5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and is currently detained at Nubarashen Prison. 6.  On 1 July 2009 criminal proceedings were instituted on account of the murder of K.S. who had been shot dead at 1.30 a.m. that day in the town of Alaverdi. 7.  The applicant presented himself to the police later that day, surrendered a gun and confessed to the murder. 8.  The applicant was charged the same day with murder and illegal possession of firearms. 9.  On the same date the police interviewed K.M., who was K.S.’s girlfriend and had been present at the scene of the murder. She stated that it had been the applicant, her neighbour, who, after yelling and swearing, had started to shoot at K.S.’s car moments after she had got out of it. 10.  On 3 July 2009 the applicant was questioned. He denied the charges and refused to testify. 11.  When interviewed, S.S., K.S.’s sister, stated that she had been aware of some problems between her brother and a friend of the applicant. According to her statement, the applicant had once called to find out K.S.’s whereabouts. She had then informed K.S. about this and he had become anxious. 12.  K.M.’s parents, S.M. and A.M., stated during their interviews that on the day of the murder they had heard gunshots and that shortly after K.M. had run into their house in tears, saying that the applicant had killed K.S. right in front of her. 13.  On 14 January 2010 the applicant’s brother, V.M., was killed. 14.  At an additional questioning on 9 March 2010, the applicant stated that he had confessed to the murder to cover up for his brother, who had a newborn baby and took care of their parents. The applicant stated that there was no longer any need to cover up for V.M. because he was dead. The applicant’s alibi was that on the day of the murder he had visited his father’s friend V.J. at around 10.30 p.m. and had stayed in his house until around 2.30 a.m. 15.  On 12 March 2010 V.J. was interviewed and denied that the applicant had been in his house until that late. He stated, in particular, that the applicant had indeed come to his house at around 10 p.m. but had only stayed for about an hour or an hour and a half. At around 11.30 p.m. V.M. had come and told the applicant that they needed to go and see someone and they had left. 16.  At a formal confrontation between the applicant and V.J. the latter reiterated his previous statement that the applicant had come to his house at around 10 p.m. and had stayed there for no more than two hours. The applicant did not make any statement. 17.  On 27 April 2010 the bill of indictment was finalised and the case was referred to the Lori Regional Court for trial. The prosecution relied on the following evidence: statements from S.S., K.M., S.M., A.M. and V.J., the record of the formal confrontation between the applicant and V.J., the results of forensic examinations, including a biochemical examination which had shown the presence of gunshot residue on the clothes worn by the applicant on the day of the murder, and the records of various investigative actions. 18.  By a decision of 13 May 2010 the Regional Court scheduled the first hearing in the applicant’s case to take place on 21 May 2010. 19.  By a letter of 14 May 2010 the Regional Court summoned K.M. to appear at the hearing of 21 May 2010. The summons was returned to the Regional Court. 20.  The Regional Court summoned K.M., S.M. and V.J. to a rescheduled hearing on 17 June 2010. 21.  On 17 June 2010 the Regional Court held a hearing at which the duly summoned K.M., S.M. and V.J. failed to appear. The Regional Court made a decision to compel the witnesses to attend a rescheduled hearing on 29 June 2010. The enforcement of the decision was assigned to the police. 22.  On 29 June 2010 the police sent a letter to the Regional Court informing it that, inter alia, K.M. was absent from her place of residence. 23.  On the same date the Regional Court held a hearing and, stating that its decision to compel the witnesses, including K.M., had remained unenforced, it decided to order them to appear at the next hearing, to be held on 22 July 2010. 24.  The Regional Court thereafter held at least three more hearings - on 7 September, and 21 and 22 October 2010, each time making decisions to order the absent witnesses, including K.M., to attend. According to certificates delivered by the police on 20 and 25 October 2010, K.M. was absent from her place of residence when the police visited. The certificate of 20 October 2010 stated that S.M. told the police that her daughter was abroad. 25.  The Regional Court eventually examined the applicant’s case in K.M.’s absence. 26.  On 4 November 2010 the Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to thirteen years’ imprisonment. In doing so, it stated, in particular, the following:
“Examination and evaluation of the evidence:
On 1 July 2009 ... [the applicant] made a confession ... and, having surrendered a gun, stated that he had shot at [K.S.’s] car that night ...
In the course of the investigation [the applicant] did not accept the charges against him stating that his deceased brother [V.M.] had killed [K.S.]; he had been in ... [V.J.’s] house ...
At the trial [the applicant] pleaded not guilty ...
The crime committed by [the applicant] is proven by the following evidence collected in the case:
The statement of the victim’s legal heir, the witness S.S. ...
... the pre-trial statement of the witness K.M. ...
... the pre-trial statements of the witnesses S.M. and A.M. ...
... the pre-trial statement of the witness V.J. by which he entirely denied [the applicant’s] statement that at the time of the murder [the applicant] had been in his house.
[V.J.] maintained his statement during the confrontation with [the applicant] ...
... the record of the examination of the scene of the incident ...
... the record of the examination of the body ...
... the record of the examination of the ... car ...
... the record of the seizure of [the applicant’s] clothes ...
... the record of the photo line-up ... according to which K.M. had identified [the applicant] ...
... the record of ... the confession and surrender of the gun ...
The conclusion of the forensic medical examination [concerning K.S.’s injuries] ...
[Other forensic evidence]
The conclusion of the biochemical forensic examination ... that gunshot residue was discovered on [the applicant’s] clothes worn on the day of the incident.
[Material evidence] ˮ 27.  The applicant lodged an appeal, complaining, inter alia, that K.M., the sole eyewitness to the incident and whose pre-trial statement had been the only evidence directly incriminating him in the offence, had not been examined in court. 28.  On 20 December 2010 the Criminal Court of Appeal took over the case and scheduled the first hearing in the case for 11 January 2011. 29.  On 11 January 2011 the applicant’s lawyer applied to the Court of Appeal, seeking, inter alia, to have K.M summoned. The Court of Appeal granted the application as far as the question of K.M.’s presence was concerned and summoned her to appear at the next hearing. 30.  K.M. did not appear before the Court of Appeal. The applicant stated that he then applied to have K.M.’s statements declared inadmissible. According to the applicant, the Court of Appeal decided to address the application during deliberations but then failed to do so. 31.  On 26 January 2011 the Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction, relying on the same body of evidence as the Regional Court. The judgment did not address the issue of K.M.’s non-attendance. 32.  On 22 February 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, complaining, inter alia, about the lack of an examination of the witnesses against him, both in the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal. 33.  On 12 April 2011 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit.