Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained of the conditions in which he had been detained in Barnaul and of not having had an effective remedy to challenge them, as well as of having been beaten by his interrogators and cell-mates. Relying further on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), he complained of having been refused to be represented by a lawyer of his choice, of the inefficiency of the legal-aid counsel assigned to him, as well as of having been forced to incriminate himself during the questioning after his arrest.
In this case the Court addresses a number of issues pertaining to the notion of a fair trial. Firstly it addresses the question of effectiveness of the legal aid representation. It this respect it stresses out that “assigning counsel does not in itself ensure the effectiveness of the assistance this counsel may provide to his client. Nevertheless, a State cannot be held responsible for every shortcoming on the part of a lawyer appointed for legal-aid purposes. It follows from the independence of the legal profession from the State that the conduct of the defense is essentially a matter between the defendant and his counsel, whether appointed under a legal-aid scheme or privately financed. The competent national authorities are required under Article 6 § 3 (c) to intervene only if a failure by legal-aid counsel to provide effective representation is manifest or sufficiently brought to their attention in some other way.”
It then deals with the right not to incriminate oneself and said that it “is primarily concerned with respecting the will of an accused person to remain silent and presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seeks to prove the case against the accused without resorting to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused. In examining whether a procedure has extinguished the very essence of the privilege against self-incrimination, the Court must examine the nature and degree of the compulsion, the existence of any relevant safeguards in the procedures and the use to which any material so obtained is put.”