7.  The applicants were born in 1957, 1961, 1966, 1970 and 1946 respectively and lived until their arrest in St Petersburg. 8.  At the end of the 1990-s a criminal gang was operating in St Petersburg. It was named after one of the applicants as “Shutov’s Gang”. Its members were involved in multiple serious and violent crimes including aggravated murders, kidnappings, armed robberies and extortion. At the time, Mr Shutov was serving as a member of the St Petersburg Legislative Assembly. He was later accused and convicted of orchestrating the gang’s activities. 9. On 20 January 1999 a criminal investigation into the gang’s activities was opened. 10.  The applicants were arrested on the following dates:
-  Mr Gimranov and Mr Dodonov on 26 January 1999;
-  Mr Denisov on 13 February 1999;
-  Mr Shutov on 16 February 1999; and
-  Mr Filimonov on 7 March 2001. 11.  They were placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of participating in a number of serious crimes as members of a criminal group allegedly led by Mr Shutov. 12.  The St Petersburg City Court (hereinafter “the City Court”) extended the period of the applicants’ pre-trial detention several times. 13.  It transpires from the wording of the decisions that the City Court relied solely on the seriousness of the charges as grounds for the continuing detention and rejected a complaint made by the applicants concerning the composition of the bench. The City Court did not examine in detail the need or grounds for continuing detention and extended the applicants’ pre-trial detention by repeating the contents of earlier orders. In the last extension order, made on 6 December 2005, the City Court relied in addition on the need “to secure execution of a conviction”. All of the extensions were upheld on appeal. 14.  On 26 January 2001 the preliminary investigation was completed. Mr Denisov, Mr Gimranov, Mr Dodonov, Mr Shutov and twelve other individuals implicated in the gang’s activities were charged with multiple counts of aggravated murder, kidnapping, armed robbery and extortion. The bill of indictment and material from the applicants’ case (no. 7806) were transmitted to the City Court, where it reached on 29 January 2001. 15.  On 13 April 2001 Mr Filimonov was indicted in separate proceedings for similar offences and his criminal case was transmitted to the City Court and consolidated with case no. 7806. 16.  The first hearing was scheduled for 1 October 2001, but the City Court adjourned it at least eighty-eight times between that date and 27 September 2004 for the reasons summarised as follows: (i) some lawyers failed to appear for no reason; (ii) some of the lawyers excused their absence for health, professional or personal reasons; (iii) the applicants were not escorted to the court on the days they were ill; or (iv) the applicants and/or their lawyers were removed from the courtroom for interrupting the presiding judge and court clerk, addressing the City Court using obscene language and engaging in other unruly behaviour. 17.  On 28 September 2004 the City Court began to examine the case on the merits by inviting the prosecution to read out the bill of indictment. The trial continued, with few interruptions, until 15 February 2006. 18.  The City Court was composed of a professional judge and two lay judges, Ms I. and Ms M., who in 1990 and 1991 respectively had been elected by St Petersburg (then Leningrad) City Council of People’s Deputies (City Council) to serve as lay judges at the City Court. Their terms of service were extended by three presidential Decrees. 19.  On 15 May 2002 and 27 March 2003 the defence unsuccessfully challenged the professional judge, alleging that he was biased against the applicants. 20.  On 12 February 2004 the applicants applied to have their case examined by a jury. Their request was not considered by the court because Mr Shutov was not present in court. 21.  On 27 May and 23 August 2004 the defence unsuccessfully challenged the lay judges Ms I. and Ms M., on the grounds that they lacked the requisite credentials. In particular, they submitted that Ms I. had never been selected as a lay judge, and that Ms M.’s term of office had expired in 1996. They further alleged that subsequent extensions of Ms M.’s term of office by Presidential Decree had been unlawful, and that in any event she could no longer serve in her office following the adoption in January 2000 of a law governing the selection and service of lay judges and the entry into force in July 2002 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, which had abolished lay judges in the Russian judicial system. In support of their argument, they submitted a letter from the president of the St Petersburg Legislative Assembly stating that their archives contained no decisions by City Council dated 22 June 1990, the date Ms I. had allegedly been selected. 22.  On 24 September 2004 the applicants unsuccessfully challenged the professional judge and applied for an examination of their case by a jury. 23.  The applicants challenged the bench up to forty-seven times in total during the proceedings. 24.  Mr Denisov was excluded from the courtroom for misconduct from 17 September 2003 to 17 March 2004, 16 April to 24 September 2004, 27 September 2004 to 19 July 2005 and 21 July to 9 December 2005 after repeatedly challenging the bench and requesting to be tried by jury and engaging in unruly behaviour. 25.  On 27 September 2004 the other four applicants were removed from the courtroom prior to the start of examination of the case on the merits until the end of the submissions, on the same grounds as Mr Denisov. 26.  Mr Gimranov submitted that after the prosecution had finished presenting its evidence, he had been called to the courtroom and invited to testify. He had been removed again after asking about the witnesses’ testimonies or for access to the hearing transcript and an interpreter. 27.  On 26 August 2004 the prosecutor requested the City Court to have the trial moved from the City Court to Kresty remand prison IZ-47/1 in St Petersburg (“IZ-47/1”). The prosecutor explained to the court that Mr Shutov suffered from different health ailments and constantly required medical supervision which was not possible in the courtroom as there was no on-site medical stuff present in the court building, unlike in the remand prison which had a permanent medical post. The prosecutor further submitted that the removal of the trial to IZ-47/1 was also aimed at ensuring the safety of the presiding judge, lay judges and three co-defendants of the applicants who started receiving physical threats in connection with the proceedings and asked for state protection. 28.  On the same day the City Court granted the prosecutor’s request despite protests by the defence, who complained that there would be no access to the public. 29.  According to the documents in the case-file, the members of the general public could attend the hearings in IZ-47/1 after they presented their identity document to the security personnel and obtained a security pass. Between 27 August 2004 and 17 February 2006 thirty-seven individuals were admitted to attend the hearings taking place in IZ-47/1. The City Court allowed video and audio recording during the trial in the remand prison. The journalists were allowed to observe the trial on a television screen in the press-room organised specifically for them in IZ-47/1. 30.  On 28 September 2004 and 2 November 2005 the defence applied to have the trial moved back to the City Court, alleging poor working conditions. Both requests were rejected. 31.  On 16 and 17 February 2006 the representatives of four television channels and six newspapers were present during the trial. 32.  On 15 June 2000 Mr Denisov and G., the lawyer representing him at the time, signed a form acknowledging that they had received sixty-five files of the criminal case for review. 33.  On 16 August 2000 the head of the criminal investigation unit gave Mr Denisov a formal warning for delaying the review of the case documents for no valid reason and notified him that the time allocated to him for studying the case material might be reduced. Mr Denisov signed the warning and explained in writing that he had regularly reviewed the case documents and had done so as quickly as he could. 34.  On 6 September 2000 the head of the criminal investigation unit reported that because Mr Denisov had intentionally delayed the review of the case documents and had refused to review them on several occasions, he and his lawyer had been given eighty days to finish the review, and by 15 January 2001 at the latest. 35.  According to the trial transcript of 28 September 2004, the City Court refused a request by Mr Denisov’s new lawyer, K., to adjourn the hearing in order to review the case documents. The court explained that since Mr Denisov’s lawyer G. remained on the case and was familiar with the material, K.’s request for adjournment was not justified. 36.  On 29 September 2004 the City Court informed the applicants’ lawyers, including K., that they could study the case documents every afternoon after the hearings and during working hours on Fridays. 37.  On 10 November 2004 the City Court ruled that Mr Denisov would be allowed to review the transcript of the hearings from which he had been removed at the end of the deliberations. 38.  On 2 December 2004 Mr Denisov’s lawyer K. informed the City Court that he had reviewed the case documents and had digital copies of them. 39.  From 24 February 1999 to 17 March 2006 Mr Denisov was detained in IZ-47/1. 40.  On 21 May 2007 he complained to the Court that the conditions of his detention there had been inadequate. In particular, he stated that each detainee in his cell had only been allocated 1.5 square metres of space. The cell had not been heated in winter or properly ventilated in summer, and there had been no privacy in the toilet area. 41.  The applicant submitted that on 4 March 2002 and 20 July 2003 the court had refused his request to study certain case material even though he had only studied thirty-two of the sixty-eight files produced by the end of the preliminary investigation. 42.  On 28 September 2004 the City Court had refused to allow his second legal counsel K., who had entered the proceedings that day, time to study the case file. 43.  On 30 September 2004 his counsel had requested that he be allowed time to study the case material and the trial transcript. The City Court had refused, noting that he had had ample opportunity to study the case in advance, and that the trial transcript would be distributed at the end of the proceedings. 44.  On 2 December 2004 and 27 June 2005 his remaining legal counsel K. had requested access to certain evidence and procedural documents. The request had been granted only in part. 45.  On 20 July 2005 his counsel had unsuccessfully asked to be allowed time to study the statements certain witnesses, victims and co-accused had made during the preliminary investigation, and to familiarise himself with transcripts of the hearings held while the applicant had been excluded from the courtroom. 46.  The applicant submitted that even though his native language was Tatar and he was not completely fluent in Russian, he had not been provided with an interpreter despite his requests both during the pre-trial and trial stages of the proceedings. On several occasions the City Court had refused his requests for translations and to allow his partner, Ms. Ch., to act as his non-legal representative in the proceedings, on the grounds that she was not fluent in Tatar. He had also been unable to lodge an appeal against his conviction, as the appellate court had refused to consider his statement of appeal written in Tatar. 47.  The applicant submitted that on 3 November 2005 he had terminated his agreement for legal assistance with his two counsels Z. and Sh. He had informed the City Court that he wished to retain new counsel, but it had refused his request on the grounds that he had not given sufficient reasons why he no longer wished to be represented by Z. and Sh. They had continued to represent him, but according to the applicant, they had not effectively participated in the defence. 48.  On 15 February 2006 the City Court convicted the applicants and twelve other defendants of multiple counts of organising a criminal group, murder and assault, preparing explosive devices and unlawfully storing and carrying firearms. Mr Denisov, Mr Gimranov and Mr Shutov were sentenced to life imprisonment, while Mr Filimonov and Mr Dodonov received sentences of nine and eighteen years respectively. 49.  According to the judgment, the applicants could request to participate in person in the appeal hearing of their case. The applicants appealed.
(a)  Mr Shutov’s request to participate in appeal proceedings 50.  On 27 February 2006 Mr Shutov filed a statement of appeal against his conviction. He did not request to be present during the hearing. On 30 August 2006 he was informed that the hearing of his case on appeal would start on 16 November 2006 in the Supreme Court of Russia (hereinafter “the appellate court”). On the day of the hearing Mr Shutov’s lawyer, S., lodged a request for him to personally participate in the hearing but it was refused. In addition to S., Mr Shutov was represented by two other lawyers at the hearing.
(b)  Mr Dodonov’s request to participate in appeal proceedings 51. On 29 June 2006 the appellate court granted Mr Dodonov’s request to participate in the appeal hearing of his case.
(c)  Appeal judgment 52.  On 21 November 2006 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the applicants’ conviction on appeal. Mr Denisov, Mr Dodonov, Mr Gimranov and their lawyers participated in the hearing, as did Mr Shutov’s three lawyers and Mr Filimonov’s lawyer.