CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 22 septembre 2016

.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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s475F59C5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:38.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.2pt } .s54F3C5E5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:57.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.7pt } .s5F8B0B23 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:37.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-20.5pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBF964C40 { width:8.54pt; display:inline-block } .sD7DE76AD { width:201.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }       FIFTH SECTION             CASE OF SAVCHENKO v. UKRAINE   (Application no. 1574/06)       JUDGMENT               STRASBOURG     22 September 2016             This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Savchenko v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Khanlar Hajiyev, President,   Faris Vehabović,   Carlo Ranzoni, judges, and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 30 August 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 1574/06) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Mr Vyacheslav Vladimirovich Savchenko (“the applicant”), on 23 December 2005. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr E.V. Markov, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented most recently by their Acting Agent, Mr I. Lishchyna of the Ministry of Justice. 3.     The applicant complained, in particular, of two episodes of ill ‑ treatment by the police and of the lack of an effective investigation into them. He further alleged that his pre-trial detention had been unlawful and excessively long and that he had been denied a proper judicial review of its lawfulness. The   applicant also complained that he had not had an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in contravention of Article 5 of the Convention. He complained next that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive and that he had not had an effective domestic remedy in respect of that complaint. Lastly, the applicant complained that the authorities had denied him the opportunity to obtain copies of documents from his case file which he had wished to submit to the Court to substantiate his application. 4.     On 29 August 2013 the above complaints were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1973 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Sokyryany Prison no. 67. A.     The applicant’s arrest on 18 September 2001, his alleged ill ‑ treatment by the police and the investigation into the matter 6.     In September 2001 the applicant and an acquaintance, F., decided to carry out a carjacking. On the night of 17-18   September 2001 they stopped a taxi for that purpose. F. shot the driver in the head and the two then took him to a forest, where F. and the applicant fired several more shots into the victim and abandoned the body. According to the applicant, he believed that the driver was already dead when he shot at him. When driving the car later on, the applicant and F. encountered the traffic police who ordered them to stop. They did not obey the order and attempted to flee. The applicant threw a grenade at the police, but it went wide. Eventually F., who was driving, lost control of the car, which caused it to stop. The applicant opened fire and seriously wounded one of the police officers. 7.     In order to overcome the applicant’s resistance, the police officers hit him on the head several times with the handle of a gun. He lost consciousness and was handcuffed. His apprehension took place at about 3   a.m. on 18   September 2001. 8.     While the parties were not in dispute as regards the facts summarised above, their account of subsequent events differed. 9.     According to the Government, no further coercive measures were used against the applicant. 10.     According to the applicant, he was seriously ill-treated after his arrest and his account of subsequent events is as follows. In his application form he submitted that once the police had seen him regain consciousness, at about 5 a.m., they had taken him to the Suvorivskyy district police station where they had beaten him. In his observations in reply to those of the Government, the applicant added that he had also been beaten in the two hours between his apprehension and transportation to the police station. The applicant also alleged that upon his arrival at the police station the officers had thrown him to the floor and had started kicking and punching him and hitting him with rubber truncheons. They had allegedly sought to take revenge on him for wounding their colleague and to make him confess to the criminal offences under investigation. The applicant’s beating had allegedly continued until 7 or 8 a.m. 11.     At an unspecified time on the morning of 18 September 2001 a forensic medical expert examined the applicant. As noted in the report of the examination, the applicant was 195 cm tall and was of strong constitution. The following injuries were detected: four painful swellings (two of which were coupled with sores) of up to 4 cm in diameter on the back part of the head and on both temples, two oval bruises on the forehead of 8 x 5 cm and 5 x 4 cm, bruises on both eyelids, a slightly swollen bridge of the nose, bruises on the sides of the nose extending to the eyelids, and linear sores on both wrists. The expert found that the applicant could have sustained the injuries in question in the course of his arrest. The applicant stated to the expert that he had not been beaten in police custody. 12.     According to the applicant, his medical examination was limited to the visible parts of his body not covered by clothes, and the expert failed to document the many bruises that covered the rest of his body. The applicant also alleged that the police officers had talked to the doctor in private before the examination. Furthermore, they had allegedly threatened the applicant that if he complained they would kill him. 13.     As further submitted by the applicant, on 29   September 2001 the police tried to transfer him from the Kherson Temporary Detention Facility (“the ITT”, part of the police system) to the Kherson Pre-Trial Detention Centre (“the SIZO”), but the SIZO’s administration refused to admit him because of his many injuries. 14.     On 5 October 2001 the applicant was transferred to the SIZO, where a doctor examined him. No injuries were documented. The applicant submitted to the Court, without providing any further details, that the report of the examination had been wrongly dated as 8 October 2001 (instead of 5   October) and that it had been false. 15.     The applicant stated that throughout his detention in the ITT, from 18   September to 5 October 2001, he had been subjected to torture such as the administration of electric shocks, being suspended from a horizontal metal bar while his hands were handcuffed behind his back, suffocation with a gas mask and plastic bag, and having his fingers crushed in doors. The applicant also alleged that police officers had jumped on his chest from a desk while he lay on the floor. 16.     With his observations to the Court of 16   July 2014 the applicant submitted a handwritten copy of a complaint to the Kherson regional prosecutor’s office (“the Kherson prosecutor’s office”) dated 5 October 2001 (with a handwritten confirmation by two inmates that the applicant had handed the complaint to the guard on duty for dispatching). He complained about his “continual beating, torture and humiliation” following his arrest on 18   September and during his detention in the ITT. He further submitted that the medical examination of 18   September 2001 had been incomplete and that the Kherson SIZO had disregarded his requests for a medical examination and the documentation of various injuries, which he did not specify. 17.     According to another, similar handwritten note submitted to the Court on 16   July 2014, the applicant had on 7   October 2001 complained to the governor of the Kherson SIZO that the guards had torn up his complaints to the prosecution authorities on 5 and 6   October 2001. He also complained that although he had been taken to the SIZO on 5 October 2001 with injuries all over his body, the SIZO official on duty had rejected his request for a medical examination. 18.     According to the applicant, on 9 October 2001 he sent another complaint to the Kherson prosecutor’s office. 19.     On 18 February 2002 a forensic medical report was issued in respect of the applicant’s injuries following his arrest. Having studied the case file, the forensic expert stated that the applicant had had a hemorrhage in the soft tissues of his head, sores and bruises on his face and scalp, and sores on his wrists. The injuries in question could have been inflicted on 18   September 2001 in the circumstances the applicant had described during his questioning as an accused (that is resulting from being hit on the head with the handle of a gun). The expert classified the injuries as minor. There is no further information in the case file about the report or where it was used. 20.     The applicant raised his complaint of ill-treatment during his trial at the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal (“the Kherson Court”, see, in particular, paragraphs 40 and 41 below). As a result, on 21 May 2003 a trial court judge requested that the Kherson prosecutor’s office carry out an investigation into the matter. 21.     On 30 May 2003 the Kherson prosecutor’s office refused to open a criminal case against the police officers for lack of corpus delicti in their actions. The prosecutor relied on the statements of the police officers, who denied ill-treating the applicant and his co-defendants, as well as on documents from the SIZO administration, which stated that no injuries had been found on the defendants during their medical examinations and that they had not raised any complaints. According to the applicant, he had only been able to familiarise himself with the prosecutor’s decision after almost a year, on 2   March 2004. 22.     As the applicant and his co-defendants maintained their complaints during the trial, in June 2003 the judge once again requested that the prosecution authorities investigate the matter. 23.     On 7 November 2003 the Kherson prosecutor’s office again refused to open a criminal case against the police officers, using the same reasoning as before. 24.     The applicant challenged that decision before the courts. 25.     On 30   July 2004 a judge at the Kherson Komsomolskyy District Court (“the Komsomolskyy Court”), following a hearing which included the prosecutor but not the applicant or his lawyer, dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unfounded. 26.     On 7 September 2004 the Kherson Court quashed that decision as being formalistic and lacking reasoning. It remitted the case to the same court for fresh examination by a different judge. 27.     On 10 September 2004 the Komsomolskyy Court once again dismissed the applicant’s complaint. This time the applicant’s lawyer was present at the hearing. The judge heard the parties and studied the case file. He noted that the prosecutor had rightly dismissed the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment after questioning all those involved and studying the relevant reports on the medical examinations. 28.     On 19 October 2004 the Kherson Court, siting as a panel of three judges, upheld that decision and its reasoning. 29.     On 3 December 2004 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal against the above decisions on points of law on the ground that the criminal proceedings against him were still pending. B.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant and his detention 30.     On 18 September 2001, at about 3 a.m., the applicant was arrested by the traffic police. At 10 a.m. the police drew up a report about his arrest. He was placed in the Kherson ITT. 31.     On the same date criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of aggravated robbery and murder, illegal arms handling and an attempt on the life of law-enforcement officials. By that time there were already other criminal proceedings pending against him. 32.     On an unspecified date further charges were brought against the applicant and several other people. Overall, the criminal proceedings in question involved twelve suspects and concerned twelve episodes of criminal activity, including numerous counts of theft, robbery and murder, committed between 1998 and 2001. 33.     On 22   September 2001 the Komsomolskyy Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention for an initial period of two months. The court referred to the seriousness of the charges against the applicant and noted that he might abscond or hinder the investigation if at liberty. That decision could be challenged on appeal within three days of its pronouncement. The   hearing took place in the presence of the prosecutor, but in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer. According to a handwritten note with the judge’s signature, the applicant was told of the decision on the day it was pronounced. The applicant, however, said that he became aware of it after a considerable delay, which prevented him from lodging an appeal. 34.     On 24 September 2001 the investigator in charge of the case issued a decision to extend the term of the applicant’s detention in the ITT to ten days (instead of the legally allowed maximum of three days, after which the applicant had to be transferred to the local SIZO – see paragraph   77 below). That decision was explained by the need to carry out witness confrontations, crime reconstructions and other investigative measures with the applicant’s participation. 35.     On 12 November 2001 the Komsomolskyy Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to four months on the ground that he was suspected of grave criminal offences and there were no reasons to change the preventive measure. The applicant’s lawyer, who was present at the hearing, did not object. The applicant could appeal against that decision within three days, but did not do so. 36.     On 10 January 2002 the Kherson Court, following a hearing which included the prosecutor, but not the applicant or his lawyer, extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to six months (until 18   March 2002) on the same grounds as before. That decision was not amenable to appeal. According to the applicant, he only became aware of it after a long delay. 37.     On 1 March 2002 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the applicant and his lawyer received access to the case file. 38.     On 18 March 2002 the applicant complained to both the prosecution authorities and the courts that the period of his pre-trial detention had expired on that date and had not been extended. Accordingly, he requested to be released without delay. It appears that there was no follow-up to his complaints. 39.     On 14 June 2002 the applicant and his co-accused were indicted. 40.     On 5 August 2002 the Kherson Court held a preparatory hearing, during which it decided to keep the applicant in detention. The case file does not contain a copy of that decision. 41.     On 7 December 2004 the Kherson Court found the applicant guilty of the charges and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 42.     On 11 May 2006 the Supreme Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the same trial court for fresh examination. It held, in particular, that the applicant’s defence rights had been violated on account of his removal from the hearing, in breach of procedural rules. The Supreme Court also ruled to keep the applicant in detention as a preventive measure, without further reasoning. 43.     On 20 April 2007 the Kherson Court delivered a new judgment convicting the applicant of various criminal offences and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. 44.     On 8 April 2008 the Supreme Court quashed that judgment in the part concerning the applicant on the grounds that the trial court had modified the charges against him without respecting the applicable procedural rules. Accordingly, the case was remitted for fresh consideration again. The ruling of the Supreme Court made no mention of any preventive measure in respect of the applicant pending the delivery of a new judgment. 45.     On 29 December 2009 the Kherson Court again found the applicant guilty on a long list charges and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 46.     On 20 September 2011 the Supreme Court quashed that judgment too and remitted the case to the trial court for fresh examination. 47.     On 6 October 2011 the Kherson Court transferred the case to the Bilozerka Town Court (“the Bilozerka Court”) following jurisdiction ‑ related amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure. 48.     In July, August and September 2012 the applicant applied to the trial court for release on an undertaking not to abscond. He submitted that he had already been detained for over eleven years and that his continued detention was unjustified. He referred, in particular, to the poor conditions of his detention and his deteriorating health. The applicant also noted that he had already settled the victims’ civil claims. 49.     On 19 July, 6 August and 27 September 2012 the Bilozerka Court dismissed the applicant’s applications for release on the grounds that he had failed to show that he would not abscond or hinder the implementation of various procedural decisions if he was released. 50.     On 6 August 2012 the Bilozerka Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant on a number of charges as they had become time ‑ barred. 51.     On 8 October 2012 the same court found the applicant guilty of armed robbery, aggravated murder and an attempt on the life of a law ‑ enforcement official and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. 52.     In the absence of any appeals, on 28 October 2012 the judgment became final. C.     Alleged beating of the applicant by a guard in the Kyiv SIZO on 16   August 2005 53.     During the daily outdoor walk on 16 August 2005 in the Kyiv SIZO one of the guards allegedly hit the applicant with a rubber truncheon in the stomach and on the hip. The applicant did not submit any further details about that incident. 54.     On 12 September 2005 the applicant was transferred to the Kherson SIZO. According to the authorities, he was examined on the same day by doctors, who did not detect any injuries. The applicant submitted that no such examination had taken place. 55.     On 20 September 2005 the applicant’s lawyer wrote to the governor of the Kherson SIZO that the applicant had complained of having been beaten by a guard in the Kyiv SIZO. The lawyer therefore requested a medical examination of his client. 56.     On 4   October 2005 a commission of three doctors examined the applicant. According to the applicant, that was his first examination in the Kherson SIZO. The doctors documented a 3.5-cm-long brown pigmented linear mark on the side of the applicant’s left hip and a round mark of slightly pigmented skin with irregular edges in the paraumbilical area of the left part of his stomach. 57.     On 6 October 2005 the SIZO administration informed the applicant’s lawyer of the above report. 58.     On 26 October 2005 three doctors examined the applicant again. Their findings were the same as on 4 October 2005. On a later, unspecified date the SIZO governor wrote about the findings to the applicant’s lawyer. 59.     The applicant complained to various authorities that he had been beaten on 16 August 2005 and that his injuries had never been properly documented. His complaints were forwarded to the Kyiv city prosecutor’s office (“the Kyiv prosecutor’s office”). 60.     Extracts from the applicant’s medical records in detention, which were provided to the Court by the Government, contain a copy of a report on a medical examination of the applicant in the Kherson SIZO of 13   February 2006. It mentioned, in particular, that the applicant had pigmented skin marks. Their description was identical to that given in the reports of 4 and 26 October 2005 (see paragraphs 56 and 58 above). 61.     On 22 March 2006 the Kyiv prosecutor’s office wrote to the applicant that his complaints were without basis. 62.     It is not known whether the applicant took that complaint further. 63.     On 5 February 2014 the administration of the Kyiv SIZO informed the Government’s Agent that all the records for 2005 had been destroyed after the expiry of a five-year limit for their storage. D.     Conditions of the applicant’s detention from 5   October 2005 to 24   December 2012 64.     During various unspecified periods from 5   October 2005 until his transfer to Sokyryany Prison on 24 December 2012, the applicant was detained in SIZOs in Kherson, Odessa and Kyiv. 65.     According to the applicant, he was held in overcrowded, unheated and damp cells, with no ventilation and poor lighting. There were allegedly no laundry facilities for detainees, and the cells were infested with insects. The applicant also contended that his cell mates had smoked all the time and that he had been exposed to passive smoking. He submitted numerous statements by his cellmates confirming the accuracy of the above description of their conditions of detention. The applicant also submitted several colour photographs of his cells in the Kherson and Kyiv SIZOs showing, in particular, tight metal grids on the windows, an extremely small space between the various items of furniture in the cell, poor sanitary facilities, and a lavatory which could be seen from the door. 66.     According to the Government, the conditions of the applicant’s detention were acceptable. They noted that the parts of the Kherson SIZO where he had been detained in 2005 had been demolished since that time because they had been dilapidated and not subject to capital repairs. The Government therefore submitted that they could not provide any more details about the conditions of detention there. 67.     During his transportation between the SIZOs and to court hearings, the applicant was allegedly handcuffed at all times (sometimes for up to thirty-two hours), not given sufficient food and water, deprived of sleep and unable to use the toilet when needed. 68.     The applicant complained about the conditions of his transportation to the prosecution authorities and sought to bring criminal charges against the escorting officers concerned. 69.     On 29 June 2006 the Kyiv Garrison Military Prosecutor’s Office refused to open criminal proceedings against the escorting officers owing to a lack of corpus delicti in their actions. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged that decision before the courts at three levels of jurisdiction. 70.     According to the Government, the conditions of the applicant’s transportation were not in breach of his rights. 71.     The applicant also alleged that during his detention his health had seriously deteriorated. In particular, he had contracted tuberculosis and had had unspecified heart problems, for which he had not obtained adequate medical treatment. His requests for medical assistance had allegedly been refused by the authorities. 72.     The Government provided the Court with detailed information in chronological order about the applicant’s health and the medical care provided to him in detention. His health-related concerns included the residual effects of tuberculosis (contracted in 2003), micro-cardiosclerosis, and some digestive disorders. As can be seen from the applicant’s medical file, he had regular medical examinations and received treatment for his health problems. E.     The applicant’s access to documents in the criminal file in the context of his application to the Court 73.     In January 2007 the Court asked the applicant to submit copies of his cassation appeals against the judgment of 7 December 2004, showing the dates he had lodged them with the courts dealing with the criminal case against him. 74.     On 11 March and 25 April 2007 the applicant asked the trial court to provide him with copies of all his cassation appeals and those of his co ‑ defendants. 75.     On 7 May 2007 the trial court judge dealing with the criminal case in question wrote to the applicant that there were no grounds to grant his request as he had already received all the copies he had asked for, which was confirmed by acknowledgments of receipt with his signature in the case file. Furthermore, the judge noted that the applicant had also been given the possibility to familiarise himself with the case file. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 76.     Article 97 concerning the obligation of prosecution authorities to investigate allegations of criminal offences, as well as other relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1960 (in force at the material time and repealed with effect from 19   November 2012) can be found in the judgment in the case of Kaverzin v. Ukraine (no. 23893/03, §   45, 15 May 2012). 77.     Pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1960, persons remanded in custody were held in pre ‑ trial detention centres (SIZOs, part of the penal system). Exceptionally, they could also be held in temporary detention facilities (ITTs, part of the police system), but for no longer than three days. If it was impossible to ensure a transfer to a SIZO within the aforementioned time-limit, because of its remote location or lack of infrastructure, a detainee could stay in an ITT for up to ten days. III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS 78.     On 23 November 2011 the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the CPT”) published the Report [CPT/Inf (2011) 29] to the Ukrainian Government on a visit to Ukraine from 9 to 21 September 2009, which had included a visit to the Kyiv SIZO. The relevant extracts from the Report read as follows (original emphasis): “74. At the time of the 2009 visit, the total number of prisoners in Ukraine stood at 145,000 (including 36,000 on remand), compared to some 178,000 at the time of the 2005 visit. Thus, the positive trend towards a reduction of the prison population already noted in the report on the 2005 visit continues. That said, overcrowding persists in remand establishments, the ones in Kyiv, Kherson, ...Odessa ... being cited as the most problematic. The delegation observed for itself that the overcrowding was particularly acute in the Kyiv SIZO, where there was some 1 m² of space per prisoner in certain cells, with inmates sharing beds or sleeping on the floor ... 3. Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment 87. The 2009 visit provided an opportunity to review the situation of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment. ... [The] Kyiv [SIZO was] accommodating ... 41   lifers at various stages of appeal processes. 88. [Material conditions] were ... acceptable in the lifers’ cells of the ... Kyiv [SIZO]; that said, the occupancy levels in the cells were too high (e.g. three inmates in cells measuring some 10 m²). ... 100. The SIZO in Kyiv occupies a complex of buildings in one of the central areas of Kyiv. Some of the detention buildings had been constructed some 140 years previously. ... With an official capacity of 2,950 places, on 8 September 2009 the establishment was holding 3,440 inmates, including 217 women and 69 juveniles. The vast majority of the inmate population was on remand. The establishment was also holding 297 inmates awaiting the outcome of their appeal (including 41 life-sentenced prisoners), 93 prisoners in transit and 100 sentenced inmates assigned to work in the prison’s general services and maintenance. ... 101.     The vast majority of the cells holding male prisoners were seriously overcrowded (for example, 52 prisoners in a cell measuring some 50 m² and containing 40 beds; 32 prisoners in a cell measuring 33 m² and containing 20 beds). In some cells, the number of prisoners exceeded the number of beds available, and inmates took turns to sleep on the available beds or slept on the floor. The cells were packed with double bunk-beds, leaving very little space for any other furniture. In some cells, there were TV sets which belonged to the occupants. Because of the human mass, ventilation was almost non-existent and the cells were very hot and stuffy. The level of hygiene was also highly unsatisfactory: in some cells the delegation saw cockroaches, and prisoners also referred to the presence of mice and rats. The in-cell sanitary installations (a partitioned toilet and sink) were generally in a decrepit state and were clearly not sufficient for the numbers of inmates held in the larger cells. The negative consequences of the deplorable material conditions described above were compounded by the fact that some prisoners had spent lengthy periods of time at the SIZO ... In the CPT’s view, the combination of negative factors to which a large number of prisoners were subjected at the Kyiv SIZO (overcrowding, appalling material conditions and levels of hygiene, and practically non-existent activity programmes) could easily be described as inhuman and degrading treatment. ...” 79.     The CPT’s later report, which was published on 14   November 2012 and which concerned its visit to Ukraine from 29   November to 6   December 2011, also contained the following relevant extracts regarding the conditions of detention in the Kyiv SIZO (original emphasis): “43. The delegation gained a generally positive impression of the material conditions in the units for juveniles at the [SIZO] in Kyiv .... However, conditions of detention were quite simply appalling in many of the other detention units of the ... [SIZO]. Numerous cells were in a poor state of repair and had only very limited access to natural light. In addition, the CPT is concerned about the severe overcrowding observed in a number of detention units of [the establishment]. At the time of the visit, the Kyiv SIZO was accommodating 3,761   prisoners (official capacity: 2,850 places) ... The Committee acknowledges the efforts made by the Ukrainian authorities to reduce overcrowding in the [SIZO] visited. ...” 80.     The relevant extracts from some earlier CPT reports (following visits to Ukraine in 1998, 2000 and 2002) concerning the conditions of transportation of detainees in Ukraine are quoted, in particular, in the Court’s judgment in the case of Andrey Yakovenko v. Ukraine (no.   63727/11, §§   71-73, 13   March 2014). THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED ILL-TREATMENT OF THE APPLICANT AFTER HIS ARREST ON 18 SEPTEMBER 2001 81.     The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by police officers following his arrest on 18   September 2001 and that there had been no effective investigation into the matter. He relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court considers it appropriate, however, to examine the above complaints only under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” A.     Admissibility 82.     The Government submitted that the applicant’s allegation of ill ‑ treatment was unfounded and not supported by any evidence. 83.     The applicant insisted that his complaint was admissible. 84.     The Court notes that the complaint of ill-treatment raises serious issues requiring an examination of the merits. Therefore, contrary to the Government’s submissions, the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention (see Serikov v.   Ukraine , no. 42164/09, § 53, 23 July 2015). It is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 1.     The parties’ submissions 85.     The applicant maintained his complaint based on his account of the events (see paragraph 10 above). He submitted that immediately after his arrest on 18 September 2001 he had been severely beaten by the police. He contended that not all his injuries had been documented by a forensic medical expert on that date and that even those that had been documented had not corresponded to the level of force applied to him during his arrest. According to the applicant, the swelling and bruises on his head could not have been inflicted by two or three hits with the handle of a gun, but had resulted from more serious ill-treatment, which he had sustained after his arrest. 86.     The applicant drew the Court’s attention to his prolonged detention in the ITT (for seventeen days instead of the legally established limit of three days – see paragraphs 34 and 77 above). According to him, that time had been required for his injuries to heal. At the same time, the applicant alleged that he had been continually tortured during that period (see   paragraph   15 above). 87.     The applicant also submitted that the domestic investigation into his allegation of ill-treatment had been ineffective, superficial and formalistic. 88.     The Government contested the applicant’s allegations of ill ‑ treatment as not based on any evidence. 89.     They submitted that he had only raised that complaint for the first time during his trial in 2003, that is, about two years after his alleged ill ‑ treatment. According to the Government, the domestic authorities investigated the matter in an expedient and efficient manner. Having found no evidence in support of the applicant’s complaint, they had rightly dismissed it as unfounded. 2.     The Court’s assessment (a)     Alleged ill-treatment 90.     The Court has consistently pointed out in its case-law that, in respect of a person who is deprived of his liberty, or, more generally, is confronted with law-enforcement officers, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his or her own conduct diminishes human dignity and is an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (see Ribitsch v.   Austria , 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336; and Bouyid v.   Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 101, 28 September 2015). The use of force in the context of an arrest, even if it entails injury, may fall outside Article 3, particularly in circumstances resulting from the applicant’s own conduct (see Berliński v. Poland , nos. 27715/95 and 30209/96, § 64, 20 June 2002). 91.     In assessing evidence, the Court has generally applied the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom , 18   January 1978, § 161, Series A no. 25). However, such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact. Where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons within their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries occurring during such detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see   Ribitsch , cited above, § 34, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §   100, ECHR 2000-VII). 92.     It is undisputed in the present case that the applicant vigorously resisted arrest and that the police applied force to restrain him. However, his complaint is not about that. The applicant has never contested the nature or intensity of that force and has consistently accepted the authorities’ account that the police officers hit him several times on the head with the handle of a gun with a view to securing his arrest. Nor has the applicant alleged that the force used against him was unjustified or disproportionate. The scope of his complaint under Article 3 is confined to his alleged ill-treatment by the police after his arrest and after he had been handcuffed. 93.     More specifically, the applicant’s allegation concerns two episodes. Firstly, he complained of having been extensively kicked, punched and hit with rubber truncheons immediately after his arrest and prior to his medical examination on the same day, 18 September 2001. Secondly, he contended that he had been subjected to continual torture during the seventeen days of his detention in the ITT as a part of the police system (from 18   September to 5 October 2001). 94.     The Court attaches particular weight to the forensic medical evidence submitted by the parties. It has often stated in this connection that the medical examination of persons in police custody, together with the right of access to a lawyer and the right to inform a third party of the detention, constitutes one of the most essential safeguards against ill ‑ treatment (see, among other authorities, Türkan v. Turkey , no.   33086/04, §   42, 18   September 2008). 95.     The Court observes that in the present case the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination on the day of his arrest. The expert documented some injuries on his head and concluded that they could have resulted from being hit with the handle of a gun (see paragraph 11 above). Having regard to the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest, his general constitution and behaviour, as well as the nature, gravity and location of the injuries documented, the Court considers the explanation of the origin of those injuries to be plausible overall (compare with Danilov v.   Ukraine , no.   2585/06, § 65, 13 March 2014). It further notes that the applicant explicitly stated to the expert that he had not been subjected to any ill ‑ treatment following his arrest. 96.     The Court takes note of the applicant’s allegations that the police threatened him, that they talked to the expert in private and that the expert limited his examination of the applicant to the visible parts of his body and failed to document some injuries. However, those submissions are neither corroborated by any evidence nor supported by factual inferences, and the Court is not in a position to verify them. As regards the failure of the domestic authorities to investigate those allegations, it will be examined in the context of the applicant’s complaint concerning the effectiveness of the investigation into his alleged ill-treatment (see paragraphs   103-113 below). 97.     There is no indication in the case file that by the time of his medical examination on 18 September 2001 the applicant had sustained any injuries in addition to those inflicted on him during his arrest, which he did not complain about. 98.     Nor does the Court discern any direct or indirect evidence in support of the applicant’s generally phrased allegation that he was subjected to continual torture from 18 September to 5 October 2001. 99.     The Court does not lose sight of the fact that, as pointed out by the applicant, he was detained in the ITT for seventeen days, whereas the applicable legislation required his transfer to the SIZO within three days of his arrest (see paragraphs 34, 77 and 86 above). However, that fact alone is not sufficient to support a finding that he was ill-treated during that period (see, mutatis mutandis , Kapustyak v. Ukraine, no. 26230/11, § 69, 3 March 2016). Furthermore, the applicant’s submissions in this connection are not consistent. On the one hand, he explained his continued detention in the ITT by the authorities’ intention to conceal his ill-treatment by allowing time for his injuries to heal. On the other hand, he contended that he had been tortured throughout that period. 100.     It is not without relevance that the medical examination of the applicant upon his arrival at the Kherson SIZO on 5   October 2001 did not detect any injuries. His related submissions to the Court and to the domestic authorities appear to lack consistency too. For example, he stated to the Court that he had undergone that examination, but alleged that it had been incomplete (see paragraph 14 above). In his submissions at the domestic level, however, he alleged that no such examination had in fact taken place (see paragraphs 16 and 17 above). Such contradictions provide grounds for the Court to draw factual inferences unfavourable for the applicant (see and compare with Khayrov v. Ukraine , no. 19157/06, §§ 53, 56 and 57, 15   November 2012). 101.     It follows that the material in the case file does not provide an evidentiary basis sufficient to enable the Court to find “beyond reasonable doubt” that the applicant was subjected to the ill-treatment alleged following his arrest on 18 September 2001. 102.     Accordingly, the Court cannot but conclude that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb. (b)     Effectiveness of the domestic investigation 103.     The Court emphasises that where an individual raises an arguable claim that he has been seriously ill-treated by the police or other such agents of the State unlawfully and in breach of Article 3, that provision requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. If this were not the case, the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment would be ineffective in practice and it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity (see Assenov and Others v.   Bulgaria , 28 October 1998, §   102, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ VIII). 104.     Although in the present case the Court has not found it proved, on account of a lack of evidence, that the applicant was ill-treated by the police after his arrest, that does not in principle preclude the complaint in relation to Article 3 from being “arguable” for the purposes of the positive obligation to investigate (see Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey , nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, § 54, 10 March 2009, and Aleksandr Smirnov v.   Ukraine , no. 38683/06, § 57, 15 July 2010). 105.     It is not known when the applicant first complained to the domestic authorities about his alleged ill-treatment. According to him, he did so immediately after his transfer to the SIZO on 5 October 2001. To substantiate that statement, he submitted to the Court a handwritten copy of his respective complaints to the prosecution authorities and to the SIZO’s administration (see paragraphs 16 and 17 above). The Court notes some inconsistencies in the applicant’s submissions. For example, as his cellmates confirmed in writing on the copy of his complaint to the Kherson prosecutor’s office of 5 October 2001, the guard on duty had accepted the complaint for dispatching. However, two days later the applicant complained to the SIZO’s administration that the guards had torn up his complaints to the prosecution authorities on 5 and 6 October 2001. As regards the applicant’s supposed complaint to the prosecutor of 9   October 2001, the copy provided to the Court does not contain any evidence that such a complaint was indeed written, dispatched and received by its addressee. 106.     In sum, the Court has no evidence before it showing that the applicant complained to the domestic authorities about his ill-treatment earlier than during his trial at the beginning of 2003 (see   paragraph   20   above). Nor has the Court any basis for concluding that the applicant had in fact been prevented from raising such complaints. 107.     However, even assuming that the applicant complained of his ill ‑ treatment in police custody only in 2003, as pointed out by the Government and confirmed by the documentary evidence, the Court considers that in the circumstances of the case, regard being had to the use of force against the applicant during his arrest and the fact that he underwent a medical examination after spending several hours in police custody, it was incumbent on the authorities to conduct an investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment (see Minikayev v. Russia , no. 630/08, § 64, 5   January 2016). 108.     The Court has always emphasised in its case-law that an investigation into serious allegations of ill-treatment must be both prompt and thorough. The authorities must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill ‑ founded conclusions to close their investigation or as the basis of their decisions. They must take all reasonable steps available to them to secure evidence concerning the incident including, inter alia , eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence. Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see, for example, Kopylov v.   Russia , no.   3933/04, §   133, 29 July 2010). 109.     The Court notes that in the present case the authorities contented themselves with delivering two identically reasoned decisions not to institute criminal proceedings following the applicant’s complaints of ill ‑ treatment, which were based largely on the accounts of the officers implicated in the events taken at face value (for the facts see paragraphs   21 and 23 above, and for the case-law see Kaverzin , cited above, §   175). The case file material discloses no meaningful effort to verify or disprove the applicant’s account of events, including by thoroughly questioning him, organising confrontations or posing specific questions to the independent medical experts (see Danilo