5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and is serving a prison sentence in the Perm Region. 6.  The facts presented below are based on the official version of the events contained in the trial judgment of 25 July 2006. At the time, the applicant was a military deputy prosecutor. 7.  On 24 January 2000 someone broke into the applicant’s flat and stole property belonging to him. The applicant suspected that the theft had been committed by K. He assigned a number of army privates to search for K. 8.  On 29 January 2000 the applicant together with a group of privates and a police officer, M., broke into a flat where K. was hiding. The applicant hit and questioned K. and the latter admitted that he had robbed the applicant’s flat. The applicant and the privates took K. with them. 9.  On the same date, the applicant and M. went to see Kras. at his flat. The applicant asked for the ring that K. had stolen from his flat and sold to Kras. The applicant threatened the latter with a gun and Kras. gave the ring back to the applicant. 10.  In the subsequent days, the privates who were under the applicant’s direct command repeatedly beat K. As a result, K. signed a note acknowledging his debt to the applicant. On several occasions the applicant met with K.’s mother, asking her to repay K.’s debt and threatening her with negative consequences for K. should she fail to comply. 11.  On an unspecified date the applicant ordered the privates to beat up Sh., who had been detained as a suspect in a criminal case. The privates complied. 12.  On 26 April 2000 the applicant ordered the privates to beat up Chern., a witness in a criminal case who had refused to cooperate. The privates beat up Chern. The applicant was present and supervised the beatings. 13.  On 29 April 2000 the privates beat up B., another witness in a criminal case, on the applicant’s order. The applicant was present and supervised the beatings. 14.  On 8 April 2000 the applicant had a fight with Sor. during which he stabbed him. Sor. died. The applicant panicked and hid Sor.’s body in a forest nearby. The body was discovered in August 2000. 15.  On 25 July 2006 the Military Court of Garrison 101 found the applicant guilty of murder, extortion and four counts of abuse of power, and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The court relied on forensic evidence and witnesses’ statements. The majority of the witnesses were questioned in court. Five of them did not attend and the trial judge, R., read out their statements. 16.  The applicant appealed against his conviction. His main argument was that he had been wrongfully convicted. He claimed that the killing of Sor. had been justifiable as he had acted in self-defence; that he should have been acquitted of extortion; and that the prosecution had failed to prove that he had abused his power as regards the beatings of the suspects and witnesses. The applicant also claimed that, in contravention of the applicable rules of criminal procedure, during the preparation of the verdict the trial judge had repeatedly left the deliberations room and that he had prepared the text of the verdict outside Perm where the trial had been held. The applicant relied on written statements made by his counsel, B., and by M., a retired serviceman. In particular, M. submitted that in July 2006, when Judge R. had been supposed to be drafting the judgment in the applicant’s case, he had seen the judge in another town. The judge had talked openly about the applicant’s trial, telling everyone that he would find the applicant guilty and sentence him to a long term of imprisonment. The applicant also complained that the trial court had failed to question five witnesses. 17.  On an unspecified date the applicant retained counsel P. On 27 March and 17 April 2007 P. submitted twelve additional statements of appeal. The appeal court refused to accept them, holding that they had been submitted outside the time-limit, given that counsel P. had not submitted the original statement of appeal. 18.  Following the applicant’s appeal, on 22 June 2007 the Military Court of the Third Circuit upheld his conviction in substance. As regards the applicant’s argument that the trial court had failed to question five witnesses, the court noted that three of them had been ill and had been unable to attend the hearing. The court made no comment as regards the remaining two witnesses. It also dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s allegations concerning Judge R., holding as follows:
“There is no evidence showing that [Judge R.] discussed with anyone any issue relating to the [applicant’s case]. Nor does the case file contain any material confirming the [applicant’s] allegations that [Judge R.] made statements in public about the verdict he was drafting ... The allegations made in the statements of appeal do not constitute such evidence either.” 19.  On an unspecified date the applicant applied for a supervisory review of his conviction. He reiterated the arguments raised in his statement of appeal. 20.  On 26 January 2009 the Presidium of the Military Court of the Third Circuit conducted a supervisory review and upheld the applicant’s conviction. The court discerned no violation of the rules of criminal procedure and dismissed the applicant’s complaint. 21.  On 23 June 2009 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation noted that the applicant had not been notified of the date and time of the supervisory review hearing, quashed the judgment of 26 January 2009 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. 22.  On 17 September 2009 the Presidium of the Military Court of the Third Circuit conducted a new supervisory review of the applicant’s conviction and upheld it. The court reiterated its earlier findings contained in the judgment of 26 January 2009. 23.  On 10 June 2010 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 17 September 2009 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in view of the unlawful composition of the supervisory-review court. 24.  On 11 August 2010 the Presidium of the Military Court of the Third Circuit conducted a new supervisory review of the applicant’s conviction and upheld it. The Presidium ruled, inter alia, that the trial court’s reliance on the witnesses’ statements had been justified, given that those witnesses had been unable to attend the hearing and that their testimonies had not been the decisive or sole evidence in the applicant’s case. The Presidium dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s argument that the trial judge had failed to comply with the applicable rules of criminal procedure when preparing his verdict. Lastly, the Presidium reiterated its earlier findings as regards the dismissal without consideration of the additional statements of appeal lodged by counsel P.