CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 5 octobre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBD57CE53 { width:21.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8B6082D6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:39.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; list-style-position:inside } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE712D418 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2DF49AA6 { width:24.54pt; display:inline-block } .sA9E99AE7 { width:197.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } FIRST SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 3933/04 by Oleg KOPYLOV and Vera KOPYLOVA against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5   October 2006 as a Chamber composed of:     Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mrs   F. Tulkens ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mr   A. Kovler ,   Mr   D. Spielmann ,   Mr   S.E. Jebens , judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 December 2003, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mr Oleg Viktorovich Kopylov and his mother Ms Vera Nikolayevna Kopylova, are Russian nationals who were born in 1967 and 1939 respectively and live in Lipetsk. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. Criminal proceedings against the first applicant (a) Murder charge On 22 January 2001 at about noon the first applicant was arrested and escorted to the Department of Internal Affairs of the Lipetsk Region. He was told that he was suspected of murder of a policeman. He denied his involvement. It follows from a report by the arresting police officer that the first applicant had been arrested on 22 January 2001 on suspicion of drug trafficking. No drug-related charges were ever brought against him. In the evening the first applicant was transferred to the Dolgorukovskoe police station of the Lipetsk Region where he was beaten up by Mr   Gerasimov (the head of the police station) and Mr Abakumov (the head of the Investigations department). They slapped and kicked him on his head, trunk, and solar plexus. They forced him to kneel down in front of a picture of the murdered policeman and to apologise for killing him. They undressed him and threatened to rape him. Mr   Gerasimov smacked his hands over the first applicant’s ears. He lost consciousness and was handed over to police officers Mr   Kondratov and Mr Trubitsyn who continued beating him. They tied his hands behind his back with a rope and hung him down, put a gas-mask on him and blocked the air vent. At about midnight the first applicant was placed in a punishment cell ( карцер ) at the police station. On 23 January 2001 the first applicant was formally detained and questioned. He denied his guilt and signed an undertaking not to leave the town. However, instead of being released, he was again placed in a cell at the police station. It follows from the register of detainees of the police station that the first applicant was held there from 23   to 26 January 2001. During his detention at the police station the first applicant was repeatedly beaten up by Mr Lukin (the head of the Public safety department), Mr   Abakumov, Mr Gerasimov and Mr Butsan (a deputy head of the police station). He was also punched by police officers Mr   Kondratov, Mr   Trubitsyn, Mr Alyabyev, Mr Panteleyev and Mr   Savvin. They slapped and kicked him on his head, back, stomach, kidneys and liver, hit his eyes with the fingers, smacked the hands over his ears, spat at him. They threatened to rape and kill him. They put a gas-mask on him and blocked the vent, and forced him to inhale cigarette smoke. On 26 January 2001 the first applicant was formally remanded in custody on suspicion of murder. He was told that he was also a suspect in an unrelated case of theft. He was then transferred to the Volovskoe police station of the Lipetsk Region where he remained until 28 January 2001. He was questioned by Mr   Shubin who threatened to beat him up if he did not confess to the murder. On 28 January 2001 the first applicant was brought back to the Dolgorukovskoe police station. Every day from 28 to 31 January 2001 he was severely beaten up by the same policemen. Mr   Alyabyev, Mr Lukin and Mr Kavyrshin administered electric shocks to various parts of his body through wires connected to a dynamo and insisted that he should refuse legal assistance and confess. The first applicant lost consciousness several times. The investigator Mr   Andreyev witnessed the ill-treatment. On 29 January 2001 the first applicant had a talk with Mr   Ibiyev, the investigator in charge of the inquiry into the policeman’s murder. Mr   Ibiyev urged him to confess and threatened that beatings would continue until the confession was made. On 30 January 2001 the first applicant confessed to the murder and his confession was videotaped. Before the videotaping, a police officer Ms   Karavayeva put make-up on his face to conceal the bruises. On 31 January 2001 he was charged with murder of the policeman. He repeated his confession to the investigator Mr   Ibiyev. Before the interview he made a handwritten statement that he did not require legal assistance. On 1 February 2001 the applicants’ flat was searched and their belongings were seized. On 2 February 2001 the first applicant was transferred to detention facility no. YuU-323/T-2 in the town of Yelets in the Lipetsk Region (“the Yelets detention facility”). On the same day the head of the Yelets detention facility ordered that during the convoys the first applicant should be handcuffed and also accompanied by a police dog because there was a risk of his taking hostages. On that day the first applicant had a meeting with a lawyer. The lawyer saw bruises and abrasions on his face and body. On 6 February 2001 the first applicant was examined by a medical expert, Mr Yermakov. The expert noted several bruises and abrasions on his face and body but found that those injuries had been inflicted more than two weeks before. From 9 to 17 February, 29 March to 7 April, 11 to 14   April, and 14 to 19   May 2001 the first applicant was held in the Dolgorukovskoe police station where he was repeatedly beaten up by the same policemen. They tied him up, wrapped him up with a mattress, put him on the floor and jumped on him. They hit his feet by rubber sticks, punched and kicked him, smacked the hands over his ears. They menaced him with a gun and threatened to rape him. They put a gas-mask on him and blocked the vent. They also tortured him with electricity. On 20 March 2001 the applicants’ flat was searched for the second time and further belongings were seized. On 30 April 2001 the police offices of the Dolgorukovskoe police station were granted a bonus for “the skilful solution of the murder”. On 16 May 2001 the murder charge against the first applicant was dropped because he had repudiated his confession and there was no other evidence against him. On 15 January 2002 the Lipetsk Regional Court convicted another person for the policeman’s murder. (b) Robbery charge In the meantime on 28 March 2001 the first applicant was charged with robbery. On 26 September 2001 additional charges of several counts of robbery, theft and unlawful possession of firearms were brought against him. On 12 April 2002 the Lipetsk Regional Court ordered the first applicant’s in-patient psychiatric examination. On 31 May 2002 a panel of psychiatrists of the Lipetsk Regional psychiatric hospital found that the first applicant suffered from a post-traumatic stress disorder. In view of his medical condition, his participation in the court hearings was considered inadvisable. The applicant needed in-patient psychiatric treatment. On 13 June 2002 the first applicant was transferred to detention facility no. 1 in Lipetsk (“the Lipetsk detention facility”). On 27 June 2002 the first applicant, handcuffed, was escorted to the Lipetsk Regional Court for a hearing. After he and his co-defendants refused to enter the courtroom, the presiding judge ordered that they be brought in there by force. It appears from the reports of the escorts that the first applicant and his co-defendants offered resistance and attacked them. They beat the defendants with rubber truncheons. According to the second applicant who witnessed the beatings, the escorts hit the first applicant with truncheons, slapped and kicked him many times. The first applicant fainted. He was dragged by the escorts across the floor into the cage inside the courtroom. The second applicant called an ambulance. The ambulance doctors examined the first applicant and concluded that he had had an epileptic seizure. He was placed at hospital where he was handcuffed to a hospital bed in the corridor. On the next day he was transferred back to the detention facility, the doctors’ objections notwithstanding. On 30 August 2002 the first applicant was transported to the town of Voronezh where he stayed in detention until 6 September 2002. On that day he was transferred to Moscow for an additional psychiatric examination. On his way there he was beaten up by the escorts. On 29 October 2002 the first applicant was examined by a panel of psychiatrists of the Serbskiy State Scientific Institute of Social and Forensic Psychiatry in Moscow. The panel confirmed the findings of the examination of 31 May 2002 and recommended that the first applicant undergo psychiatric treatment. From 30 October to 4 November the first applicant was held in detention facility no. 2 in Moscow. On 4 and 5 November 2002 the first applicant was transferred back to the Yelets detention facility. On 5 November 2002 he was severely beaten up by the wardens. On 9 November 2002 the first applicant was transported to the Lipetsk detention facility. On 17 January 2003 the Lipetsk Regional Court ordered his confinement in a psychiatric hospital. On 31 January 2003 the first applicant was transferred to the Lipetsk regional psychiatric hospital. On 28 April 2003 the Lipetsk Regional Court pronounced the first applicant guilty of several counts of aggravated theft and robbery, relieved him from penalty because of his mental incapacity and ordered his compulsory psychiatric treatment. In the statement of appeal, the first applicant complained about unjust conviction. He alleged that the Lipetsk Regional Court had admitted evidence in breach of domestic law and inaccurately assessed the evidence. The prosecution had not proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. On 26 November 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment on appeal. On 25 March 2004 the Gryazi Town Court of the Lipetsk Region ordered that in-patient psychiatric treatment be replaced by out-patient psychiatric supervision. On 29 March 2004 the first applicant was released from the hospital. Investigation into the alleged ill-treatment (a) Ill-treatment in January to May 2001 Between January and April 2001 the first applicant and his lawyer filed several complaints about ill-treatment with the town and regional prosecutors and with the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation. They asked to initiate criminal proceedings against the policemen of the Dolgorukovskoe police station who had ill-treated the first applicant. On 5 June 2001 the first applicant’s complaints were sent by the Lipetsk Regional prosecutor’s office to the investigator Mr Ibiyev who was tasked to carry out an inquiry. On an unspecified date the Yelets Town prosecutor’s office refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the policemen. That decision was set aside by the Lipetsk Regional prosecutor’s office and an additional inquiry was conducted. In particular, the periods of the first applicant’s stay in the Dolgorukovskoe police station were established, several policemen and the investigator Mr Ibiyev were questioned and a medical examination on the first applicant was performed. On 14 September 2001 the Yelets Town prosecutor’s office again refused to initiate criminal proceedings. On 11 October 2001 the Lipetsk Regional prosecutor’s office reversed the decision of 14 September 2001 because the inquiry had been incomplete. In particular, the Yelets Town prosecutor’s office had not established whether the first applicant had been in good health before the arrest and whether the arrest had been lawful. It had overlooked the evidence which supported the first applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, namely his confession to the murder, later repudiated, and the medical report stating his injuries. On the same day the Lipetsk Regional prosecutor’s office opened criminal proceedings against the policemen of the Dolgorukovskoe police station. The first applicant was granted a victim status. The second applicant joined the proceedings as his representative. On 3 November 2001 two policemen were questioned about the circumstances of the first applicant’s arrest. It appears that no further action was taken until January 2002. On 23 January 2002 the investigator commissioned a medical examination of the first applicant. The examination was performed by experts of the Lipetsk Regional Department of the Ministry of Health on the basis of the first applicant’s medical documents. It was completed on 18   March 2002. In reply to the first applicant’s complaints about the delays in the investigation, on 12 April 2002 the Prosecutor General’s office ordered that the investigation be sped up. In May 2002 the first applicant’s cellmates from the Dolgorukovskoe police station were questioned. They testified that the first applicant had been extremely frightened, complained about ill-treatment, and fainted several times. They had seen marks of beatings on his body. On 4 June 2002 the first applicant was questioned about the circumstances of his arrest and ill-treatment. On 28 June 2002 the expert Mr Yermakov who had examined the first applicant on 6   February 2001 affirmed to the investigator that his findings had been mistaken and that the injuries had been in fact received less than two weeks before the examination. On 24 December 2002 a policeman of the Dolgorukovskoe police station who had escorted the first applicant to the interviews in January 2001 stated that he had seen bruises around his eyes. On 9 January 2003 the investigator Mr Ibiyev was heard. He denied any involvement in the ill-treatment. On 28 April 2003 the first applicant’s lawyer testified that he had been counsel for him since January 2001, that he had been allowed access to him only after his transfer to Yelets (in February 2001), and that he had seen marks of beatings on his face and body. On 16 May 2003 the policemen of the Dolgorukovskoe police station Mr   Abakumov, Mr Kondratov, Mr Trubitsyn, and Mr Lukin were charged with actions committed in excess of powers and in violation of the rights of citizens. On 16 July 2003 the first applicant was for the second time questioned about the ill-treatment. On 28 August 2003 the applicants were informed that the investigation was complete. They were invited to study the case file. The applicants complained to the Lipetsk Regional prosecutor’s office that the scope of the investigation had been insufficient. In particular, the prosecutor’s office had not brought charges against the policemen Mr   Butsan, Mr   Gerasimov, and Mr Savvin who had ill-treated the first applicant, and the investigators Mr Andreyev and Mr Ibiyev who had forged evidence and forced him to confess to the murder. On 28 November 2003 the Lipetsk Regional Prosecutor’s office rejected the applicants’ complaints, finding that there had not been sufficient evidence for prosecuting Mr   Butsan, Mr Gerasimov, and Mr Savvin, and that disciplinary proceedings against Mr Andreyev and Mr Ibiyev had in the meantime became time-barred. On an unspecified date the investigation was resumed and additional inquiry was conducted. On 11 March 2004 an identification parade was held. The first applicant identified Ms Karavayeva who had put make-up on his face before videotaping of his confession in January 2001. On 18 March 2004 the applicant was brought to the Dolgorukovskoe police station where he showed the cells in which he had been detained, and the rooms in which he had been beaten. On 25 March and 26 April 2004 further identification parades were held. The first applicant recognised Mr Alyabyev and Mr Savvin as the policemen who had beaten him and tortured him with electricity. On 7 and 13 April 2004 further interviews with the first applicant were held. On 29 and 30 April, and 5 May 2004 Mr Kondratov, Mr Abakumov, Mr   Panteleyev, Mr Alyabyev, Mr Kovyrshin, Mr Butsan, Mr Lukin, Mr   Trubitsyn, Mr Savvin, and Mr Gerasimov were charged with actions committed in excess of powers and in violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens, involving the use of violence and weapon and entailing grave consequences, an offence under Article 286 § 3 (a, b, c) of the Criminal Code. On 31 May 2004 the applicants were informed that the investigation was complete and were invited to study the case file. However, on an unspecified date the investigation was resumed. On 15 September 2004 a deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation ordered that the investigation continue until 10 January 2005. The applicants challenged before a court the refusal to bring charges against the investigators Mr Pilyayev, Mr Andreyev, and Mr Ibiyev who had unlawfully arrested the first applicant, forged evidence against him and forced him to confess, and against the medical expert Mr   Yermakov who had examined him on 6 February 2001 and had falsely stated that his injuries had been inflicted prior to the arrest. On 9 November 2004 the Lipetsk Regional Court rejected the applicants’ complaints in the final instance. It held that there were no grounds for prosecuting Mr Pilyayev, Mr Andreyev, Mr Ibiyev, and Mr Yermakov. On an unspecified date in 2005 the criminal case against the policemen of the Dolgorukovskoe police station was committed for trial. The trial is pending. (b) Ill-treatment on 27 June 2002 On 1 July 2002 the second applicant asked the prosecutor’s office of the Sovetskiy District of Lipetsk to initiate criminal proceedings against the escorts who had beaten the first applicant and his co-defendants on 27 June 2002. The prosecutor’s office conducted an inquiry. The escorts, the second applicant, a co-defendant and several eye-witnesses were heard. The presiding judge refused to testify. On 15 July 2002 the prosecutor’s office of the Sovetskiy District of Lipetsk found that the first applicant had not complied with the legitimate order of the escorts and that they had lawfully used force against him. In any event, the first applicant did not receive any injuries. The prosecutor refused to initiate criminal proceedings. The applicants challenged the decision before a court. In particular, they submitted that, contrary to the prosecutor’s assertions, the first applicant had received injuries and had been taken to hospital. On 19 October 2004 the Lipetsk Regional Court held in the final instance that the prosecutor’s decision had been lawful. 3. Relevant medical documents It follows from certificates issued by a deputy head of the Yelets detention facility and by a doctor of the same facility that the first applicant arrived there on 5 February 2001. There were bruises around his eyes and crusted abrasions on his wrists. The first applicant complained about headache. He was examined by a neurologist who found no traces of craniocerebral injury. However, he was given treatment for “a prior craniocerebral injury”, allegedly received in 1984. On 6 February 2001 the first applicant was examined by a medical expert Mr Yermakov. It follows from his report that the first applicant had bruises around his eyes, a bruise on his trunk, a bruise on his left hip, and crusted abrasions on his wrists. Mr Yermakov found that those injures had been inflicted more than two weeks before. However, he subsequently stated to the investigator that his assessment had been mistaken and that the injuries had been in fact received less than two weeks before the examination. On 21 February 2001 the first applicant was diagnosed with otitis [1] . On 28 February 2001 the first applicant was X-rayed. No traces of post-traumatic bone deformation were detected. On 21 March 2001 the first applicant was examined by a panel of psychiatrists who concluded that he was mentally sane. The first applicant consistantly complained about aching feet. On 20   April, 20 June, and 16 July 2001 a surgeon examined his feet and found no post-traumatic pathology. However, on 13 and 18   June 2006 doctors detected podoedema [2] and depigmentation of his feet. In June 2001 the first applicant was diagnosed with chronic post-traumatic arachnoiditis [3] . In June and July 2001 he repeatedly complained about headaches, nausea, dizziness, general weakness and recurring loss of consciousness. A neurologist found that he suffered from after-effects of repeated craniocerebral injuries and brain concussions. On 28 August 2001 he was diagnosed with cerebral oedema [4] and post-traumatic deformation of two left ribs. On 1 November 2001 he was examined by a psychiatrist who diagnosed post-traumatic asthenoneurotic syndrome. On 12 February 2002 the first applicant was diagnosed with obliterating endoarthritis [5] and neuropathy [6] of the feet. On 18 March 2002 medical experts of the Lipetsk Regional Department of the Ministry of Health returned the following findings on the basis of the first applicant’s medical documents: - the injuries described in the medical report of 6 February 2001 had been caused 8 to 12 days before the examination of the bruises, and 3 to 7 days before the examination of the abrasions. The injuries could have been inflicted under the circumstances described by the first applicant; - it is not possible to establish with certainty whether the first applicant had received a craniocerebral injury on 24 January 2001. On 7 May 2002 the first applicant was diagnosed with left-side hearing impairment. On 31 May 2002 a panel of psychiatrists of the Lipetsk Regional psychiatric hospital examined the first applicant and concluded that prior to the arrest he had been in good health. In the course of the investigation and detention he had developed post-traumatic stress disorder. The organic personality change and paranoid personality disorder could have been caused by ill-treatment inflicted on him between 22 January and 1 July 2001. It follows from a certificate issued by the head of Lipetsk hospital no. 4 that on 27 June 2002 the first applicant had an epileptic seizure. The hospital doctors also detected hyperemia [7] of his neck. On 29 October 2002 the first applicant was examined by a panel of psychiatrists of the Serbskiy State Scientific Institute of Social and Forensic Psychiatry in Moscow. The psychiatrists confirmed the findings of the examination of 31 May 2002 and recommended that the first applicant undergo psychiatric treatment. On the same day the first applicant was examined by a surgeon who diagnosed him with post-traumatic arthritis of both feet. A neurologist concluded that he suffered from after-effects of repeated craniocerebral injuries and from post-traumatic encephalopathy (a brain disease). It follows from a certificate of 22 November 2003 that the first applicant suffered from left-side deafness and right-side hearing impairment. In 2004 the first applicant was granted disability status and pension. 4. Proceedings concerning compensation for unlawful prosecution and detention The applicants sued the local office of the Ministry of Finance for compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage incurred through unlawful prosecution and detention of the first applicant. They also sued a State-owned newspaper that had published an article about the first applicant’s arrest on suspicion of murder. On 21 June 2004 the Lipetsk Regional Court dismissed in the final instance the applicants’ claims for non-pecuniary damages. It held that the criminal proceedings had been discontinued only in the part concerning the murder charge, that the first applicant had been convicted of robbery and that he had been lawfully detained in connection with the robbery proceedings. The court also dismissed the claims against the newspaper. It found that the article had described in a general manner the murder and the ensuing criminal proceedings, without mentioning the first applicant’s name. In any event, the newspaper had been closed in January 2004. On 30   November 2004 the Lipetsk Regional Court dismissed in the final instance the applicants’ claims for pecuniary damages because they had not proved the existence of a causal link between the first applicant’s prosecution and detention and the damages claimed.   B.     Relevant domestic law For a summary of the relevant domestic provisions, see Mikheyev v. Russia , no. 77617/01, §§   76-82, 26 January 2006. COMPLAINTS 1. The applicants complained about the first applicant’s ill-treatment between January and May 2001, on 27   June, 6   September, and 5 November 2002. The official investigation into the ill-treatment had been inadequate and slow. They further complained about inhuman conditions of the first applicant’s detention and lack of medical care at the Dolgorukovskoe police station, and at the detention facilities in Yelets, Lipetsk, Voronezh and Moscow, and about inhuman conditions of transport from Lipetsk to Moscow and back. They alleged that the first applicant’s detention pending trial from 22 January 2001 to 31 January 2003 had been unlawful and that his complaints about unlawful detention had not been examined fairly and speedily. They finally complained about unlawful searches in their flat. They relied on Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention. 2. The applicants complained under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention about the refusal to pay compensation for the first applicant’s unlawful arrest and detention. 3. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention about unfairness and the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the first applicant. The first applicant was charged with murder in the absence of counsel. He was never charged with robbery, the charges were fabricated and the conviction was unjust. The presiding judge in the robbery case was partial because he had been previously employed by the Lipetsk police office and received pension from the police. The trial court did not examine a witness on the first applicant’s behalf. 4. Under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention the applicants alleged that the compensation proceedings and the proceedings which had ended with the judgments of the Lipetsk Regional Court of 19 October and 9 November 2004 were unjust. They complained about partiality of the judges and incorrect interpretation and application of the law. THE LAW 1.       The applicants complained under Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention about the first applicant’s ill-treatment, unlawful detention and transport in inhuman conditions and without adequate medical assistance, and unlawful searches in their flat. (a)     Insofar as the applicants complained about ill-treatment on 6   September and 5 November 2002, the first applicant’s detention and transport, and a search in their residence, the Court notes that these complaints relate to the period before 31 January 2003, whereas the present application was lodged on 25   December 2003. It follows that these complaints have been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention. (b)     Insofar as the first applicant complained under Article 3 about ill-treatment between January and May 2001 and on 27 June 2002, the Court observes that the investigation into the first incident is still pending, and the investigation into the second incident was discontinued on 19   October 2004. The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this part of the complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of it to the respondent Government. (c)     Insofar as the second applicant complained about the same events, the Court observes that the second applicant was not a victim of the alleged ill-treatment. It therefore considers that these complaints are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35   §   3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §   4. 2.     The applicants complained under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention about the refusal to pay compensation for the first applicant’s unlawful arrest and detention. It appears that there has been no acknowledgment of unlawfulness of the first applicant’s detention at the domestic level. By virtue of the six months’ rule, the Court may not examine whether there have been violations of Article 5 §§ 1-4 relating to his detention. In the absence of the domestic acknowledgment of the unlawfulness of the detention and since the Court is not competent to decide on its lawfulness, Article 5 §   5 is not applicable to the present case (see, mutadis mutandis , Panchenko v. Russia (dec.), no.   45100/98, 10   October 2000). It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35   §   3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §   4. 3.     The Court also examined the applicants’ complaints under Articles 6 and   13 of the Convention. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within the Court’s competence, it finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the first applicant’s complaints concerning the alleged ill-treatment in January to May 2001 and on 27   June 2002 and the subsequent investigation; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President   [1] .     Otitis is an infection and/or inflammation of the internal or external ear. It is usually caused by bacteria, but can be of traumatic origin. [2] .     Podoedema is swelling of the feet and ankles. [3] .     Arachnoiditis describes a pain disorder caused by the inflammation of the arachnoid, one of the membranes that surround and protect the nerves of the spinal cord. [4] .     Cerebral oedema is an excess accumulation of water in the brain. OEdema can occur as the result of many things, including head injury. [5] .   Endoarthritis is a type of arthritis where there is damage caused to the bone joints of the body, resulting in inflammation. Arthritis can be caused from strains and injuries. [6] .     Neuropathy is a disease that affects the nervous system. The common causes of neuropathy are infection, chronic trauma (such as repetitive motion disorders) or acute trauma. [7] .     Hyperemia is the medical condition in which blood congests in a part of the body.