S.’s arrest and his whereabouts remained unknown, and (b) H.P., exercising his rights as an accused, had refused to take part in a confrontation with the applicants. 30.  On 22 June 2011 the criminal case was sent to the Regional Court for trial. 31.  On an unspecified date H.P. was examined before the Regional Court, but he mainly contradicted his pre-trial statements. 32.  On 13 July 2011 H.H. wrote to the Regional Court to ask that his pre-trial statements be taken into account since he was in another city for health reasons and did not wish to attend the trial as the events had made him suffer psychologically. 33.  In the course of the trial, the Regional Court attempted to secure the attendance of H.H. and H., as well as the witnesses A.S., M.M., S.G. and S.K. 34.  In particular, on 20 July 2011 the Regional Court issued decisions requiring H.H. to appear in court. In reply to those, on 28 July 2011 the Gavar police informed the Regional Court that H.H. was not in the city. According to the relevant police records, H.H.’s wife had told the police that H.H. and H. were in the Nagorno Karabakh Republic for health reasons and had mentioned an address in Yerevan, indicating that H.H. and H. had been living there. However, on 28 July 2011 the Yerevan police informed the Regional Court that H.H. was not at the above-mentioned address. The owner of the apartment had told them that H.H. and H. had rented it for about eight months. However, they had left and she had no information about their whereabouts. 35.  On 4 August 2011 the Regional Court issued new decisions requiring the witnesses A.S., M.M., S.G. and S.K. to appear in court. On 10 August 2011 the Gavar police informed the Regional Court that A.S., M.M., S.G. were not in the city and that they had no information about their place of residence. In particular, it appeared that A.S., M.M. and S.G. had left the country. On the same day, the Yerevan police informed the Regional Court that S.K. was absent from his place of permanent residence, as he had apparently been working in another city. 36.  On 17 August 2011 the Regional Court again issued decisions requiring H.H., M.M., S.G. and S.K, among others, to appear in court. On 24 August 2011 the Gavar police addressed a similar reply regarding the whereabouts of H.H., M.M. and S.G. Specifically, M.M. was apparently in Russia and S.G. had left for Egypt. Meanwhile, by means of a telegram addressed to the Regional Court on 9 August 2011, S.K. asked the court to take into account his pre-trial statements. On 26 August 2011 the Yerevan police informed the court that he was not in Yerevan. 37.  On 24 August 2011 the applicants asked the Regional Court to disregard the pre-trial witness statements of A.S., M.M., S.G. and S.K. but not to exclude them from the list of the witnesses to be heard at trial. 38.  On 14 September 2011 the Regional Court again decided to order H.H. to appear in court. On 22 September 2011 the Gavar police informed the court that daily visits by the police officers to H.H.’s place of residence had not yielded any results and that he had apparently not been seen there for about a year. 39.  On 23 February 2012 the Regional Court convicted the applicants and H.P. as charged and sentenced them to thirteen years’ and twelve years’ imprisonment respectively. In doing so, the Regional Court referred, among other items of evidence, to the pre-trial statements of H.H. and the witnesses A.S., M.M., S.G. and S.K., all of whom had failed to attend the applicants’ trial. The Regional Court also referred, inter alia, to the testimony of more than twenty witnesses obtained during the pre-trial and trial stages; the records of confrontations conducted as part of the investigation; a forensic medical examination report; a complex ballistic and fingerprint examination report; a complex ballistic and forensic chemical examination report; the record of an investigatory experiment; records of an operative-investigative measure; a vehicle inspection report concerning H.H.’s and the second applicant’s cars; a crime scene inspection report; a number plate recognition report concerning the second applicant’s car; transcripts of calls to and from several telephone numbers; and a complex forensic fibre examination report. 40.  The applicants lodged appeals, complaining, inter alia, that the pre-trial statements of H.H. and the witnesses A.S., M.M., S.G. and S.K. had been admitted in evidence against them even though they had failed to attend the proceedings. 41.  On 20 July 2012 the Criminal Court of Appeal upheld the Regional Court’s judgment in full. 42.  The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law, raising similar arguments to those raised in their previous appeals. 43.  On 7 September 2012 the Court of Cassation declared the applicants’ appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit.