5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and is detained in Riga. 6.  The applicant was charged with several counts of organising, inciting and aiding various crimes against persons and property. Two of his eleven co-accused, A.D. and V.P., had given evidence against him when questioned by the police between January and May 2001; when giving that evidence they stated that the applicant had incited them to engage in certain criminal activities. They also gave evidence as regards the alleged involvement of their co-accused, P.B., in some of those criminal activities. According to the records of the police questioning, on all but one occasion A.D. and V.P. were questioned by L.Z., a police officer, and they did not ask for a lawyer. Subsequently, when questioned by a prosecutor on 17 October 2001, A.D. stated that police officers had coerced him into incriminating his co-accused, including the applicant; V.P. told the prosecutor that he would testify in court. 7.  The trial commenced before the Kurzeme Regional Court (Kurzemes apgabaltiesa) on 16 April 2003 and lasted until 16 July 2003. During that period at least ten court hearings were held in the presence of the applicant and his defence council.
At the trial, A.D. and V.P. testified that they had never before met the applicant, and that P.B., who had died in the meantime, had been the instigator of some of the crimes. The court read out the pre-trial statements of A.D. and V.P. When invited to explain the discrepancies between those initial pre-trial statements and their subsequent evidence, they claimed that they had been forced to sign the initial pre-trial statements. A.D. submitted that the statements had been illegible and that he had not been given the opportunity to engage a lawyer. V.P. stated that police officer L.Z. had been writing a record of his questioning while another police officer had questioned him. On 3 May 2003 V.P. lodged with the first-instance court a written request for the court to take into account his submission that the police had coerced him into incriminating the applicant. 8.  On 5 May 2003 L.Z. appeared before the first-instance court. She testified that she had taken statements from the accused. She stated that it was possible that another police officer, R.S., had participated in their questioning. On the same day, R.S. appeared before the first-instance court. He testified that while he had questioned A.D. and V.P., L.Z. had been keeping a record of their respective questioning. L.Z. and R.S. denied the allegations of physical or psychological coercion. The applicant’s lawyer, A.V., was given an opportunity to put questions to them. 9.  On 7 May 2003 A.D. submitted a written request to the first-instance court for it to disregard his pre-trial statements as he had been ill-treated and tortured during the pre-trial investigation in order to force him to incriminate his co-accused, including the applicant. Specifically, he had been constantly beaten and ridiculed: electric currents had been applied to his body through his handcuffs, and narcotic substances had been forcibly injected into his veins. Nobody had offered to assign him a lawyer. He had not complained about these incidents at the time because he had been afraid of retribution. However, after the completion of the pre-trial investigation he had complained to the prosecutor, who had ignored his complaint. 10.  In his closing statement, the prosecutor denied the allegations of A.D. and V. P., emphasising that they had not lodged any complaints prior to the first-instance proceedings. During their initial questioning A.D. and V.P. had given evidence in respect of facts which at that stage had not been known to the police. The credibility of their allegations of coercion was further diminished by the fact that following the death of P.B. they had stated that he had been the instigator of some of the criminal activities in question. 11.  On 14 July 2003 the Kurzeme Regional Court delivered judgment. The court cited the initial pre-trial statements of A.D. and V.P. incriminating the applicant. It did not regard as credible their submissions that police officers had pressured them into giving those statements. The police officers had also questioned another co-accused, I.T., who, unlike A.D. and V.P., had not incriminated the applicant. Furthermore, had the police officers pressurised them into giving their statements, they would have contained more details as regards the applicant’s involvement. A.D. and V.P had signed the statements. The court did not find that their right to legal assistance had been restricted. No complaints as regards the alleged ill-treatment had been submitted or noted down in procedural documents by A.D. or V.P., or their lawyers. A.D. and V.P. had made the allegations of coercion in an attempt to explain why they had subsequently given evidence in favour of their other co-accused, including the applicant, and against their late co-accused, P.B. 12.  The Kurzeme Regional Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. It also ordered his detention. As the applicant was not present at the delivery of judgment, he could not be arrested in the courtroom. He was subsequently declared wanted by the police and arrested more than six years later – on 23 November 2009. 13.  On 23 July 2003 the applicant’s lawyer, A.V., lodged an appeal against the first-instance judgment. He argued that the police officers had pressurised A.D. and V.P. into incriminating the applicant. 14.  On 17 March 2004 the appeal hearing was held before the Criminal Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Krimināllietu tiesu palāta). The applicant did not attend the hearing. A.V. submitted that he did not know his whereabouts. The court adjourned the hearing. At the following hearing, held on 25 October 2004, the applicant was represented by a different lawyer, V.K., who had been retained by the applicant’s wife. 15.  On 25 October 2004 the Criminal Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court, referring to Article 442(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kriminālprocesa kodekss), declined to examine the appeal lodged by A.V. It noted that the applicant, even though he had been summoned, had failed to appear at the two appeal hearings without a valid reason. Similarly, he had failed to attend the closing hearing before the first-instance court. He had been declared wanted and was at large. Given that the applicant had retained V.K. to represent him, he had been aware of the proceedings and had intentionally failed to attend, thereby showing disrespect towards the court. In the applicant’s absence the court was unable to ascertain whether he wished to maintain the appeal lodged by his lawyer. Lastly, proceedings in the case – which required the examination of voluminous material – could not be delayed simply because of the applicant’s unjustified absence. 16.  On 5 November 2004 V.K. appealed against the aforementioned decision to the Criminal Cases Division of the Senate of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Senāta Krimināllietu departaments). He argued that he had not been retained by the applicant but by his wife, on the applicant’s instructions (uzdevumā). The applicant had not received any summons and his family had no information about his whereabouts or the reasons for his absence. V.K. relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and complained of an infringement of the applicant’s defence rights. 17.  On 30 September 2005 the Senate of the Supreme Court by a final decision refused to examine the appeal lodged by A.V. It noted that the applicant had repeatedly failed to attend the appeal hearings and that “in the criminal case at hand only the accused could maintain the appeals lodged by their lawyers”. This decision was sent to the applicant’s address and to V.K. on 7 October 2005. 18.  On 27 October 2004 the Criminal Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court delivered judgment with respect to the appeals lodged by the applicant’s co-accused. It found that the first-instance court had correctly assessed the allegations of A.D. and V.P. as regards coercion. It also found that they had made those allegations in an attempt to explain why they had subsequently given evidence in favour of their co-accused, including the applicant. 19.  On 30 September 2005 the aforementioned judgment was upheld by the Senate of the Supreme Court.