5.  The applicants, two brothers, were born in 1970 and 1975 and are currently serving prison sentences in Sol-Iletsk, Orenburg Region. 6.  On 5 December 2001 the Volgograd Regional Court found the applicants guilty of several murders. 7.  On 23 July 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed that judgment on appeal and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 8.  In September 2002 the criminal case was resubmitted to the Volgograd Regional Court for trial by a professional judge assisted by two lay judges. 9.  On 13 September 2002 the Regional Court extended the applicants’ pre-trial detention, indicating that the measure of restraint should remain unchanged. 10.  According to the second applicant, on 23 September 2002 he lodged two appeals against the extension order of 13 September 2002. The first one, recorded under reference number 35/13/2-218-z, was sent to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the second one, recorded under reference number 35/13/2-217-z, was sent to the Volgograd Regional Court. 11.  On 5 December 2002 the composition of the court was changed and the case was referred to a trial judge and two new lay judges, Mr D. and Ms Mot. 12.  On 17 January 2003 the Regional Court found the applicants guilty of several counts of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment. 13.  On an unspecified date the second applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of 17 January 2003. 14.  On 8 July 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the applicants’ conviction on appeal. According to the second applicant, on that date he also learnt that his appeal of 23 September 2002 had not been included in the case file and that it would not be considered. 15.  On 21 December 2005 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 8 July 2003 by way of a supervisory review and remitted the case to the appellate court for fresh consideration. 16.  By a letter of April 2007 the Deputy President of the Volgograd Regional Court informed Judge V. of the Supreme Court that Mr D. had acted as a lay judge in five criminal trials on 6, 13 and 21 February, 18 March and 11 September 2002, and that Ms Mot. had been a lay judge in three criminal trials on 8 October, 21 November and 30 December 2002. 17.  On 22 May 2007 the Supreme Court upheld, in substance, the applicants’ conviction on appeal. The appellate court held, inter alia, that the participation of the lay judges in more than one criminal trial per year could not undermine the “legitimacy” of the tribunal in the applicants’ case. 18.  On 28 August 2007 the second applicant requested that the time-limit for lodging an appeal against the decision of 13 September 2002 be restored due to the disappearance of the hard copy of his original complaint. 19.  On 21 September 2007 the trial court refused the second applicant’s request, noting that it was no longer possible to establish whether he had lodged the appeal in question in due time or at all. 20.  On 7 May 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the refusal, adding that the second applicant’s complaint of unlawful detention after 13 September 2002 was ill-founded.
С.  Alleged censorship of the second applicant’s letters by the administration of the correctional colony and interference with his right of individual petition 21.  According to the second applicant, on 26 March 2009 he sent an application to the Court via the administration of the correctional colony. The application was not received by the Court. 22.  On 11 December 2009 the Registry of the Court received the initial letter sent by the second applicant through the administration of the correctional colony on 19 November 2009. 23.  On 14 August 2010 the second applicant received a parcel from his representative. It had been opened by the administration of the correctional colony for the purpose of censoring. The parcel contained documents from the Court, sheets of blank paper and two crossword puzzles. The second applicant received the documents and blank paper. The crossword puzzles were transferred for censorship. One day later the second applicant received the crossword puzzles. 24.  Between July and September 2011 the Court received letters from, and sent letters to, the second applicant’s representative. 25.  On 8 December 2011 the second applicant’s complaints were forwarded to the Government for further observations. By that time, the second applicant had sent sixteen letters to the Registry of the Court through his relatives, his representative and the administration of the correctional colony. 26.  Between 31 July 2007, the date on which the application with the Court was lodged, and 8 December 2011, the date on which the complaints were forwarded to the Government, the Registry of the Court sent nineteen letters to the second applicant either acknowledging receipt of letters or requesting documents. 27.  On 15 May 2006 and 27 December 2007, while undergoing a personal inspection, the applicant had altercations with the guards. 28.  On 15 May 2006 the deputy head of the administration decided to terminate an inquiry into a complaint of ill-treatment lodged by the second applicant. The decision stated as follows:
“At 6.40 a.m. on 15 May 2006 [the second applicant], while being inspected by the guards of the correctional colony, resisted, pushed back one of the guards, Mr Mar., and tried to kick him. [The second applicant] was urged to stop his resistance; however he continued. Therefore [a rubber truncheon] was used. Eyewitnesses, prison guards Mr Mar. and Mr S., confirmed the above-mentioned facts. According to forensic medical examinations conducted on the same day, the [second applicant] had bruises measuring 8 by 2.7 cm and 10 by 2.7 cm on his hips. The experts concluded that the applicant did not need any medical treatment.
In view of the circumstances of the case and [applicable laws], the measures [of restraint] taken against [the applicant] were lawful”. 29.  On 27 December 2007 a forensic medical examination concluded that the first applicant had sustained bruises measuring between 3 by 10 cm and 3 by 15 cm on his hips. 30.  On 28 December 2007 the deputy head of the administration decided to terminate yet another inquiry into the second applicant’s alleged ill‑treatment of 27 December 2007. He dismissed the applicant’s allegations, reiterating verbatim the text of the decision of 15 May 2006. 31.  On 27 January 2008 the regional assistant prosecutor, repeating virtually the same facts and findings as those in the decision of 28 December 2007, acknowledged the lawfulness of the measures taken by the guards of the correctional facility on 27 December 2007. 32.  On 16 November 2010 the second applicant sought to institute criminal proceedings in respect of his alleged ill-treatment on 15 May 2006 and 27 December 2007. 33.  On 17 November 2010, after a pre-investigation inquiry, an investigator of the regional investigative committee, I., refused to institute criminal proceedings due to the absence of corpus delicti. In his decision the investigator relied on the statements made by the second applicant and several guards of the correctional colony. He referred to the facts established by the decisions of 15 May 2006 and 28 December 2007 (see paragraphs 28 and 30 above). The investigator’s decision further reads as follows:
“The authorities conducting the preliminary inquiry are sceptical about [the second applicant’s] allegations, since he tries to conceal his discontent with the regime of the correctional colony and complains about the measures taken by the administration of the colony as being unlawful.
According to the statements of Mr. Kan., an employee of correctional colony IK-6, [the second applicant] is a liar and has a tendency to commit crime. Special measures have been taken against him due to his failure to comply with the regime of the correctional colony. All measures taken were lawful.
... Other employees of the correctional colony stated that no unjustified or unlawful measures had been taken in respect of [the second applicant].” 34.  On 17 December 2010 the head of the investigative committee quashed that decision and remitted all the material for fresh consideration. 35.  On 27 December 2010 the investigator again dismissed the second applicant’s complaint due to the absence of corpus delicti. 36.  On 14 June 2011 the regional prosecutor quashed the decision of 27 December 2010 and remitted the material for fresh consideration. The parties did not inform the Court about the outcome of the proceedings. 37.  According to the second applicant, on 10 August 2009 and in September 2009 he was blindfolded, suspended by his arms and subjected to electric shocks by the guards of the correctional colony. He was unable to identify them. It appears that the second applicant did not bring any proceedings in respect of those events. 38.  According to the second applicant, on 12 May 2010 he was called to the office of the head of the correctional colony and after being threatened to withdraw his application to the Court, he was beaten up by several guards.