5.  The applicant was born in 1971. As of 19 February 2011, the date on which he lodged his application with the Court, he was serving his sentence of imprisonment in a penitentiary institution in Yerevan. 6.  On 27 April 2009 the applicant, together with his friend D.T. and two other persons, D.O. and M.S., went to the town of Goris to visit his friend, M.K., who was serving his sentence in a penitentiary institution there. 7.  Upon their arrival, the administration of the penitentiary institution refused to grant them permission to see M.K. Nevertheless, they were allowed to hand over a parcel to be delivered to him. 8.  The applicant gave money to D.T., D.O. and M.S. to buy food for M.K. and remained in the penitentiary facility in order to start the formalities. He signed a warning concerning the responsibility for sending prohibited items to a prisoner. D.T., D.O. and M.S. brought a cake that they had bought from a local store. The cake was handed over to the administration as a parcel to be delivered to M.K. 9.  Subsequent inspection of the parcel revealed that there was a disposable syringe filled with liquid inside the cake. 10.  On the same date the investigator decided to assign a forensic medical examination of the items discovered. 11.  On 29 April 2009 the expert delivered his opinion, which stated that the substances examined were narcotics. 12.  On 30 April 2009 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant. 13.  On 11 May 2009 the applicant was charged with illegal acquisition and supply of narcotics in large amounts. The applicant denied the charges. His case was that he had not been inside the parcel drop-off room when the cake was handed over. 14.  In the course of the investigation M.S., D.T. and D.O. were questioned as witnesses. 15.  During his interview M.S. stated that he, D.T. and D.O. had bought a cake which they had then given to the applicant. Thereafter they had all entered the room where parcels for prisoners were dropped off and there he had seen the applicant putting the syringe inside the cake and spreading the cream so that it could not be seen. D.T. and D.O. stated that they had given the cake to the applicant before it was handed over to the administration of the penitentiary facility. G.B., the officer of the penitentiary facility who had inspected the parcel, stated during questioning that he had discovered a syringe filled with liquid inside the cake which was to be delivered to M.K. 16.  At a confrontation with the applicant held on 4 November 2009, M.S. reiterated his previous statements. 17.  Following the confrontation, the applicant complained about the way it had been conducted. He complained, inter alia, that the investigator had failed to record a number of important statements proving his innocence and that he had put several questions to M.S. which were neither recorded nor answered. In this connection the Deputy Prosecutor of the Syunik Region questioned the applicant on 6 November 2009 and recorded his complaints. The applicant also requested that another confrontation be held. His complaints remained unanswered. 18.  On 19 November 2009 the bill of indictment was finalised and the case was transmitted to the Syunik Regional Court, sitting in the town of Goris, to be set down for trial. The list of persons to be summoned for trial included M.S., D.T., D.O., residents of the town of Kapan, and G.B., who lived in Goris. 19.  On 26 November 2009 Judge D. of the Regional Court took over the case and scheduled the first hearing for 7 December 2009. 20.  On 1 December 2009 Judge D. summoned M.S., D.T. and D.O. to the hearing. The summonses sent to D.T. and D.O. were returned to the court. The letter addressed to D.T. contained a note made by the courier on 3 December 2009 which stated that D.T. was in Yerevan and the letter addressed to D.O. contained a similar note, made on 4 December 2009, which stated that the latter was abroad. 21.  Having been summoned, M.S. sent a written note to Judge D. stating that he would be in Yerevan for personal business from 4 December until the end of the month and would not be able to appear at the trial. 22.  On 7 December 2009 Judge D. summoned M.S., D.T. and D.O. to the hearing rescheduled for 17 December 2009. 23.  On 17 December 2009 Judge D. made a decision to compel witnesses M.S. and D.T. to appear at the rescheduled hearing to be held on 22 February 2010, given that no valid reasons for their non-attendance had been submitted. The enforcement of this decision was assigned to the police. 24.  Judge D. was thereafter provided with a certificate issued on 19 February 2010 by a hospital in Yerevan according to which D.T. had been undergoing treatment there since 17 February 2010. 25. By letter of 22 February 2010 the police informed Judge D. that M.S. no longer resided at the address indicated and, according to his brother’s statement, had left for Saint Petersburg in January, while D.T. had signed a written undertaking at the police station to appear at the hearing of 22 February 2010. 26.  The hearing of 22 February 2010 was postponed until 9 March 2010 because Judge D. was ill. 27.  By letter of 9 March 2010 the police informed Judge D. that, according to D.T.’s mother, he had left for Yerevan at the end of February to undergo medical treatment. 28.  At the hearing of 9 March 2010 Judge D. decided to proceed with the applicant’s trial in the absence of witnesses M.S., D.T. and D.O. The relevant parts of the record of this hearing read as follows:
“... Witnesses M.S., D.T., D.O. are not present at the hearing before the court, Kapan Police Department has informed us that M.S. has not resided in the city of Kapan since January 2010, he went to Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, and D.T. is receiving medical treatment in Yerevan.
The prosecutor opined:
Proceed with the trial, read out the statements of absent witnesses M.S., D. T. and D.O. made during the investigation.
Defence lawyer ... opined:
Proceed with the trial since, in reply to the court’s decision to compel the witnesses, the Kapan Police Department has stated the impossibility of their attendance.
The accused opined:
Proceed with the trial although my wife saw M.S. 3 days ago.
Having heard the opinions of the parties, the court decides to proceed with the trial and read out the pre-trial statements of absent witnesses M.S., D.T. and D.O.
... the accused replied:
They have not told the truth. [D.O.] has been a bit correct.
I did not enter the drop-off room after the cake was delivered.
It is a lie that I put a syringe inside the cake.
I was not in the drop-off room, I do not know whether [D.T.] is lying or not ...ˮ 29.  On 15 April 2010 the Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to five and a half years’ imprisonment. In doing so it stated, in particular, the following:
“Having assessed the evidence examined ... the court finds it established that [the applicant] illegally acquired ... narcotics, placed them inside a cake and attempted to deliver them to ...prisoner [M.K.] but they were discovered and seized by the officers of ... penitentiary facility during the inspection of the parcel.
[The applicant] pleaded not guilty and reiterated his statements made during the investigation ... that ... when they brought the cake, he had already signed [the papers] ... then they brought the cake and gave it to [G.B.]. He did not touch the cake, did not see or take it ...
According to witness G.B.’s statement before the court, several young men among whom he had recognised [the applicant], came to visit prisoner M.K. The visit did not take place and they wished to hand over a parcel... They left and came back a bit later with a cake. During the inspection of the cake a medical disposable syringe ... was discovered inside the cake...
Witness A.A. stated before the court that he worked in the ... penitentiary facility... he was invited to the parcel drop-off room where he saw a disposable syringe that had been discovered inside a cake ...
... the pre-trial statement of witness M.S. ... which he confirmed during the confrontation with [the applicant] ...
... the pre-trial statement of witness D.T. ...
... the pre-trial statement of witness D.O ...
A warning according to which [the applicant] handed over a parcel addressed to [M.K.] and had been warned about the responsibility for sending items prohibited by law ...
... the record of discovery of a prohibited item ...
... the record of seizure of the discovered prohibited item ...
... the opinion of the forensic expert ...
Thus, the court finds it established that [the applicant] committed the offence charged and that his guilt in committing it has been substantiated.
[The applicant’s] arguments ... are unsubstantiated and are rebutted by the evidence listed above.ˮ 30.  The applicant lodged an appeal complaining, inter alia, that the witnesses against him were not questioned in court. 31.  On 29 June 2010 the Criminal Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction. In doing so, it stated that the Regional Court had duly examined and decided upon the applicant’s motions seeking to have the witnesses questioned in court. 32.  On 20 July 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law complaining, inter alia, of the non-examination of witnesses against him either in the Regional Court or in the Court of Appeal. 33.  On 20 August 2010 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit.