CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 22 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9BAE5781 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s21F08A35 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA427F3F3 { width:21.1pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sDBF18319 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.3pt; text-align:justify } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6AA809D4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sCA92750 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD777C0A5 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s677DA8A { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C50CFA1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEE15B2C3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA12D7E78 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29EA55ED { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8DD3F840 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46C37B92 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6EF3B654 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8A2800D8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s82D7B801 { width:22.93pt; display:inline-block } .s374D451 { width:196.31pt; display:inline-block } .sF2E32F9B { width:36.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5F32E900 { width:208.31pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION             CASE OF ISAYEV v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 20756/04)               JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   22 October 2009   FINAL   22/01/2010   This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article   44 §   2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Isayev v. Russia , The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 1 October 2009, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 20756/04) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Sergey Viktorovich Isayev (“the applicant”), on 19 April 2004. 2.     The applicant was represented by lawyers of the Human Rights Centre Memorial. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev and Mrs V. Milinchuk, former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been subjected to torture by the police, that the prosecution authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into the incident, that his detention on remand had been unlawful and excessively long and that his applications for release had not been examined speedily. 4.     On 21 November 2006 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3). 5.     The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having examined the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicant was born in 1955 and lived until his arrest in the town of Astrakhan. A.     Arrest and alleged ill-treatment by the police 7.     On 2 March 2003 the office of the Chernoyarskiy District Prosecutor of Astrakhan opened a criminal investigation into the murder of Ms P. 1.     Events between 6 and 15 March 2003 8.     On 6 March 2003 the applicant was arrested and taken to the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department. According to the applicant, police officers severely beat him up to ferret out information and elicit a confession to the murder. Being unable to bear the beatings, on 8 March 2003 he wrote a statement confessing to having fired his rifle at a window of Ms P's house. He claimed that he had not intended to kill anyone. 9.     On 8 March 2003 an investigator drew up a report restating the applicant's confession. The applicant signed the report and filed a written request for provision of assistance by a lawyer, Mr C. He noted that he had confessed under duress and that the investigator had not informed him of his rights as an accused, in violation of Article 51 of the Russian Constitution. 10.     On the same day a deputy Chernoyarskiy District Prosecutor filed an application with the Chernoyarskiy District Court, seeking authorisation of the applicant's detention for an additional forty-eight hours. The applicant's lawyer, Mr C., disputed the necessity to detain the applicant. In addition, he drew the District Court's attention to the applicant's appearance, arguing that the police officers had maltreated the applicant to force him to confess to the murder. While accepting the deputy prosecutor's request, the District Court held, inter alia, that the applicant had left the crime scene and had hidden the crime weapon and that therefore he was liable to abscond and pervert the course of justice. 11.     On 11 March 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Court authorised the applicant's further detention on remand, holding as follows: “At the same time the court considers that the materials presented by the investigating authorities - records of investigative actions and operative measures - make it sufficiently clear that the arrest of [the applicant], that is the person who may have taken part in the above-mentioned criminal offence, was well-founded and taking into account the particular dangerousness of that criminal offence committed in grave circumstances, belonging to the category of particularly serious criminal offences, the court concludes that it is impossible to apply another, more lenient, preventive measure to [the applicant].” The applicant and his lawyer, Mr C., attended the hearing. The decision was upheld on appeal on 20   March 2003. 12 .     As shown by an extract from the registration log drawn up in the detention unit of the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department and presented by the Government, on 9 March 2003, at approximately 7.25   p.m., an ambulance was called to the applicant, who was complaining about a headache. The ambulance was called again at 11.55 a.m. and 9.30   p.m. on 12 March 2003. In response to the morning call an emergency doctor noted in the registration log that the applicant was suffering from neurasthenia syndrome and high blood pressure. On the latter occasion, a doctor made an entry in the registration log, noting that the applicant had refused a medical examination and assistance. According to the applicant, an emergency doctor did not want to record his head injury out of fear of reprisal. 13.     On 13 March 2003 a police officer working in the detention unit of the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department reported to the head of the police department as follows: “... during my duty in the detention unit of the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department from 6.00 p.m. on 12 March 2003 to 9.00 a.m. on 13 March 2003 [the applicant] was in cell no. 1; [he] started hitting his head against a wall; [he] did not respond to orders [prompting him] to stop his actions. I reported to the officer on duty in the [police department] about [the applicant's] actions; after that [the applicant] was transferred to a cell for administrative arrestees. On 13 March 2003, at 8.50 a.m., during the replacement of duty officers, [the applicant] started hitting his head against the metal bar in the cell for administrative arrestees, thus causing a head injury. I, together with a staff sergeant, police officer, Mr L., and police officer, Mr M., stopped his actions and applied special means, handcuffs. [The applicant] was provided with first aid. After that an ambulance was called.” 14.     On the same day an escorting police officer, Mr M., wrote a report addressed to the head of the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department. The report read as follows: “[I] hereby inform you that on 13 March 2003, after the transfer, at approximately 8.50 a.m., an arrestee, [the applicant], was in a cell for administrative arrestees. [He] started hitting his head against a metal bar, thus causing injuries to himself. After that special means, handcuffs, were applied to [the applicant] and first aid was provided.” Another escorting officer, Mr Po., submitted an identically worded report. 15 .     An officer on duty made an entry in the registration log, stating that an ambulance was called to the applicant on 13 March 2003, at 9.40 a.m., in response to “a fit of hysteria, injuries to the scalp, brain concussion”. 16 .     According to the applicant, his brother, who is a resuscitation specialist, visited him on 14 March 2003 in the detention unit and saw his numerous injuries. The applicant complained to his brother that police officers had repeatedly hit him on the head with a small plastic bottle filled with water. On the same day the applicant was taken to the Chernoyarskiy District Central Hospital. His state of health was considered to be critical. On the following day he was transferred to the resuscitation unit of the neurosurgery department of Astrakhan Regional Hospital no. 2. The applicant was in a coma of the second degree. The relevant part of an extract from medical history no. 1069/298 drawn up in the neurosurgery department read as follows: “A patient [the applicant], was undergoing in-patient treatment from 15   March to 10   April 2003. When admitted [to the hospital], he did not make any complaints because of his grave condition. According to the escorting persons, a week before his admission [to the hospital], while under arrest, the patient had hit his head against bars... During the treatment the patient stated that he had been beaten up by police officers. Objectively: The general condition is grave... Locally: [there are] vast bruises, measuring from 3 to 5 centimetres, on the skin of the frontoparietal sphere; [the bruises] are covered with brown scab. There are subcutaneous yellow haematomas, measuring 4 centimetres [in width] and 5 centimetres [in length], in the middle one-third of the right forearm; in the middle one-third of the left shoulder there is a subcutaneous yellow haematoma, measuring 2 centimetres [in width] and 2   centimetres [in length]. [There is] a subcutaneous haematoma, measuring 4   centimetres [in width] and 5   centimetres [in length], on the chest (with hemosiderin). [The patient] does not control the functions of his pelvic organs, he urinates uncontrollably... Diagnosis: A brain injury of medium severity. A subarachnoid haematoma. Injuries, bruises to the head and extremities.” On 19 April 2003 the applicant was transferred from the hospital back to the detention unit. 17.     In the meantime, on 15 March 2003 the head of the duty shift of the duty unit in the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department issued a report which read as follows: “[I] hereby inform you that on 15 March 2003 information was received from the duty unit of the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department that [the applicant] had been arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence proscribed by Article 105 of the Russian Criminal Code; [he], in the detention unit of the police department, had injured himself, having hit his head against the walls; after that [he] had been admitted to Chernoyarskiy District Central Hospital, from which, within a day, he had been transferred to a medical institution in Astrakhan – hospital no. 2; [he had been escorted] by two armed police officers... [The applicant's] preliminary diagnosis is a craniocerebral injury”. 18 .     On the same day an investigator of the Chernoyarskiy District Prosecutor's office, in the presence of two attesting witnesses and an expert criminologist, examined the premises of the detention unit of the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department. The examination record contained a lengthy description of the corridors, duty offices and cells. The relevant part of the record read as follows: “...the entrance to [the cell for administrative detainees] is through a metal lattice door which is built from metal reinforcement bars welded together. The cell is a room with concrete walls... During the examination of the cell entrance door a fallow stain, looking like blood [and] measuring 0.7 centimetre, was discovered on the door at a height of 1.30 metre from the floor, 0.85 metre from the upper part of the door and 1.15 metre from the right wall. During the examination of the metal bars of that cell a fallow stain, looking like blood and measuring 2 centimetres in width and 2.5   centimetres in length, was discovered at a height of 1.30 metre from the floor and 1.15 metre from the adjacent right wall. ... blood was collected from the scene and bagged. ... During the examination of cell no. 1, fallow stains looking like blood and measuring 1 centimetre to 1 centimetre, 3 centimetres to 3 centimetres were discovered in the far right corner of the cell, on the right wall, 2.5 centimetres from the wall, facing the entrance, and 25 centimetres from the wooden bunk. Those stains are located 5   centimetres from each other. That substance was collected from the scene and bagged.” 2.     Investigation into complaints of ill-treatment 19 .     On 8 March 2003 the applicant's lawyer, Mr C., filed a complaint with the prosecution authorities, alleging that the applicant had been severely beaten up in the police station after his arrest and asking for the identification of the police officers who had participated in the beatings. (a)     Decision of 17 March 2003 and subsequent court proceedings 20 .     On 17 March 2003 an investigator of the Chernoyarskiy District prosecutor's office dismissed the complaint about the beatings as unsubstantiated. The investigator based his decision on the following evidence:   - Statements by the police officers who had claimed that on 12   March 2003 the applicant, who had been detained in cell no. 1, had begun hitting his head against a wall. He had ignored policemen's orders to discontinue the unlawful behaviour and had been transferred to a special cell for administrative detainees, so that the police officers could observe him and prevent him from hurting himself. In the cell for administrative detainees the applicant had once again begun hitting his head against metal bars. Handcuffs had been applied to him and he had been provided with medical assistance.   - Testimony by the applicant's fellow inmate, Mr I., who testified that on 12   March 2003 he had been detained in cell no. 1 together with the applicant. At approximately 10 p.m. the applicant had begun hitting his head against a wall. Mr I. had called the officer on duty and the applicant had been transferred to another cell. Mr I. noted that he had not seen or heard whether the policemen had beaten the applicant up.   - Testimony by an emergency doctor, Mr B., who stated that on 12   March 2003, at approximately 10.20 p.m., he had arrived at the Chernoyarkiy District Police Department. The officer on duty had asked him and his colleagues to provide the applicant with medical assistance. According to the officer on duty, the applicant had not felt well. Mr B. had attempted to examine the applicant, but the latter had refused any examination. During the visual examination of the applicant's head, Mr B. had not noticed any injuries. The applicant had been very agitated.   - Statements by an emergency doctor, Ms K., who stated that on 13   March 2003, at approximately 9.30 a.m., she had received a call from the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department. She had been informed that a detainee had hit his head against a wall. When she had arrived at the police department, she had seen the applicant sitting on a chair with his hands handcuffed behind his back and with his head on a pillow. The applicant had been very nervous and had tried to break away. She had examined him and discovered three parallel injuries in the fibrous part of his head. She had made a bandage and given him an injection of relanium. The applicant had been diagnosed with a fit of hysteria and prescribed an examination by a surgeon and a neuropathologist.   - The record of the examination of the detention unit, including the cells where the applicant had been detained, performed on 15 March 2003.   - An expert report, according to which stains discovered during the examination of the cells in the detention unit on 15 March 2003 consisted of the blood of a person, “not excluding the applicant”. 21.     The applicant only learned about the decision of 17 March 2003 in July 2003 and on 18 August 2003 his lawyer appealed against that decision to a court. 22.     On 22 August 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Court annulled the decision of 17 March 2003, noting procedural defects in the investigator's decision, and ordered an additional investigation into the applicant's ill-treatment complaints. (b)     Decision of 12 September 2003 23 .     On 12 September 2003, following an additional investigation into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment, an investigator of the Chernoyarskiy District Prosecutor's office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers, finding no case to be answered. In addition to the witnesses' statements which had served as the basis for the decision of 17 March 2003, the investigator relied on the following evidence:   - Additional statements by an emergency doctor, Mr B., who stressed that the applicant had not had any visible injuries, including on the head, when Mr B. had seen him on 12 March 2003, at approximately 10.20   p.m..   - Statements by Mr S., who testified that he had been detained in cell no. 1 with the applicant and Mr I. On a date which Mr S. had been unable to recall, the applicant, lying on the bunk, had begun hitting his head against a wall. He had hit his head three or four times and had broken the skin on the head. Mr S. and Mr I. had called an officer on duty and asked to transfer the applicant to another cell. Their request had been satisfied. No force had been used against the applicant. - Additional testimony by Mr I., who confirmed statements given by Mr S..   - Statements by a psychiatrist, Ms E., who submitted that on 14   March 2003 she had examined the applicant who had acted normally and answered her questions. He had complained about pain in a hip. She had examined him but had found no injuries on his hip. The applicant had had an injury on the fibrous part of his head. The injury had been medically treated.   - Statements by an escorting officer, Mr La., who noted that on 13   March 2003, at approximately 10.20 p.m., he had noticed that the applicant, who had been lying on the bunk, had started hitting his head against the wall. The applicant had been transferred to a cell for administrative arrestees. On 14 March 2003, at approximately 8.00 a.m., the applicant had grabbed the metal bars with his hands and had begun hitting his head against the bars. A police officer, Mr Lu., had stuck his hands between the bars to stop the applicant from hurting himself. At the same time, the applicant, trying to overcome Mr Lu.'s resistance, began throwing himself against the metal bars. Mr La. with the assistance from officers M. and Po. had dragged the applicant from the metal bars and had started holding him. The applicant had tried to resist the officers, attempting to hit his head against the bars. Mr Po. had run to the duty unit to call an ambulance. Mr La. had taken a towel and had attempted to stop the bleeding. Doctors had arrived at 9.20 p.m. They had unbound the injury and had applied on a bandage. After the doctors had left, soft items had been placed around the applicant and a pillow had been put under his head.   - Similar statements given by the police officer, Mr Po. 24.     On 25 September 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Prosecutor annulled the decision of 12 September 2003 and ordered that an expert medical examination be performed and that an expert answer questions as to how the applicant had received the injuries, how grave the injuries had been and whether they could have resulted from his own actions. (c)     Decision of 30 September 2003 25.     On 30 September 2003 an investigator of the Chernoyarskiy District Prosecutor's office once again dismissed the applicant's request for institution of criminal proceedings. The investigator based his decision on the statements by the witnesses which had appeared in the decisions of 17   March and 12 September 2003 and on an expert medical opinion. 26 .     According to the expert report of 29 September 2003, the applicant had had the following injuries: a closed craniocerebral injury with a brain injury of medium severity, a subarachnoid haematoma in the right occipital region of the head, bruises on the frontoparietal sphere, an injury in the middle one-third of the right forearm and an injury in the middle one-third of the left shoulder. The head injuries had been caused by a firm blunt object (objects), as a result of the applicant's falling on a surface or owing to “free concussion of the head by a blunt object”. The expert concluded that the most probable cause of the closed craniocerebral injury had been the applicant's own actions, without any “external action”. As regards the remaining injuries, the expert considered that they had also been caused by the application of a firm blunt object (or objects) and that it had been impossible to establish the exact date when they had been caused. The expert did not exclude the possibility that the applicant could also have self-inflicted those injuries. 27.     The applicant's lawyers appealed against the decision of 30   September 2003 to the Chernoyarskiy District Court, arguing that no steps had been taken to investigate the applicant's allegations that he had been beaten between 6 and 8 March 2003, although that issue had already been raised before the prosecution authorities by the applicant's lawyer, Mr   C., on 8   March 2003. They pointed to the fact that the investigators had never interviewed the applicant about the events in March 2003. 28.     On 25 November 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Court held that the decision of 30 September 2003 had been lawful and substantiated. However, it noted that the investigator had not questioned the applicant in connection with his complaints about the confession under duress, neither had he questioned two police officers who had been present during the applicant's confession. The District Court concluded that the investigator should perform an additional investigation. 29.     On 10 December 2003 the prosecutor of the Chernoyarskiy District, relying on the court's decision of 25 November 2003, annulled the decision of 30 September 2003 and ordered an additional investigation into the applicant's complaints about beatings. 30.     On 22 January 2004 the Astrakhan Regional Court quashed the District Court's decision of 25 November 2003 and remitted the matter for a fresh examination. The Regional Court held that on 25 November 2003 the District Court had failed to substantiate its conclusions concerning the lawfulness of the investigator's decision of 30 September 2003. The Regional Court also pointed out that the District Court had made contradictory findings. 31.     On 18 February 2004 the Chernoyarskiy District Court re-examined the decision of 30 September 2003 and considered it to be lawful and well-founded. 32.     On 22 July 2004 the Astrakhan Regional Court upheld the decision of 18   February 2004. The Regional Court held that the District Court had taken into consideration and assessed all the circumstances of the applicant's case which could have influenced the District Court's conclusions. (d)     Decision of 15 December 2003 33 .     On 15 December 2003, following an additional investigation into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment, an assistant Chernoyarskiy District Prosecutor dismissed the applicant's ill-treatment allegations. The assistant concluded that “no injuries had been caused to [the applicant] by the police officers in the period from 6 to 8 March 2003” and that the injuries which had been discovered on the applicant's body on 13 March 2003 had resulted from his own actions. The assistant based his decision on the same evidence as the decisions of 17   March, 12 and 30 September 2003. In addition, he had questioned the applicant, police officers who had witnessed the applicant confessing on 8 March 2003, the emergency doctor, Mr B., and an expert who had examined the applicant on 9   March 2003. Those statements were as follows:   - The applicant testified that between 6 and 8 March 2003 police officers had severely beaten him up in the police station in an attempt to extract a confession from him. On 8 March 2003, after the first meeting with his lawyer, Mr C., he had complained about the beatings to a prosecutor. On 9 March 2003 he had been examined by a medical expert. He had complained to the expert about pain in the head, neck, chest and right hip; however, the expert had only examined his head. On the same day he had again been beaten up by a police officer, Mr Po. According to the applicant, several days later two police officers had lifted him up and had thrown him against metal bars in a cell for administrative arrestees. The applicant had lost consciousness. When he had regained consciousness, he had discovered that he had been handcuffed to a metal bar. He had fainted again and had only regained consciousness in the hospital.   - Mr B., the emergency doctor, supplemented his previous statement. He noted that on 9 March 2003, at approximately 7.20 p.m., he had been called to the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department to assist the applicant who had been complaining about a headache. He had examined the applicant and had not discovered any injuries on his body and head. On 12 March 2003, at approximately 10.20 p.m., he had again been called to the Police Department to treat the applicant. The latter had not had any injuries.   - The expert stated that on 9 March 2003 an investigator and police officers had brought the applicant for a medical examination. In their presence he had examined the applicant, who had complained about the pain in the head and right hip. The applicant had refused to explain the nature and cause of the pain. The expert had examined the applicant's chest, stomach, back, legs, hands, head and neck and had not discovered any injuries. 34.     The decision of 15 December 2003 was not served on the applicant or his lawyer. On 29 and 30 December 2003 the lawyer unsuccessfully asked the prosecutor to issue him with a copy of the decision of 15   December 2003. 35.     On 7 October 2004, upon the applicant's complaint, the Chernoyarskiy District Court examined the decision of 15 December 2003 and considered it lawful. The District Court held as follows: “Having heard the parties and studied the case-file, the court decides to dismiss the complaint. The court is taking this decision on the basis of the materials in the case-file submitted and examined at the court hearing. On 10 December 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Prosecutor decided to annul the decision of 30 September 2003 and to perform an additional investigation into the events concerning the infliction of injuries on [the applicant]. An assistant prosecutor, Ms S., was entrusted with the performance of the investigation. In the course of the investigation certain violations of the law, which had occurred during the investigation,... [leading] to the decision of 30 September 2003, were remedied. Thus [the investigator] questioned [the applicant], the police officers, the emergency doctors and other persons who had been present in the cell of the temporary detention unit of the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department during the infliction of injuries by [the applicant]. Assessing the foregoing, the court does not doubt the impartiality of the investigator Ms S. who performed the investigation... The statements by the police officers, the emergency doctors and staff of the temporary detention unit of the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department, as well as by the detainees Mr S. and Mr I., do not contradict each other and draw a full picture of the events leading to the self-infliction of the injuries by [the applicant]...” 36.     On 2 December 2004 the Astrakhan Regional Court quashed the decision of 7 October and remitted the matter for a fresh examination. 37.     On 11 February 2005 the Chernoyarskiy District Court again dismissed the applicant's complaint about the decision of 15 December 2003. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows: “Having examined the arguments of the defence, as stated in their complaint, having heard the submissions of the Chernoyarskiy District Prosecutor, and having studied the material in the case-file, the court draws the following conclusion. On 6 March 2003 [the applicant] was arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence, as provided for by paragraph 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. On 8 March 2003 he wrote a confession statement. The lawyer in his complaint argues that [the applicant] made this confession under duress inflicted by the police officers. However, this fact was not proven by the documents included with the material of the investigation. Upon the lawyer's request, a forensic medical examination was ordered; as shown by [the expert] report of 9   March 2003, at the time of his examination, [the applicant] did not have any injuries... Moreover, that expert examination fully excluded the possibility of [the applicant's] severe systematic beatings, torture and psychological pressure by the policemen in order to force him to confess to the murder of Ms P. As shown by the material of the investigation examined by the court, [the applicant] received injuries on 13-14 March 2003; that is confirmed by the emergency doctor Ms   K., the police officers Mr M., Mr Lu., Mr Sm., and by the forensic medical expert report of 29 September 2003. The determination of the means of infliction of injuries lies within the competence of the expert... The expert report can only be assessed in the course of the [applicant's] trial. The fact that [the applicant] caused the injuries to himself on 13-14 March 2003 is confirmed by the statements of Mr S. and Mr I. who had been detained together with [the applicant] in cell no. 1 in the temporary detention unit of the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department; [Mr S. and Mr I.] stated that [the applicant] had begun hitting his head against a wall without any apparent reason. Moreover, the defence did not provide any reason for inflicting injuries on [the applicant] on 13-14 March 2003, that is after he had confessed to having murdered Ms   P. (the confession statement was made on 8 March 2003), the defence did not substantiate what was the aim of torturing [the applicant] in the [later] period. In such circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the defence's arguments about the unlawfulness and unreasonableness of the decision of 15 December 2003 of the assistant prosecutor Ms S. ... were not corroborated and the complaint is to be dismissed.” B.     Detention on remand 1.     Detention from April to 6 November 2003 38 .     On 23 April 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Court refused to release the applicant. While finding that the applicant had been charged with a particularly serious criminal offence and that there was a risk of his absconding and perverting the course of justice, having regard to his previous behaviour, the District Court also noted that the applicant had to undergo a forensic psychiatric examination. It thus concluded that he should remain in detention pending such an examination. During the hearing the applicant's lawyer argued that the applicant lived in a local village and could promptly arrive at the prosecutor's office when summoned. He was also in need of lengthy rehabilitation treatment in a neurosurgery department. Such treatment was not available in the temporary detention unit. The prosecutor's office provided the District Court with assurances that necessary medical assistance, including assistance by neurosurgeons, was available to the applicant in the local prison hospital. 39 .     On 30 April 2003 the District Court extended the applicant's detention until 6 June 2003. It held that the applicant had been charged with a serious criminal offence, had fled the crime scene and had hidden the crime weapon. The District Court concluded that the materials presented by the prosecution and the results of investigative measures sufficiently corroborated the conclusion that the applicant was liable to abscond, influence witnesses and obstruct justice. It stressed that the investigating authorities had to perform a number of investigative actions with which the applicant could interfere if released. Moreover, the District Court once again noted that the applicant had to remain in detention pending the forensic psychiatric examination. 40 .     On 3 June, 1 August and 1 September 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Court, by decisions similarly worded to the one issued on 30 April 2003, extended the applicant's detention until 6 August, 6 September and 6   November 2003, respectively. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer appealed against those detention orders. 2.     Examination of an application for release 41 .     On 15 October 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's application for release, holding that he had been charged with a particularly serious criminal offence and was liable to obstruct justice and influence witnesses. The District Court also noted that the applicant was undergoing medical treatment in the Regional prison hospital and investigative actions could not be performed in his absence. 42.     On 13 November 2003 the Astrakhan Regional Court quashed the decision of 15 October 2003 and remitted the matter for fresh examination. The Regional Court noted that the District Court had not provided any reasoning for its findings and had also failed to examine the actual state of the applicant's health and whether he could be provided with adequate treatment in detention. It also pointed to the District Court's failure to address the possibility of the applicant's release under recognisance offered by local MPs and the Astrakhan Regional Ombudsman. 43 .     On 24 November 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Court dismissed the request for release. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows: “Taking into consideration copies of the material in the criminal case file examined at the hearing - records of investigative actions and decisions of the pre-trial investigation organs and a court - the court notes that [the applicant] has been charged with a particularly serious criminal offence, which presents great public danger; as can be seen from the decision of 11 March 2003, when determining the issue of the preventive measure [to be imposed on the applicant], the pre-trial investigation bodies had provided the court with the material from the investigative actions which contained objective data allowing the conclusion that the accused, if released, could obstruct justice in the case and influence witnesses. During the pre-trial investigation in the case until the present time that information has existed among the material in the case file. The fact that the decision of 11 March 2003 became final confirms that [the applicant's] family situation, his place of residence and personal characteristics were taken into account when determining the possible preventive measure. The court notes that at the present time the family situation and the personal characteristics of the accused have not changed. [The applicant's] illness cannot serve as the reason for his release, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, according to the decision of the Chernoyarskiy District Court of 31   October 2003 [the applicant's] detention on remand was extended until 6   December 2003. That decision was upheld on appeal by the Astrakhan Regional Court on 10   November 2003. Those decisions established that [the applicant's] detention had been authorised and extended reasonably and in accordance with the law on criminal procedure ... The court notes that the fact that the pre-trial investigation ended and that the applicant started reading the case file cannot serve as evidence to show that the grounds for [the applicant's] detention in the present case ceased to exist ...” 44 .     On 18 December 2003 the Astrakhan Regional Court disallowed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 24 November 2003 because the statement of appeal did not satisfy the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3.     Extension of the applicant's detention until 6 December 2003 (detention order of 31 October 2003) 45 .     On 31 October 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 6 December 2003, holding that the applicant had been charged with an especially serious criminal offence and that there had been grounds, as confirmed by the decision of 11 March 2003, to conclude that, if released, he was liable to obstruct justice and influence witnesses. On 10   November 2003 the Astrakhan Regional Court, endorsing the reasoning of the District Court, upheld the decision of 31 October 2003. 4.     Request for release and the decision of 26 November 2003 46 .     On 26 November 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's request for release, relying on similar reasons as had been invoked in the decision of 24 November 2003. The District Court also examined the guarantees provided by nine MPs and the Ombudsman of the Astrakhan Region. Those persons argued that the applicant had not been convicted or charged before, that he had two children and two minor grandchildren, that he was the head of a farm, that he had a permanent place of residence and that he was seriously ill. The MPs and the Ombudsman guaranteed that the applicant would not abscond and would actively participate in the pre-trial investigation and trial. The District Court concluded that the guarantees could not reduce the risk of the applicant's interfering with the course of the judicial proceedings by conniving with witnesses, etc. 47 .     That decision was upheld by the Astrakhan Regional Court, acting on appeal, on 25 December 2003. The Regional Court reiterated the District Court's reasoning. 5.     Extension of detention until 6 January 2004 (detention order of 5   December 2003) 48 .     On 5 December 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Court, using the same reasoning as in the previous extension orders, extended the applicant's detention until 6 January 2004. The detention order was upheld on appeal on 17 December 2003. 6.     Decision of 9 January 2004 (detention from 6 January to 2 March 2004) 49.     The applicant was committed to stand trial before the Chernoyarskiy District Court. 50 .     On 9 January 2004 the Chernoyarskiy District Court fixed a preliminary trial hearing and, finding that the circumstances warranting the applicant's detention had not changed, held that the applicant should remain in detention. 51.     In response to the applicant's lawyer's letter enquiring about the grounds for the applicant's detention from 7 to 9 January 2004, on 21   January 2004 the acting head of the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department sent a letter informing him that after 6   January 2004 the applicant's detention was classified as “during judicial proceedings”. A week later the head of the Chernoyarskiy District temporary detention unit informed the applicant that since 7 January 2004 he had been detained on the basis of Article 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. 52.     At the beginning of February 2004 the applicant asked the Chernoyarskiy District Court to extend the time-limit for lodging an appeal against the decision of 9   January 2004 because he had not been promptly served with it. He also sought the quashing of the decision of 9   January 2004 and his release. 53 .     On 22 April 2004 the Astrakhan Regional Court examined the merits of the applicant's appeal statement and upheld the decision of 9 January 2004. According to the applicant, who supported his claims with a written statement from his lawyer, Ms V., during the hearing the lawyer had raised the issue of the applicant's unlawful detention between 6 and 9   January 2004, pointing to the lack of any legal order. However, the Regional Court had allegedly refused to examine the lawyer's argument, concentrating on the grounds for the applicant's detention after 9 January 2004. The Government disputed the applicant's assertion, stating that the argument of the alleged unlawfulness of the detention b