CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 24 juillet 2014

.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 } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s67017A4B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3E9DFE5B { margin-top:36pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt } .s8180DC3F { width:185.29pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s24238E10 { width:232.12pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION             CASE OF LYAPIN v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 46956/09)             JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   24 July 2014       FINAL   24/10/2014   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Lyapin v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Julia Laffranque,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse,   Ksenija Turković,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 1 July 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 46956/09) 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 Vladimirovich Lyapin (“the applicant”), on 27 August 2009. 2.     The applicant was represented by the Committee against Torture, an interregional non-governmental organisation based in Nizhniy Novgorod. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been tortured in police custody in order to force him to confess to crimes and that no effective investigation into his complaint of ill ‑ treatment had been carried out. 4.     On 31 August 2011 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Nizhniy Novgorod. 6.     In February 2008 a series of thefts from individual garages was committed in the Volodarskiy District of the Nizhniy Novgorod region. The Volodarskiy District police department ( ОВД по Володарскому району ) initiated a criminal investigation into the thefts. A.     The applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by police officers 1.     The applicant’s apprehension 7.     During the night of 24 to 25 April 2008 police officers U. and K. from the Volodarskiy District police department were patrolling an area of Ilyinogorsk in which there was a garage cooperative where some of the thefts had been committed.   At 2.30 a.m. they stopped the applicant, who had entered one of the garages. 8.     According to the applicant, that night he had gone to Ilyinogorsk searching for abandoned scrap metal which he could then sell. He entered a garage, the door of which was allegedly open. He was then stopped by two police officers, who asked him to accompany them to a police station to check his identification documents. He explained that he had the documents with him and suggested that they check them right away. They insisted that he should go with them to the police station and he obeyed. 9.     According to the reports of police officers U. and K. to the head of the Volodarskiy District police department of 25 April 2008 and their statements as witnesses to an investigator in the garage-thefts case of 26   April 2008, they were patrolling the garage cooperatives on the outskirts of Ilyinogorsk in order to detect persons involved in the garage thefts that had been committed previously. They heard metallic sounds and saw the applicant, who had opened and entered one of the garages. They apprehended him and took him to the Ilyinogorsk police station in order to check his identity and to establish whether he had been involved in the garage thefts. The applicant refused to accompany them to the police station, “swinging his arms” and trying to escape. Therefore they “used physical force” and handcuffs, in accordance with section 12 of the Police Act. At the Ilyinogorsk police station his identity was established and he was found to be in possession of homemade lock-picking tools. 10.     According to the search record drawn up at the Ilyinogorsk police station, the police seized, in particular, six metal items made of screws which the applicant had on him. 2.     The applicant’s alleged ill-treatment 11.     According to the applicant, he was coerced by police officers into confessing to the garage thefts. He described his ill ‑ treatment as follows. 12.     A police officer, who arrived after the applicant had been searched, took him to one of the offices and tied him up with a rope so that his head was between his legs while he was sitting on the floor with his legs crossed and his hands shackled behind his back. The police officer pressed on his back and legs. After about an hour of such treatment he was untied and placed in a cell for detainees. 13.     About ten minutes later another police officer arrived and the applicant was taken to the same office and tied up again in the same way, with his hands shackled behind his back. The second police officer had a box with a handle and two wires, the last ten centimetres of which were bare. The police officers tied the wires to the applicant’s little fingers and the second police officer started rotating the handle. The applicant felt a sharp muscle contraction and screamed. The police officers gagged him. They took turns to rotate the handle. The wires kept falling off and the police officers had to attach them again and again. At some point they poured water over the applicant’s hands to exacerbate the electric shocks. The applicant lost consciousness several times. The electric shocks left burn wounds on his hands. 14.     The police officers’ first names were O. and V. Based on information which the applicant received later, he deduced that those police officers were operational officers K.O. and S.V. from the criminal investigation unit of the Volodarskiy District police department. 15.     At about 7.30 a.m. the applicant was placed back in the cell. At his request the officer on duty took him to a lavatory where he could hold his hands, which were swollen after the electric shocks, under cold water. He remained in the cell for several hours. 16.     Then he was taken again to the same office, where he saw six police officers, each of whom asked him questions about the circumstances of different criminal cases. One of them kicked him in the chest and then punched him in the left ribs. That police officer took the applicant outside to participate in the examination of the applicant’s Gazelle truck conducted by a female investigator. 17.     Thereafter the applicant was taken back inside the police station, where the police officers questioned him again, from time to time slapping him on the back of his head. When the applicant could no longer resist their pressure, they took him to some garages, where he acted in accordance with K.O.’s instructions, showing them the garages from which he had allegedly stolen certain property. That was recorded as an on-site verification of his statements. 18.     The police officers took the applicant to the Justice of the Peace for an examination of an administrative charge against him (see paragraphs   19, 20 and 25 below). He confirmed before the judge that he had committed the administrative offence as alleged by the police. The police officers thereafter took him to the Volodarskiy District police department in Dzerzhinsk for questioning as a suspect in the garage-thefts case. The investigator gave him a ready ‑ to ‑ sign record of his examination with his confession to the garage thefts, which he signed. 3.     Events after the applicant’s apprehension according to the police records 19.     At 3   a.m. on 25 April 2008 the officer on duty at the Ilyinogorsk police station, K.S., drew up a record of the applicant’s administrative arrest. It stated that the applicant had been arrested in connection with his disobedience to police officers’ lawful demands, and that a visual examination of the applicant had not revealed any injuries. According to the record, the applicant requested that his wife be notified about the place of his detention. However, the section of the record indicating who was notified about the applicant’s place of detention, and when, was not filled in. 20.     At 3.30 a.m. police officer U. drew up a record of the applicant’s administrative offence in which he described the circumstances of the applicant’s apprehension at 2.30 a.m. in the same way as in his report (see paragraph   9 above). He also stated that the applicant had used coarse language and had not reacted to his and his colleague’s demands to stop his disorderly behaviour. The record contains the applicant’s explanation that on his way to the police station he had only stopped once and had not tried to break away from the police officers or to escape. 21.     From 12.45 p.m. to 2 p.m. a senior investigator, Ms   M., of the investigation division of the Volodarskiy District police department carried out an examination of the applicant’s Gazelle truck in Ilyinogorsk. 22.     From 2.10 p.m. to 3.20 p.m. in Ilyinogorsk investigator M. examined the applicant as a suspect in the presence of a lawyer on duty,   Ya. According to the record of his examination, the applicant was suspected of having committed “thefts from garage cooperatives in Volodarsk, Ilyinogorsk and Mulino”. He confessed to having committed, starting from February 2008, thefts from five garages in Volodarsk, five garages in Ilyinogorsk and two garages in Mulino. No information was entered in the record about the specific garage which the applicant had entered immediately before his apprehension. 23.     From 3.30 p.m. to 3.50 p.m., in the course of the on-site verification of the applicant’s statements, the applicant showed the police the garages in which he had committed the thefts. 24.     At some point the head of the Ilyinogorsk police station ordered that the materials concerning the administrative case against the applicant (see paragraphs   19 and 20 above) be transferred to the Volodarskiy District Justice of the Peace for examination. 25.     According to a judgment of 25 April 2008 of the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no.   2 of the Volodarskiy District, the applicant, who pleaded guilty, was found to have committed an administrative offence under Article 19.3 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences – disobedience to a police officer’s lawful demand (in particular, on account of his having used coarse language and having ignored the police officers’ requests to discontinue such behaviour). He was sentenced to five days’ administrative detention, to run from 2.30 a.m. of that day. 26.     Investigator M. thereafter ordered that the applicant, as a suspect in the garage ‑ thefts case, should be subjected to a measure of restraint in the form of an undertaking not to leave his place of residence and to behave properly. It was stated in that decision that the applicant had fully acknowledged his guilt. 27.     A group of police officers took the applicant to Nizhniy Novgorod where they carried out a search of his flat, as ordered by investigator   M. According to an official record, the search was carried out from 9.55   p.m. to 10.50   p.m. by operational agent V. of the criminal investigation unit of the Volodarskiy District police department in the presence of the applicant’s wife and two witnesses. 28.     From 11.05 p.m. to 12.07 a.m. operational officer K.O. seized some items from the applicant’s other car found near his block of flats, in the presence of his wife and two witnesses. 29.     After their return from Nizhniy Novgorod, police officers took the applicant to a detention facility for administrative offenders at police station no.   1 of the Dzerzhinsk Town police department to serve the five days’ administrative detention (see paragraph 25 above). According to the detention facility records, he was placed there at 2   a.m. on 26 April 2008. The records did not mention any injuries on the applicant. B.     Medical evidence of the applicant’s injuries 30.     In the morning of 26 April 2008 the applicant was visited by his wife and brother. At 10.10 a.m. a police officer on duty called an ambulance at the applicant’s request. 31.     According to the medical records, the applicant was examined by an ambulance doctor, Ms   V., at 10.28 a.m. He complained of pain in the left side of his chest whenever he made the slightest movement or breathed, pain in the neck and heaviness in his head and explained that he had been beaten up and kicked. An examination revealed that he was suffering sharp pain around the eighth and ninth ribs on the left side, abrasions on his cheekbones and on one of his shoulders, and swelling and hyperaemia of both hands. The applicant was diagnosed with a closed fracture of the left ribs, abrasions on his face and back, and arterial hypertension. He was provided with first aid. The ambulance doctor considered that his condition was incompatible with detention and necessitated his further examination at a traumatology centre. 32.     The applicant was therefore released from the detention facility and taken by ambulance to the Dzerzhinsk traumatology centre, where he was examined at 10.55 a.m. and diagnosed with multiple soft-tissue bruises on his face, contusions of the rib cage and abrasions on his wrists. He explained that he had been beaten up by police officers. 33.     The applicant’s brother then took him to a hospital in Nizhniy Novgorod. At 12.55 p.m. he was admitted to the Avtozavodskoy District hospital no. 40. He was diagnosed with concussion, contusions of the rib cage and neck, and burns on his hands. The latter diagnosis was made on the basis of several circular lesions under scabs measuring about 0.5 cm in diameter on his hands. 34.     On 1 May 2008 the applicant was examined by an expert in forensic medicine, Dr Ya. from the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Forensic Medical Examination Bureau, in accordance with the Avtozavodskoy Investigative Committee’s decision of 30 April 2008 (see paragraph 51 below). The expert found the following injuries on the applicant: two circular abrasions on the back of each hand measuring 0.2 centimetres in diameter; similar abrasions on the right side of the lips, notably two on the upper and one on the lower lip; and an abrasion measuring 1.5 to 0.7 centimetres on the back of the left hand near the wrist. The above-mentioned wounds had similar characteristics. The applicant also had a circular bruise on his left wrist, a bruise measuring 5.5 to 7 centimetres on the left side of his rib cage and bruises on each side of his face, notably a bruise measuring between 2.5 and 5   centimetres on the right side and a bruise measuring 3 to 4 centimetres on the left side. 35.     On 7 May 2008 the applicant was released from hospital and prescribed out ‑ patient treatment, which he underwent at polyclinic no.   37. 36.     On 30 May 2008 the forensic expert, Dr Ya., issued report ( акт судебно ‑ медицинского освидетельствования ) no.   104-E on the basis of the applicant’s examination on 1   May 2008 and his medical records from hospital no. 40. The expert considered that, given the morphological characteristics of the injuries, they could have been inflicted as alleged by the applicant. 37.     On 14 July 2008 the applicant was examined by another expert in forensic medicine, Dr S. from the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Forensic Medical Examination Bureau. The applicant had several circular scars on both hands. Having also examined the applicant’s medical records from hospital no. 40, and relying on Dr Ya’s description of his injuries of 1   May 2008, Dr S. concluded in report ( акт судебно ‑ медицинского освидетельствования ) no. 2944-D of 23 July 2008 that the applicant’s injuries, notably the abrasions on his hands and lips, the bruises on his face, left hand and the left side of his chest, and his concussion, had been inflicted by a blunt object and could have originated as a result of his having been punched and kicked. It was not excluded that the injuries could have been inflicted on 25   April 2008. Based on the existing data, it could not be categorically confirmed that the applicant had been subjected to electric shocks. However, it was not excluded that the abrasions and scars on his hands could have been caused as a result of their contact with a current ‑ carrying conductor. Taking into account the nature of the scars, it was not excluded that the injuries (from which the scars had originated) could have been inflicted on 25   April 2008. 38.     On 16 July 2008 a psychotherapist, M., examined the applicant and diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder, complicated by reactive depression in connection with his alleged ill-treatment by police officers on 25   April 2008. In particular, his recollection of those events provoked involuntary crying. Following the doctor’s recommendation, the applicant received out ‑ patient psychotherapy. As of 31   October 2008 his condition improved and he refused further treatment. 39.     On 11 October 2008 the applicant solicited an opinion from Dr   L.M. about the origin of the injuries on his hands. Dr L.M.’s opinion, which was based on the applicant’s medical records, was similar to that of Dr S. 40.     A letter of 22 June 2009, signed by the head of the organisational and methodological department of hospital no. 40, stated that the lesions on the applicant’s hands looked more like “old burns”. 41.     Forensic medical expert opinion ( заключение специалиста, судебно ‑ медицинское исследование ) no.   189/09 of 25   November 2009 was prepared by an expert in forensic medicine, Dr   Sh. from the Main State Centre of Forensic Medical and Criminalistic Examinations, on the basis of the previous forensic medical expert opinions of 30 May and 23   July 2008, another expert opinion (28   May 2009, no.   2153-D) and the applicant’s other medical records. It stated that the medical records did not contain the necessary objective clinical symptomatology to confirm the diagnosis of the closed fracture of the ribs, the contusion of the neck and the burns on the applicant’s hands. As regards the lesions on the applicant’s hands, they lacked objective morphological characteristics typical of lesions caused by electric current. The diagnosis could not, therefore, be the subject of forensic medical assessment. The applicant’s other injuries recorded in connection with the events of 25   April 2008, notably his concussion, the bruises on his face, the abrasions on his lips and on the back of his hands, the circular bruise on his left wrist and the contusion of the left side of his rib cage, were objectively supported by the medical documentation. The circular bruise on the left wrist could have been caused by a handcuff. The remaining injuries had been inflicted as a result of an impact with a blunt hard object. This could have been a fist, a shod foot or any other blunt hard object with a limited surface, given the form, small size and isolated character of the injuries. The lesions on the applicant’s face and hands could not have been caused as a result of the applicant’s rubbing his face with his denim jacket and sitting on his hands (as had been suggested by police officers Sh. and M., see paragraphs 58 and 60 below). The injuries could have been inflicted on 25   April 2008. They had caused a short-term – not exceeding twenty-one days – health disorder and should therefore be classified as minor health damage. C.     Appeal against the judgment in the administrative proceedings 42.     On 1 July 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of the Justice of the Peace of 25 April 2008 (see paragraph 25 above) and asked for an extension of the deadline for the appeal. He argued that the administrative case against him had been fabricated by the police. 43.     On 5 August 2008 the Volodarskiy District Court heard the applicant, who recounted the events of 25 April 2008 and explained that he had pleaded guilty before the Justice of the Peace because he had been intimidated as a result of his ill-treatment at the Ilyinogorsk police station and because a police officer had been present at that hearing. 44.     The District Court found no good reasons for the applicant’s failure to lodge his appeal earlier and rejected his request for an extension of the deadline for appealing. D.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant 45.     On 4 June 2008 the applicant was charged with seven counts of theft from garages committed in February-March 2008. When questioned as an accused in the presence of a lawyer of his choice on 24 June 2008, he denied having committed the thefts and stated that his earlier self ‑ incriminating statements had been given as a result of ill ‑ treatment by the police. 46.     At a hearing before the Volodarskiy District Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region, the victims asked the court to terminate the proceedings since the applicant had fully compensated them for the damage and apologised. The applicant pleaded guilty of seven counts of theft and asked that the victims’ request be granted. On 27 August 2008 the District Court granted the victims’ request and terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant for reconciliation between the parties. E.     Investigative committee’s inquiry 47.     At 11.24 a.m. on 26 April 2008 the Dzerzhinsk traumatology centre reported to the Volodarskiy District police department about the medical assistance administered that morning to the applicant, who had allegedly been beaten up by police officers in Ilyinogorsk on the night of 25   April 2008 (see paragraph 32 above). The Volodarskiy District police department transferred the report to the Dzerzhinsk inter-district investigation division of the investigative committee at the Nizhniy Novgorod regional prosecutor’s office ( Дзержинский межрайонный следственный отдел следственного управления Следственного комитета при прокуратуре РФ по Нижегородской области , “the Dzerzhinsk Investigative Committee”)   on 4 May 2008. 48.     At 4.15 p.m. on 26 April 2008, hospital no. 40 reported to the Avtozavodskoy District police department of Nizhniy Novgorod that the applicant had been hospitalised with injuries allegedly sustained as a result of beatings by police officers in the Volodarskiy District (see paragraph   33 above). On the same day the applicant, who resided in the Avtozavodskoy District, lodged an application with the head of the same police department requesting that criminal proceedings be brought against the police officers who had ill ‑ treated him at the Ilyinogorsk police station on the night of 25   April 2008. 49.     On 28 April 2008 the Avtozavodskoy District police department transferred the materials concerning the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment to the Volodarskiy District police department, which in its turn transferred them to the Dzerzhinsk Investigative Committee   on 19   May 2008. 50.     In the meantime, on 30 April 2008 the Avtozavodskoy District investigation division of the investigative committee at the Nizhniy Novgorod regional prosecutor’s office also received the applicant’s complaint of ill ‑ treatment. The applicant stated that he could identify the police officers who had ill-treated him, including those who had done so on the instructions of the investigator in charge of the garage-thefts case. 51.     On the same day an investigator of the Avtozavodskoy Investigative Committee started a pre-investigation inquiry into the applicant’s allegation and ordered his forensic medical examination ( судебно ‑ медицинское освидетельствование ). In her decision she stated that during the night from 25 to 26 April 2008 the applicant had allegedly been gagged, tied up with a rope, punched and kicked, and electric current had allegedly been applied to him leaving burns marks. 52.     On 2 May 2008 the head of the Avtozavodskoy Investigative Committee granted the investigator’s request for an extension of the time ‑ limit for the pre ‑ investigation inquiry to ten days, in order to receive the applicant’s “explanations” (see paragraph 105 below). 53.     The applicant’s wife and the applicant gave “explanations” to the investigator on 5 and 6 May 2008, respectively. In describing his ill ‑ treatment at the Ilyinogorsk police station the applicant stated, in particular, that police officers O. and V. had locked the door of the office from the inside. They had tied his legs with a rope, which they pulled over his shoulders to shackle his hands behind his back, and attached them to handcuffs, thereby bending his head below the level of and between his knees, which were pulled aside. O. had stepped and jumped on his knees, causing him severe pain. O. had also slapped him in the back of his head several times. They had demanded that he confess to the thefts which had been committed in the district. Later in the same office, he had been questioned about the thefts by O., V. and other police officers. One of them had kicked him in the chest and punched him under the left armpit, making it difficult for him to breath. They had mocked him, hit and slapped him. The applicant stated that he could identify police officers O., V. and the third police officer who had kicked and punched him. He described their appearance and how they had been dressed on 25 April 2008. 54.     On 6 May 2008 “explanations” were also received from a neurosurgeon of hospital no. 40, who had supervised the applicant’s treatment. He confirmed the information in the hospital medical records. 55.     On the same day the investigator ordered that the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment by Volodarskiy District police department officers, whose actions revealed elements of a crime under Article   286 §   3   (a) of the Criminal Code, be transferred for investigation to the Dzerzhinsk Investigative Committee. 56.     On 7 May 2008 an investigator of the Dzerzhinsk Investigative Committee received an “explanation” from police officer U., who stated, inter alia , that following the applicant’s refusal to accompany him and police officer K. to the police station, physical force had been applied to the applicant, notably his arms had been twisted behind his back and he had been handcuffed. U. denied using any other physical force. 57.     On the next day the deputy head of the Dzerzhinsk Investigative Committee, like in the proceedings before the Avtozavodskoy Investigative Committee, granted the investigator’s request to extend the initial three ‑ day time ‑ limit for the pre-investigation inquiry to ten days in order to examine the applicant, to identify and examine the police officers who had allegedly beaten him up, and to carry out a medical examination of the applicant after his recovery. 58.     On 11 May 2008 the investigator received “explanations” from senior operational officer Sh. from the criminal investigation unit of the Volodarskiy District police department, who had seen the applicant in a cell at the Ilyinogorsk police station. Sh. stated that the applicant “had been sitting on his hands and, therefore, when taken out of the cell his hands had been swollen”. Sh. further stated that the applicant “had been rubbing his face with his denim jacket”. According to Sh., this had caused an irritation to the skin on the applicant’s face. Sh. denied any violence or threats towards the applicant. In Sh.’s opinion the applicant had inflicted his injuries on himself in order to complain afterwards that police officers had used unlawful investigative methods. 59.     On 12 May 2008 “explanations” were received from the investigator, Ms   M. She stated that operational support in the garage-thefts case had been provided by officers K.O. and S.V. She had arrived at the Ilyinogorsk police station as a member of an investigative task force set up in connection with the series of thefts from garages, questioned the applicant and carried out an on ‑ site verification of his statements. The applicant had had no visible injuries. She denied that she had instructed the police officers to beat the applicant up and considered the applicant’s allegation a slander with a view to avoiding liability for his crimes. 60.     On 16 May 2008 the head of the criminal investigation unit of the Volodarskiy District police department, Mr M., explained that a report had been received from the Volodarskiy District police department officer on duty about the apprehension of the applicant, who had forced open a garage door in Ilyinogorsk. As thefts in the proximity of Ilyinogorsk had become more frequent, an investigative task force had been sent to the scene of the incident. When Mr M. had arrived at the Ilyinogorsk police station, he had seen the applicant, who “had been sitting on his hands and, therefore, when taken out of the cell his hands had been swollen”. The applicant had had an irritation on the skin of his face as though he had rubbed it. The applicant had indeed been rubbing his face with his denim jacket. M. had rebuked the applicant for rubbing his face in order to injure himself. M. denied any violence or threats towards the applicant. He considered that the applicant had inflicted his injuries on himself in order to complain afterwards that police officers had used unlawful investigative methods. 61.     On the same day the investigator’s request for an extension of the time ‑ limit to twenty days for the pre-investigation inquiry was granted. On 26   May 2008 the pre-investigation inquiry was extended for ten more days. 62.     On 28 May 2008 “explanations” were received from operational officer   K.O. He stated that he and operational officer S.V. had interviewed the applicant after his arrest on 25 April 2008. He alleged that the applicant had refused to communicate with them and had been placed back in a police cell. K.O. had taken the applicant to Nizhniy Novgorod to carry out a search of his flat. There had been no visible injuries on the applicant except for some redness around his temples. 63.     On 29 May 2008 operational officer S.V. explained that on the night of 25   April 2008 he had been informed by phone about the applicant’s apprehension. He had gone to the Ilyinogorsk police station in order to check whether the applicant had been involved in thefts from garages committed recently in Mulino. After his arrival he had joined K.O., who had been interviewing the applicant. The applicant had had no visible injuries, except for some redness on his face. The applicant had denied his involvement in the crimes and had not wished to talk to them. He had therefore been placed in a police cell. 64.     Both K.O. and S.V. denied any use of violence against the applicant at the Ilyinogorsk police station. They supposed that the applicant had either inflicted his injuries on himself in order to compromise the police and thereby avoid liability for his crimes, or could have sustained the injuries during his apprehension. 1.     First refusal to open a criminal case and its revocation 65.     Relying on the above “explanations” by the police officers and forensic medical report no. 104-E (see paragraph 36 above), the investigator of the Dzerzhinsk Investigative Committee concluded in his decision of 6   June 2008 that the applicant’s allegations had not been confirmed. He ordered, pursuant to Article   24 § 1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCrP”), that no criminal case be opened for lack of the elements of a crime, under Articles   285 and 286 of the Criminal Code, in the acts of investigator M. and police officers U. and K., who had acted in accordance with the Police Act, and officers of the criminal investigation unit of the Volodarskiy District police department, K.O., S.V., Sh. and M. 66.     The investigator stated that the time at which the applicant’s injuries had been inflicted, which the forensic medical expert had estimated in report no.   104 ‑ E as the night from 25 to 26 April 2008, did not match the time of the applicant’s apprehension and the ensuing investigative activities. The allegation concerning burns as a result of torture by electric current had not been confirmed by the applicant’s medical examination. Lastly, the investigator held that the applicant’s allegation of ill ‑ treatment by the police had been used as a defence aimed at avoiding liability for the crimes committed by him. 67.     On 3   September 2008 the decision of 6 June 2008 was revoked as unfounded by an acting head of the Dzerzhinsk Investigative Committee. He ordered an additional pre-investigation inquiry, in particular another forensic medical examination of the applicant with a view to determining whether his injuries could have been caused in circumstances as suggested by police officers U., K. and M. The time-limit for the pre ‑ investigation inquiry was extended to ten days. 2.     Second refusal to open a criminal case and its revocation 68.     On 11 September 2008 an investigator of the Dzerzhinsk Investigative Committee issued a new decision refusing to open a criminal case on the grounds that it followed from “explanations” received from Dr   Ya. that the applicant could have sustained his injuries “in circumstances as suggested by the Volodarskiy District police department officers, that is in the course of his apprehension”. The decision did not quote or describe in detail either Dr Ya.’s “explanations” or “the circumstances as suggested by the Volodarskiy District police department officers”. It referred to the initial reports and previously received explanations by U., K. and other police officers (see, in particular, paragraphs 9 and 56 above). 69.     On 11 February 2009 the Dzerzhinsk Investigative Committee revoked its decision of 11 September 2008 and ordered an additional pre ‑ investigation inquiry to rectify the defects identified in the Town Court’s decision of 29 December 2008 (see paragraph 84 below). 3.     Seven subsequent refusals to open a criminal case and their revocation 70.     There followed a series of refusals by investigators of the Dzerzhinsk Investigative Committee to open a criminal case on the same grounds and for the same reasons as those in the decision of 11   September 2008, with some new information added. Each time, the decisions were revoked by the investigative committee itself in view of the unsatisfactory and incomplete inquiry. They were delivered on the following dates: -     third refusal on 24 February 2009, revoked on 25 February 2009; -     fourth refusal on 4 March 2009 (“explanations” from the ambulance staff who examined the applicant on 25 April 2008, consistent with the relevant medical records, were added), revoked on 6 May 2009; -     fifth refusal on 8 June 2009, revoked on 15 June 2009; -     sixth refusal on 25 June 2009, revoked on 15 July 2009; -     seventh refusal on 15 July 2009 (a statement by Ms P., a witness during the search of the applicant’s flat on 25 April 2008, was added; she stated, in particular, that during the search the applicant had looked bad, his face had been “greenish” and he had asked for water), set aside by the main department of procedural control of the investigative committee at the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation ( Главное управление процессуального контроля Следственного комитета при прокуратуре РФ ) on 3   September 2009; -     eighth refusal on 25 September 2009 (information about the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the applicant added), set aside on 20   November 2009 by the main department of procedural control of the investigative committee at the General Prosecutor’s Office which noted, in particular, the following defects: the failure to question police officer   K. and the police officers on duty at the Ilyinogorsk police station about the circumstances of the applicant’s apprehension; the inconsistencies between the applicant’s and the police officers’ statements about the origin of the injuries; and the inconsistency between the forensic medical report, according to which the alleged ill-treatment had taken place during the night from 25 to 26 April 2008 (see paragraphs 34, 36 and 51), and the statements by the applicant and the police officers, according to which the incident had taken place during the night from 24 to 25 April 2008; -     ninth refusal on 14   December 2009 (it was added that no elements of crimes, under Articles 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code, had been established in the applicant’s actions during his arrest), revoked on the same day. 4.     Tenth refusal to open a criminal case 71.     On 24 December 2009 the investigator of the Dzerzhinsk Investigative Committee took a new decision in which he held – as in the previous decisions – that pursuant to Article 24 § 1 (2) of the CCrP, no criminal case should be opened into the applicant’s allegation of ill ‑ treatment by police officers. The decision cited new “explanations” by some police officers about the events of 25 April 2008, which are summarised below. The decision cited the same “explanations” by police officer   U. as before (see paragraph 56 above). 72.     Police officer K. stated, in particular, that on their way to the police station the applicant had attempted to run away. K. had managed to grab him by the sleeve of his jacket. K. and U. had pushed him face down on the asphalt, twisted his hands behind his back and handcuffed him. They had retained him on the ground for about ten minutes until he had stopped resisting and insulting them. No other physical force had been used on him. At the police station the applicant had been unshackled and searched. Thereafter, operational agent K.O. had arrived at the police station and taken the applicant to his office. K. had not seen the applicant since then. Later operational agent S.V. had stayed with the applicant in that office, while K., U. and K.O. had searched for the applicant’s car. 73.     Police officers M. and Sh. explained, in particular, that they had arrived in Ilyinogorsk together with the investigator, Ms   M., and police officer P. from the Volodarskiy District police department in connection with the applicant’s arrest and their work on a series of unsolved garage thefts. They had arrived at the Ilyinogorsk police station at about 11.30   a.m. The applicant had been taken to K.O.’s office for questioning. 74.     The decision also referred to police officer K.O., who had stated, in particular, that he had arrived at the Ilyinogorsk police station following a telephone call from an officer on duty, B., about the applicant’s apprehension. K. had told K.O. about the circumstances of the applicant’s apprehension. In particular, K. had seen, in the garage being opened by the applicant, some things that he had collected and was preparing to carry away. B. had said that the applicant had had a bunch of metal picklocks on him. K.O. had believed that the applicant had been involved in the series of garage thefts. The type of lock on the garage which the applicant had opened was the same as those on the other garages from which thefts had been committed. He had taken the applicant to his office and questioned him until 3 a.m. No one else had been present in his office. The applicant had stated that he had had no previous criminal convictions. K.O. had phoned the information centre of the Nizhniy Novgorod regional police department, which had informed him that the applicant had previously been convicted of garage thefts in the Avtozavodskoy District of Nizhniy Novgorod. According to the records of the information centre, the applicant’s mobile phone had been registered as missing in connection with a garage theft in Dzerzhinsk. At about 4   a.m. police officer S.V. had arrived and started interviewing the applicant in K.O.’s office. The applicant had not wished to communicate with them and they had taken him to the officer on duty. 75.     K.O. had also explained that he, S.V., K. and U. had searched for the applicant’s car, which they had found in one of the streets in Ilyinogorsk. When looking inside K.O. had seen a spade resembling one which had been stolen from one of the garages. Afterwards they had returned to the police station and waited for the arrival of the investigative task force of the Volodarskiy District police department. The task force consisted of M., Sh. and P., investigator Ms   M. and an expert criminologist, I. They had arrived at about midday and carried out investigative measures. In particular, investigator M. had questioned the applicant and then conducted the on ‑ site verification of his statements. The applicant was then taken to the Justice of the Peace. 76.     Police officer S.V.’s new “explanations” were largely similar to those of K.O., with some discrepancies in respect of the time of the events. According to S.V., the investigative task force arrived at the Ilyinogorsk police station at about 10 a.m. The group that carried out the searches in Nizhniy Novgorod returned to Dzerzhinsk together with the applicant at about 1   a.m. on 26 April 2008, after which S.V. and another police officer took the applicant to the Dzerzhinsk detention facility to serve his administrative sentence. 77.     B., an officer on duty at the Ilyinogorsk police station on 25   April 2008, explained that at about 1 a.m. police officers U. and K. had taken the applicant to the police station. He had not seen any injuries on the applicant. The applicant had been searched. B. had called K.O., who had arrived fifteen minutes later and had taken the applicant to his office. He had not heard any shouts or noise from K.O.’s office. B. did not remember the applicant being brought back and had left at 8 a.m. when his shift had ended. 78.     The decision of 24 December 2009 also cited the forensic medical expert report no. 189/09 of 25 November 2009 (see paragraph   41 above). The investigator concluded that the applicant’s medical examination had not confirmed his allegation that he had sustained burns on his hands as a result of torture by electric current. His other injuries – the abrasions on his face, the bruise on his chest and concussion – could have been caused by police officers U. and K. in the course of his apprehension when they had pushed him face down on the asphalt and retained him in that position. The lesions on his wrists could have been caused by handcuffs, which had been used by U. and K. at the time of his arrest. The actions of U. and K. had not violated the provisions of the Police Act and, therefore, did not carry the elements of a crime under Articles 285 and 286 of the Criminal Code. The investigator concluded that the applicant’s allegation of ill ‑ treatment by the police officers from the criminal investigation unit had not been confirmed by the results of the pre-investigation inquiry. F.     Judicial review of the investigative committee’s decisions under Article 125 of the CCrP 1.     Article 125 review of the first refusal to open a criminal case 79.     The applicant appealed against the investigator’s decision of 6   June 2008 (see paragraph 65 above), arguing, in particular, that he had not been personally interviewed by the investigator, the origin of his injuries had not been established and detainees at the Ilyinogorsk police station on 25   April 2008 had not been identified and interviewed. 80.     On 8 August 2008 the Dzerzhinsk Town Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It noted that a criminal case against the applicant on charges of garage thefts had been pending before the Volodarskiy District Court since 23 July 2008. The Town Court held that any assessment of the applicant’s allegation that physical force had been used against him during questioning would inevitably lead to an assessment of the evidence on which the indictment against him was based. The Town Court had no jurisdiction over that matter, which had to be dealt with at a hearing in the applicant’s criminal case. 81.     On 24 October 2008 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court rejected an appeal lodged by the applicant against the Town Court’s decision and fully endorsed the Town Court’s findings. 2.     Article 125 review of the second refusal to open a criminal case 82.     On 3 October 2008 the Dzerzhinsk Town Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant against the investigator’s decision of 11   September 2008 (see paragraph 68 above). It held, in particular, that it had been established during the pre ‑ investigation inquiry that the police officers had used physical force and handcuffs lawfully in order to apprehend the applicant. It followed from Dr   Ya.’s “explanations” that the applicant’s injuries could have been received in the course of his apprehension, as had been suggested by the Volodarskiy District police department officers. 83.     On 9 December 2008 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court granted an appeal lodged by the applicant against the Town Court’s decision. It found that the Town Court had failed properly to assess the applicant’s arguments about the investigative authority’s omissions in collecting evidence. Thus, by confirming that the forensic medical experts had not been questioned