CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 11 février 2010

.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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sAFBF1196 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3982CF6D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.69pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:6.16pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s76AF6B1C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s57221CB1 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s90647315 { margin-top:30pt; 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 } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .sB853CD33 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sFB846497 { 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; font-size:16pt } .s8408AAD1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s597107DA { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .s775787C2 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sE2AD579 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s8DD3F840 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sC1F0960A { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .sF9287AF { width:174.97pt; display:inline-block } .sF2E32F9B { width:36.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5F32E900 { width:208.31pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION           CASE OF KAYANKIN v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 24427/02)               JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   11 February 2010   FINAL   11/05/2010   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Kayankin v. Russia , The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dean Spielmann,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 21 January 2010, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 24427/02) 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 Aleksandr Sergeyevich Kayankin (“the applicant”), on 14 May 2002. 2.     The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, 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 inhuman and degrading treatment as a result of being drafted into the army in a very poor state of health, that during his military service he had been beaten up by an officer and fellow soldiers, that there had not been an effective investigation into the incidents and that the tort proceedings brought by him had been excessively long. 4.     On 1 March 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). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in the village of Sosnovo in the Leningrad Region. 6 .     As transpires from a copy of the applicant’s medical record, submitted by him to the Court, on a number of occasions in 1987 he applied to the Sosnovo village hospital complaining of headaches. On 16 November 1987 he was diagnosed with hypertension. The diagnosis was recorded in his medical history. A.     The applicant’s military service and the state of his health 7.     In 1996 the Priozersk District Military Board registered the applicant for compulsory military service. 8 .     On 12 February 1997 the Priozersk District Military Medical Commission, comprising a surgeon, a general practitioner, a neuropathologist, a psychiatrist, an oculist, a dentist, a dermatologist and an otolaryngologist, examined the applicant for the purpose of making a preliminary assessment of the state of his health to determine whether he was fit for military service. The commission diagnosed the applicant with “hypotrophy of unknown genesis”, and assigned him category “D” on the medical scale of eligibility for service, finding him “temporarily unfit”. The diagnosis was made on the basis of the disproportionate correlation between the applicant’s height of 167 centimetres and his weight of 50 kilograms. The commission concluded that an additional medical examination of the applicant by an endocrinologist was necessary in relation to the diagnosis of hypotrophy. The applicant’s conscription was deferred for six months on medical grounds. 9 .     According to the applicant, the commission did not provide him with a medical certificate or any other medical documents directing him to a particular public health institution for further medical examinations, monitoring and, if necessary, treatment, as required by the Instruction on Military Medical Examinations in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, adopted on 22   September 1995 by Decree no. 315 of the Russian Defence Ministry and in force at the material time. However, as transpires from the applicant’s medical history submitted to the Court, on 18   February 1997 he was examined by an endocrinologist, who noted the disproportionate ratio between the applicant’s weight and height, but considered that his state of health was satisfactory. At the same time the endocrinologist diagnosed the applicant with a diffuse enlargement of the thyroid gland of the first degree, connected to puberty. 10 .     In October 1998 the applicant was again examined by the military medical commission and found to be “fit for military service”. The report of the commission indicated that he had not complained about the state of his health. The applicant’s call-up was scheduled for April 1999. 11 .     No further medical examinations of the applicant were performed until April 1999, when the military medical commission re-examined him. The commission concluded that the applicant was fit for military service without any restrictions. As transpires from the applicant’s personal file of a conscript produced to the Court, his height of 175 centimetres and his weight of 63 kilograms meant that the diagnosis of “hypotrophy” was no longer an issue. The applicant countersigned the medical report indicating that he had no complaints pertaining to the state of his health. 12.     On 3 June 1999 the applicant was drafted into the army. He was assigned to military unit no. 22336 in Volgograd. The applicant alleged that in the unit he had on many occasions been beaten up and harassed by senior conscripts. They had allegedly forced him and other younger conscripts to sleep outdoors at night and had taken away their food. According to the applicant, on 5   September 1999 the head of the military headquarters, Captain Ch., in the presence of the soldier A., hit the applicant five times in the head with an artillery gun shell. On 17 October 1999 a group of senior conscripts allegedly beat the applicant up. 13.     On 25 October 1999 the applicant’s mother arrived at the unit. The applicant told her about the beatings. 14.     Two days later the applicant left the unit without authorisation and travelled with his mother to St Petersburg. 15 .     In St Petersburg the applicant was examined at the Bekhterev Scientific Research Psychoneurology Institute ( Научно-исследовательский Психоневрологический Институт им. В. М. Бехтерева ). A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, a transcranial scan with Doppler apparatus and an ultrasound scan of the applicant’s head were performed. He was also examined by an oculist, a psychologist and neurologist. On 9 November 1999 the Institute issued the applicant with an advisory opinion, the relevant part of which read as follows: “[The applicant complains] of headaches, dizziness, fatigability, irritability, a hearing impairment of the right ear, and somniloquence. [He] has suffered from headaches since the age of nine; [the headaches] have a piercing, squeezing character; [the headache] starts in the morning with the impression that [someone] is applying pressure to the eyes; [the headache] becomes stronger during mental and physical work; it is accompanied by photophobia, degradation of working capacity, and fast fatigability. Medical history (according to the applicant’s mother and his medical record): ... [The applicant] was an active child; he frequently fell, hitting his head. At the age of four months he fell from a shelf, hitting his head; he lost consciousness. He hit his head hard a number of times while skating. At the age of nine years he severely hit his forehead; a suture was applied. When he was 12 years old, he was accidentally hit on the head with a hammer. ... Diagnosis: organic brain disease – the result of craniocerebral traumas sustained [by the applicant], neuroinfections, a perinatal disorder – cerebral arachnoiditis with apparent hypertensive syndrome, cerebral angiodystonia, epileptiform paroxysms ..., bilateral pyramidal signs, psycho-organic and astheno-psychic syndrome. Osteochondropathy of the knee joints. Recommended: supervision by a neuropathologist and a psychoneuropathologist ... Limitation of physical activity. Placement in a military hospital.” 16 .     On 12 November 1999 the applicant applied to the St Petersburg Military Prosecutor’s Office, complaining that his conscription had been unlawful and that he had been ill-treated during his military service. On 15   November 1999, on a recommendation from the prosecutor’s office, he was admitted to the neurology unit of a military hospital, where he stayed until 9 December 1999. 17 .     On 7 December 1999 the applicant was examined by the Military Medical Commission of Medical Clinical Hospital no. 442. According to a medical certificate issued by the Commission, the applicant was diagnosed with “long-term effects of neuroinfection in the form of external hydrocephalus with disseminated neurological signs and pseudo-neurasthenic syndrome; 1st degree S-shaped scoliosis of the thoracodorsal region with Schmorl’s nodule in the 4th to 9th vertebral bodies, transitional lumbosacral vertebra, incomplete closure of 2, 3 and 4 vertebral arches of the spine; chronic tonsillitis”. The certificate indicated that the illness had been acquired during the applicant’s military service and that he was “partially fit for military service”. 18.     On 25 January 2000 the applicant was discharged from military service on account of his illness. 19 .     On 15 December 2000 the St Petersburg Medical Expert Commission issued the applicant with a medical certificate indicating that he had a third-degree disability as a consequence of the illness. B.     Tort proceedings 20 .     On 19 January 2000 the applicant brought an action in the Priozersk Town Court against the Priozersk District Drafting Military Commission and the Priozersk District and Leningrad Regional Military Boards, seeking compensation for damage. He also asked the Town Court to set aside the decision of 3 June 1999 of the Priozersk District Military Board as unlawful, claiming that he should not have been drafted into the army as he had been seriously ill. 21.     The case was assigned to Judge C. on 24 January 2000. 22 .     On 4 October 2000 Judge C. delivered a decision, accepting the case for examination on the merits, and scheduled the first hearing for 1   December 2000. On the same day she also sent a letter to the defendants asking to submit the applicant’s personal file of a conscript. 23 .     The hearing of 1 December 2000 was adjourned because the applicant wanted to study the case file and to retain a lawyer. 24 .     As transpires from the Government’s submissions, the following hearing, which took place on 26 September 2001, was adjourned after the applicant’s representative had successfully petitioned the Town Court for provision of additional evidence. 25.     The next hearing, scheduled for 8 October 2001, was adjourned on a request from the Priozersk District Military Board because its representative could not attend. 26 .     On 17 October 2001 the Town Court, at the applicant’s request, sent letters to a number of military and medical authorities seeking the production of additional evidence. The latest response was received by the Town Court on 4 December 2001 from the Sosnovo village hospital. The hospital informed the Town Court that it could not submit an extract from a hospital register showing that the applicant’s medical record had been sent to the military medical commission for an examination when the question on his eligibility to the military service was to be decided. The hospital explained that the register in question was missing. At the same time the hospital noted that as a general rule medical records of potential conscripts were sent to the military medical commission. 27.     The following hearing, scheduled for 16 January 2002, was postponed because the defendants failed to appear. The Town Court also afforded the applicant’s representative additional time to prepare written questions to put to a medical expert. 28.     On 21 January 2002 the Town Court sent letters, repeating its requests for provision of evidence, to a number of military authorities which had failed to reply to the first letter of 17 October 2001. 29 .     On 18 February 2002 the Town Court, in response to its order of 4   October 2000, received the applicant’s personal file of a conscript. 30 .     On 20 May 2002 the case was transferred to Judge B. who, in the process of the examination of the case file, sent letters to a number of military and medical officials, asking for additional evidence to be provided. According to the Government, the latest reply was received by the Town Court on 12 July 2002. 31.     In October 2002 the Town Court asked the Priozersk Town Council to submit documents regulating the activities of the Priozersk District Military Board. 32.     At the first hearing fixed by Judge B. for 10 December 2002 the applicant amended his claims. The Town Court issued the applicant and his representative with a written warning that the amendment of the claims would result in a stay of the proceedings. The hearing was rescheduled for 14 January 2003. That hearing was also adjourned on account of a defendant’s failure to attend. In the meantime, the applicant filed an additional amendment to the statement of claims. 33.     The following hearing, scheduled for 29 January 2003, was postponed until 13   March 2003 at the defendants’ request to allow them to study additional documents submitted by the applicant. 34.     The defendants failed to attend the hearing on 13 March 2003 and the Town Court sent a warning, informing them of the consequences of their conduct and ordering them to appear at the following hearing, listed for 14   May 2003. 35 .     On 14 May 2003 the applicant’s representative asked the Town Court to adjourn the hearing as she could not attend. The Town Court fixed the following hearing for 16 October 2003. The latter hearing was also rescheduled for 4 December 2003 as the defendants failed to appear. 36.     At the hearing on 4 December 2003 the applicant’s representative successfully asked the Town Court to join the Leningrad Regional and Priozersk District Divisions of the Federal Treasury as co-defendants. The proceedings were stayed until 18 March 2004. 37 .     On 18 March 2004, at the hearing, the applicant refused to undergo a medical examination. On the same day the Priozersk Town Court dismissed the action, finding, in so far as relevant, as follows: “Having heard the submissions by the parties and third persons and having studied the material in the case file, the file on criminal case no. 14/04/0035-2000D and the [applicant’s] personal file of a conscript with the enclosed medical documents, the court finds [the applicant’s] claims ill-founded and dismisses them. By virtue of section 26-28 and 30 of the Federal Military Duty and Military Service Act, the district military board, at the expense of the federal budget, is entrusted with the obligation to conscript men for military service, to organise their medical examinations and to provide for exemptions from the duty to serve in the army. The military board was established by Decision no. 263, issued by the head of the Priozersk District Council of the Leningrad Region on 31 March 1999 for the purpose of organising and implementing conscription for military service; Ms S. was appointed to act as the chief doctor. In 1999 Decree no. 315 on the procedure for performing military medical examinations in the armed forces of the Russian Federation, issued by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation on 22 September 1995, regulated the activities of the military board and the procedure for medical examinations of men at the time of their initial inclusion in the military service register and [when they are] drafted into the army. When included for the first time in the military service register on 12 February 1997 (record no. 5), [the applicant] did not make any complaints; his weight was 50   kilograms, his height 167 centimetres, his diagnosis was ‘hypotrophy of unknown genesis’; according to Article 13-g of Section 1 of the List of Illnesses and the Table of Additional Requirements [laid down] in the Amendment to the Regulations on Military Medical Examinations, adopted on 20 April 1995 by Decree no. 390 of the Government of the Russian Federation, [the applicant] was placed in category ‘D’ – temporarily unfit for medical service for a period of six months. [It was noted that he] needed a medical examination. When drafted for military service on 16 April 1999 (record no. 8), [the applicant] did not make any complaints about the state of his health. His diagnosis: ‘healthy’. On the basis of Section 1 of the List of Illnesses and the Table of Additional Requirements [laid down] in the Amendment to the Regulations ..., [he was found to belong to category] ‘A’ – fit for military service. [It was decided] to draft him into the army. On 3 June 1999, when examined by doctors in the Regional Assembly Station of the Military Board in the Leningrad Region, no illnesses precluding his conscription for military service were discovered. [The applicant] was only diagnosed with scoliosis of the first degree. By virtue of Article 66-g of Section 1 of the List of Illnesses and the Table of Additional Requirements..., [the applicant] was found [to belong to category] ‘B-4’ – fit for military service with minor restrictions. [It was decided] to draft him into the army. By virtue of section 28 § 7 of the Federal Military Duty and Military Service Act, a plaintiff may appeal against a decision of a military board [to draft him into the army]. On 7 December 1999 the Military Medical Commission of Medical Clinical Hospital no. 442 decided that [the applicant] was partially fit for military service... in accordance with Articles 22B and 49D of Section 2 of the List of Illnesses and the Table of Additional Requirements... [It was determined] that his illness had been acquired during his military service. [The applicant] and his representative argue that the report of ... the Bekhterev Scientific Research Psychoneurology Institute, which states that his illness – ‘organic brain disease – the result of craniocerebral traumas sustained [by the applicant] – neuroinfections, a perinatal disorder’ (which means ‘during or after childbirth’, as the representatives explained and the doctor S. testified), should serve as a basis for quashing the decision of 3 June 1999 of the Priozersk District Military Board to conscript [the applicant]. By virtue of Article 56 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure, each party should prove the circumstances on which he or she relies as the basis for his or her claims and complaints if a federal law does not establish another rule. Having regard to the fact that no item of evidence has a pre-established evidentiary value for a court and that by virtue of Article 67 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure, the court assesses the relevance, admissibility and veracity of evidence as a whole, the plaintiff’s ... refusal to undergo a forensic medical examination in the course of the present judicial proceedings did not allow the court to establish that [the applicant] had those illnesses at the time of the medical examination by the Priozersk District Military Board. The court cannot accept, as a justification for the [applicant’s] claims, the reference to medical report no. 19 issued on 18 January 2001 by the forensic medical (psychological and psychiatric) expert commission, [in particular] its answers to questions nos. 7 and 8 that unhealthy organic changes in [the applicant’s] central nervous system discovered during the examination were congenital or that they had occurred in early childhood because that expert examination [performed in the course of the criminal case] did not settle the contradictions and did not assess the conclusions made in the decision of the Military Medical Commission of Medical Clinical Hospital no. 442, which had found that [the applicant] had acquired those illnesses during military service, although [the court notes] the reference to that decision in the [criminal] expert examination. It follows that, in a situation where [the applicant] had refused to undergo an additional expert examination, the court and the parties to the present case concerning [the applicant’s] action did not have an opportunity to make use of their procedural rights, to solve the abovementioned contradictions, to determine how ‘negative emotions experienced during military service and [the applicant’s] response to the existing circumstances surrounding him could have aggravated his chronic diseases’ and to assess the consequences of the deterioration of his health. Thus, the court was not provided with evidence reliably showing that [the applicant] had had those illnesses when drafted into the army on 16 April 1999. Moreover, it was established at the court hearing that the records of [the applicant’s] complaints of a headache on 9 November 1987 and of ‘hypertension’ had been included in the [applicant’s] medical history, which had been drawn up on 4   November 1995 and had been handed over to [the applicant’s] mother in October 1998, a fact she does not dispute, and that she had not submitted [his medical history] to the medical specialists of the Priozersk District and Leningrad Regional Military Boards. The court was also not provided with evidence reliably showing that [the applicant] had complained [about the state of his health] when he had been examined by the Priozersk District Military Medical Commission or by the Leningrad Regional Military Medical Commission; [the court] also did not establish that ... [the applicant had been] forced to produce a handwritten note stating that [he had no] complaints about the state of his health. The court cannot agree with the applicant’s representative that Ms S. did not fulfil her administrative functions as the chief doctor of the military medical commission as it was established that the conscript had not had any complaints; his mother had had [the applicant’s] medical history; she could have attracted the doctors’ attention [to the alleged medical problems] and could have received necessary consultations by medical specialists. Thus, the court did not establish any violations during [the applicant’s] medical examinations, either when he had been entered in the military service register or when he had been drafted into the army in compliance with Decree no. 315 on the procedure for performing military medical examinations in the armed forces of the Russian Federation, issued by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation on 22   September 1995. The court, therefore, finds manifestly ill-founded [the applicant’s] claim that the decision of the Priozersk District Military Board of 3 June 1999 to draft him into the army was unlawful and that it should be quashed. [The court concludes] that [the applicant’s claims] should be dismissed. The court dismisses [the applicant’s] claims for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as it has found that the tort action itself ... is manifestly ill-founded. The court cannot accept the argument by the Priozersk District Military Board that [the applicant] had missed the three-month time-limit for lodging [his claims] with the court, as by virtue of Article 200 of the Russian Civil Code, the time-limit only starts to run on the date when an individual has learnt about a violation of his rights. The plaintiff and his representative only learned of the violation of [the applicant’s] rights after [the applicant] had been examined by the doctors of the Bekhterev Scientific Research Psychoneurology Institute on 9 November 1999. The court thus finds that the time-limit was not missed and the request to [dismiss the applicant’s claim for failure to comply with the time-limit] should be disallowed.” 38.     On 2 June 2004 the Leningrad Regional Court upheld the judgment, endorsing the Town Court’s reasoning. C.     Criminal investigation into the applicant’s complaints about beatings during his military service 39.     On 6 March 2000, in response to the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment during his military service, the Military Prosecutor of the Volgograd Garrison instituted criminal proceedings against Captain Ch. 40.     An investigator interviewed the applicant on a number of occasions about the circumstances surrounding his alleged beatings by Captain Ch.     Similar interviews were performed with Captain Ch. and a number of conscripts who had served with the applicant. On 20   December 2000 the applicant had a confrontation interview with Captain Ch. 41.     On 17 January 2001 the Military Prosecutor of the North-Caucasian Military Circuit informed the applicant’s mother that her complaints of ill-treatment had been examined and “necessary measures to stop the procrastination had been taken”. The applicant’s mother was also informed that the criminal case had been transferred to another investigator. 42 .     In January 2001 a senior investigator of the Volgograd Garrison Military Prosecutor’s Office authorised a complex forensic medical psychological and psychiatric examination of the applicant to be performed in the Forensic Medical Laboratory of the North-Caucasian Military Circuit of the Russian Ministry of Defence. On 18 January 2001 the experts issued the report, finding that there was no medical data confirming that the applicant had sustained any injuries or traumas in autumn 1999 as a result of the alleged use of force, as described by him. They further stressed that the applicant’s illnesses discovered during the previous medical examinations, in particular the organic brain illness, were congenital or could have developed in early childhood as a result of burdened heredity, difficult childbirth, head injuries or neuroinfections. The experts concluded that those illnesses could not have resulted from blows to the head administered either by Captain Ch. or fellow soldiers as the applicant alleged. 43.     On 7 February and 23 June 2001 the criminal proceedings were discontinued because there was no indication of a criminal offence. Both decisions were quashed on 7 May and 17 September 2001, respectively, by the supervising prosecutor and the investigation was resumed. 44.     On 19 September 2001 another investigator was assigned to the case. 45.     A month later the criminal proceedings were closed because there was no evidence of criminal conduct. The text of that decision was similar to the previous ones and read as follows: “It was initially established on the basis of the material in the case file that, as follows from [the applicant’s] complaints, on 5 September 1999, at approximately 4   p.m., in the headquarters of the military unit, Captain Ch., being dissatisfied with [the applicant’s] service in the duty unit, had hit [the applicant] at least four times in the head with a metal artillery gun shell. According [to the applicant], because of those beatings he left the military unit on 25 October 1999 without permission and travelled to the place of his residence in the Leningrad Region. However, in the course of the investigation Captain Ch. firmly and consistently denied having participated in the beatings of [the applicant] and having caused [the applicant] any injuries. In the course of the pre-trial investigation [the investigating authorities] started doubting the veracity of [the applicant’s] statements; a forensic medical psychological psychiatric expert examination was ordered in the case. The experts were provided with the complete set of medical documents, [the applicant] agreed to the provision of [those materials]. According to the expert findings, the medical documents submitted do not contain any evidence showing that [the applicant] had sustained any injuries or [had acquired] any illnesses as a result of allegedly having been hit in the head or neck with a heavy object. The unhealthy organic changes in [the applicant’s] central nervous system discovered during the examination were congenital or had occurred in early childhood as a result of his burdened hereditary history, difficult childbirth, possible head traumas and the presence of neuroinfection in his childhood and youth. Negative emotions which [the applicant] sustained during the military service could have aggravated the existing chronic illnesses. Having regard to the foregoing, the experts made the unambiguous finding that [the applicant’s] illnesses were congenital or had occurred in early childhood. They could not have resulted from the alleged beating on the head by Captain Ch. Moreover, as follows from statements by [the applicant’s] fellow conscripts, soldiers A., Ba. and P., whom [the applicant] identified as eyewitnesses to his alleged beatings by Captain Ch., the latter did not use any physical force against [the applicant]. [The applicant] did not tell [those soldiers] about [the beatings]. As follows from the statements which [the applicant] gave during the pre-trial investigation, Captain Ch. hit him at least five times in the head; after the first blow the applicant could no longer stand on his feet and, leaning against a wall, he started sitting down. Captain Ch. administered the remaining blows when [the applicant] was already near the wall. A forensic investigative simulation was performed in order to reconstruct [the applicant’s] statements and verify the possibility of administering blows with a metal gun shell through a wooden partition. The environment in which, according to [the applicant], Captain Ch. had beaten him up was reconstructed before the forensic investigative simulation. Assistants who anthropologically resemble [the applicant] and Captain Ch. took part in the simulation. As a result of the simulation it was established that a blow could only be administered through the wooden partition when a person stood very closely to it. Owing to the large distance, the assistant who anthropologically resembled Captain Ch. could not even once hit the assistant who anthropologically resembled [the applicant] when the latter was standing on his feet or was sitting down, leaning on the wall. From the above-mentioned facts it can be concluded that the statements made [by the applicant] during the pre-trial investigation are false.” 46.     On 10 January 2002 the Military Prosecutor of the North-Caucasian Military Circuit quashed the decision of 19 October 2001 and authorised an additional investigation, finding that the applicant’s additional complaint that he had been beaten up by senior conscripts had not been investigated. 47.     On 17 June 2002 the criminal proceedings were closed because there was no case to be answered. The decision comprised the text of the decision of 19 October 2001 and additional paragraphs which read as follows: “[The applicant] explained that on 5 September 1999, at approximately 4 p.m., at the headquarters of the military unit Captain Ch, being dissatisfied with [the applicant’s] service in the duty unit, had punched him in the face. Subsequently, [Captain Ch.] took [the applicant] to a barrack storeroom, where he hit him in the head at least five times with a metal artillery gun shell. Soldier A. was present in the storeroom during the beatings. [The applicant] told solders Ba. and P., who were on duty in the duty unit, about the incident. Moreover, [the applicant] explained that in the middle of October 1999 soldier B. had offered to exchange military jackets [with the applicant] and when the latter had refused, soldier B. had hit [the applicant] in the nose with his hand or head; [the applicant’s] nose had started bleeding. Soldiers P., M., Pu., Be., D. and G. were present during the beatings. However, during the questioning Captain Ch. firmly and consistently denied having participated in the beatings of [the applicant] or having caused him any injuries. During a confrontation interview between [the applicant] and Captain Ch., the latter confirmed his statements, whereas [the applicant] was inconsistent in his testimony and gave different answers to the same questions. In his statements [the applicant] explained that soldier A ... had witnessed the beatings of the applicant by Captain Ch. in the storeroom. Mr A., questioned at the place of his residence in the capacity of a witness, firmly denied that Captain Ch. had used physical force against conscripts, including [the applicant], in military unit no.   22336. Moreover, he noted that he did not remember [the applicant]. At the same time he knew Captain Ch. ... very well and had never seen Captain Ch. hit anyone. Moreover, Mr A. stated that there had never been a gun shell in the storeroom. Furthermore, [the applicant] stated that he had told soldier Ba., who had been on duty with him in the duty unit, about the beatings by Captain Ch. However, [Mr Ba.], who was questioned at the place of his residence as a witness, stated that he did not remember [the applicant]. He knew Captain Ch. well and could only describe the latter in positive terms; he had never seen [Captain Ch.] hit anyone. Moreover, he had never been told that Captain Ch. had beaten anyone. As to the gun shell, he had never seen one in the barrack storeroom. [The applicant] also listed another reason for his unauthorised leave from military unit no. 2236, noting that in the middle of October 1999 soldier B. had offered to exchange military jackets with him; however, [the applicant] had refused. In response [to the refusal] soldier B. had hit [the applicant] in the nose with his hand or head; [the applicant’s] nose had started bleeding. However, Mr B., questioned as a witness, stated that he knew [the applicant]. ...he had rarely met him, as [the applicant] had served in another division of military unit no. 22336. [Mr B.] explained that he had never applied unlawful means of pressure to conscripts; moreover, he had never asked [the applicant] about anything and had not beaten him up when [the latter] had allegedly refused [to comply with the request]. His military jacket was in order and he did not need to change it. [According to the applicant], soldier D. was present during the alleged beatings by soldier B. ... However, Mr D., questioned as a witness, stated that he had never used unlawful means of pressure against [the applicant] and had not seen [the applicant] being beaten. During a confrontation interview between [the applicant] and Mr D., the latter gave consistent and unambiguous answers, fully confirming his statements. Moreover, [the applicant] stated that when soldier B. had beaten him up, soldier P. had been in the duty room with them. Soldier P., having been questioned as a witness, stated that he had never beaten [the applicant] up and had not seen anyone hit [the applicant]. Moreover, Mr P. explained that his fellow conscript, Mr Pu., had told him that in May 2000, when he had been on leave from the service, [the applicant] and his mother had come to his house and had asked to sign papers confirming that [the applicant] had allegedly been beaten up in the military unit by conscripts of Kalmyk ethnic origin. During a confrontation interview between [the applicant] and Mr P., the latter gave consistent answers which fully corroborated his statements. Mr M. and Ba., who, according to [the applicant], had been present during the beatings, when questioned [by an investigator] stated that they had never applied force to [the applicant] and had never seen anyone beating him.” The Government provided the Court with copies of the records of the applicant’s, Captain Ch.’s and witnesses’ questioning and copies of the records of the confrontation interviews. 48.     On several occasions the applicant unsuccessfully complained to higher-ranking prosecutors that the proceedings had been discontinued. 49.     On 27 August 2002 the applicant was informed that the case file had been sent to the Priozersk Town Court for an examination in the course of the civil proceedings instituted on the applicant’s tort action. 50.     On 11 February 2003 the applicant asked the Priozersk Town Court to inform him about what had happened to the criminal case file. On an unspecified date the Town Court President informed the applicant that the Town Court needed the file in connection with the applicant’s tort action pending before it. 51 .     On 20 August 2003 the military prosecutor of the North-Caucasian Military Circuit informed the applicant that his complaints about the decision of 17 June 2002 had been examined and dismissed. The relevant part of the letter of 20 August 2003 read as follows: “The preliminary investigation established that Captain Ch. and soldier B. had never caused injuries to [the applicant]. As follows from the report of the composite complex forensic medical psychological psychiatric examination, the complete set of [the applicant’s] medical documents does not contain any information that he sustained any injury or illness as a result of blows to the head or neck with a heavy object. The discovered organic symptoms of an illness of the [applicant’s] central nervous system are congenital or were acquired in early childhood as a consequence of heredity, difficult childbirth, possible head traumas and neuroinfections in his childhood or youth. Negative emotions during military service could have aggravated [the applicant’s] chronic diseases. Experts made the unconditional finding that [the applicant’s] illnesses were congenital or had been acquired in early childhood and could not have been caused by blows to the head allegedly inflicted by Captain Ch.” Expert opinion of 4 May 2006 52.     On 28 April 2006 an assistant to the Chief Military Prosecutor sent a letter to the Main State Centre of Forensic Medical and Criminological Examinations in Moscow (hereinafter “the Expert Centre”), asking it to examine the applicant’s medical history, including the three expert reports: of 9 November 1999 by the Bekhterev Scientific Research Psychoneurology Institute, of 7 December 1999 by the Military Medical Commission of Medical Clinical Hospital no. 442, and of 18 January 2001 by the Forensic Medical Laboratory of the North-Caucasian Military Circuit of the Russian Ministry of Defence, and to reply to a number of questions. 53 .     On 4 May 2006 the Expert Centre issued a report which, in so far as relevant, read as follows: “The experts were asked to reply to the following questions: What were [the applicant’s] illnesses discovered during his military service (explain the diagnosis): how does impairment of the functioning of organs manifest itself, what are the symptoms of the illness, etc.? What are the causes and processes of the development of those illnesses and do they result from a trauma (traumas) sustained by [the applicant]? If yes, when were those traumas received? How long does it take those illnesses to manifest themselves and what is the relationship between them and heredity? Did [the applicant] have those illnesses when drafted into the army? If so, how were those illnesses discovered and could [the applicant] have been drafted into the army [if he had those illnesses]? ... Conclusions 1. According to the medical documents, during his military service [the applicant] had symptoms of ‘organic brain disease, the result of craniocerebral traumas, neuroinfections, a perinatal disorder in the form of cerebral arachnoiditis with apparent hypertensive syndrome, cerebral angiodystonia, epileptiform paroxysms ..., bilateral pyramidal signs, psycho-organic and astheno-psychic syndrome’. The above-mentioned illness was not accompanied by impairments of motor, sensory or coordination functions or any other functions of the nervous system. The main symptoms of the illness were headaches, fatigability, irritability, and decrease in attention and memory concentration. 2. The [applicant’s] above-mentioned organic brain illness occurred in his childhood or youth. The causative factors leading to the development of that condition were neuroinfection, acute infectious inflammatory diseases accompanied by high fever response and intoxication, and numerous head traumas which, jointly, served as a basis for the process of the development of that illness. The alleged head injury sustained on 5 September 1999 during [the applicant’s] military service (June to October 1999) does not belong to the priority factors in the development of that polysymptomatic, residual organic disorder of the brain. 3. The duration of the [applicant’s] brain illness corresponds to repeated exposure to the pathological factors listed in answer no. 2, and observed in the period preceding his conscription for military service. As follows from the medical documents, [the applicant] exhibits signs of a mentally burdened hereditary history in the form of his father’s mental illness, accompanied by the abuse of alcohol and his death as a result of suicide. [