5.  The first applicant was born in 1971 and is serving a prison sentence in the Vologda Region. The second applicant was born in 1975 and is serving a prison sentence in the Kostroma Region. 6.  On 24 October 2005 the first applicant was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter. He remained in custody pending investigation and trial. His defence was carried out by a State-appointed lawyer, M. 7.  On 24 July 2006 the Vologda Town Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to nine and a half years’ imprisonment. The applicant, but not his State-appointed lawyer, appealed. 8.  On 13 and 21 November 2006 the applicant informed the Vologda Regional Court that he did not wish to be represented by M. in view of the perfunctory nature of the services that she had provided. 9.  On 6 December 2006 another lawyer, Ye., was appointed to represent the applicant before the appeal court. On the same date she studied the case file. 10.  On 7 December 2006 the Regional Court examined the applicant’s case on appeal. The applicant was in a special room in a detention facility from which he could participate in the appeal hearing by means of a video link. Ye. was present in the courtroom. She did not submit fresh grounds for appeal and made oral submissions to the court that appeared to be based on the grounds for appeal originally filed by the applicant. The court upheld the applicant’s conviction. 11.  According to the applicant, at the beginning of the hearing he asked the court to provide him with an opportunity to meet with Ye. in private to discuss his line of defence. His request was refused. He was then removed from the room where the video conference equipment was installed and thus was prevented from following the appeal hearing which took place in his absence. 12.  According to the Government, the applicant had had ample opportunity to communicate with Ye. prior to the appeal hearing via video link. He did not argue before the appeal court that he had been unable to discuss his case with Ye. in order to make sure that she had a sufficiently thorough knowledge of the case as to be able to carry out his defence effectively. The applicant stayed in the video-conference room throughout the appeal hearing and was not prevented in any way from participating in it. 13.  On an unspecified date the second applicant was arrested and charged with murder and robbery. He remained in custody pending investigation and trial. 14.  On 26 December 2006 the Kostroma Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to seventeen years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed, stating that he was not guilty and that the trial court had erred in assessing the evidence before it. 15.  On 12 April 2007 the applicant asked the Supreme Court (acting as the appeal court) in writing to appoint a lawyer to represent him. 16.  On 18 April 2007 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. The applicant participated in the hearing by means of a video link. According to the applicant, the quality of the sound was very poor. He could not hear or understand the judges. He stated that he reiterated his request to be represented before the appeal court; that request was refused. 17.  On 16 September 2010 the Court gave notice of the application to the Government. 18.  On 16 March 2011 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considered a supervisory review appeal lodged by Deputy Prosecutor General. The court acknowledged that the applicant’s right to be provided with legal counsel had been infringed, quashed the appeal judgment of 18 April 2007, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the appeal court. The applicant participated in the proceedings by means of a video link. He was represented by a State‑appointed lawyer, U. 19.  On an unspecified date another lawyer, M., was appointed to represent the applicant. Prior to the hearing before the appeal court, she studied the material in his case file. 20.  On 19 May 2011 the applicant discussed his case with M. by means of a video link. 21.  On the same date the Supreme Court held the appeal hearing. The applicant participated in the proceedings by means of a video link. According to the transcript of the appeal hearing, the applicant agreed that his defence would be carried out by lawyer M. He further asked the court for additional time in which to meet with M. to discuss his defence. The court adjourned the hearing in order to ensure that the applicant could meet with M. 22.  On 20 May 2011 the Supreme Court resumed the hearing. The applicant informed the court that he had discussed the case with M. by means of a video link. The court heard the applicant, M., and the prosecutor. M. did not submit any grounds for appeal; she only made oral submissions to the court that appeared to be based on the grounds for appeal originally filed by the applicant. The Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s conviction in substance, but reduced his sentence to sixteen and a half years’ imprisonment.