CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 6 juillet 2017

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .s9E304268 { width:190.42pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s6893305C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.25pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt }       FIFTH SECTION           CASE OF SADKOV v. UKRAINE   (Application no. 21987/05)                 JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   6 July 2017     FINAL   11/12/2017   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.     In the case of Sadkov v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Angelika Nußberger, President,   Erik Møse,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Faris Vehabović,   Yonko Grozev,   Síofra O’Leary,   Carlo Ranzoni, judges, and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 16 May 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 21987/05) 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 Vitaliy Anatolyevich Sadkov (“the applicant”), on 2   June 2005. 2.     The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented most recently by their Agent, most recently Mr I. Lishchyna of the Ministry of Justice. 3.     The applicant complained, in the main, under Article 3 of the Convention of ill-treatment by the authorities, under Article 5 of the unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention and a lack of review of the lawfulness of his detention, under Article 6 of the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him, and under Article 34 of the hindrance of his right of individual application. 4.     On 3 June 2013 the applicant’s 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 5.     The applicant was born in 1972 and currently lives in Ukraine. Prior to the events at issue, notably during an unspecified period before 1998, the applicant used to serve in the police. He provided no further details in that regard. I.     The applicant’s arrest and administrative detention 6.     On 11 June 2004 the police were informed that the applicant and one of his suspected accomplices, who at the time were on a wanted list for having committed multiple robberies, were on a train travelling to Moldova. The police were also informed that they could be in possession of a gun. At about 11 p.m. on that day a group of four police officers boarded the train and arrested the applicant and his accomplice, using, as noted in the relevant official documents, “hand-to-hand combat techniques” and handcuffs to subdue them. According to the Government, during the arrest the applicant tried to escape. Subsequently, the applicant was taken to Kotovsk police station. 7.     On 12 June 2004 the police drew up a report on the applicant’s arrest in which it was noted that he had been arrested for “having resisted lawful demands of the police”, which was an administrative offence, on 12 June 2004 in Kotovsk. The police report on the offence, joined to the above arrest report of 12 June 2004, specified that the applicant “had behaved aggressively, had refused to present his identity documents, had tried to run away [and] had grabbed the police officers’ clothes”. According to the parties, the information concerning the time and place of the arrest contained in the reports was false. 8.     Later that day the Kotovsk Town Court found the applicant guilty of the abovementioned administrative offence and ordered his administrative detention for twelve days. The applicant remained in police custody. 9.     On 17 August 2004 the regional police department examined the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest and issued a report, finding that the police officers concerned had lawfully used “hand-to-hand combat techniques” and handcuffs against the applicant. No further details were given in that connection. In the report, it was also noted that the applicant had had bruises on his body after the arrest. II.     Alleged ill-treatment of the applicant 10.     According to the applicant, while in police custody during the night of 11 to 12 June 2004, he was ill-treated by several police officers with the aim of extracting his confession to the crimes of which he was suspected (see paragraph 6 above). In particular, police officers allegedly beat him up, administered electric shocks to him, suffocated him using a gas mask, inserted needles under his nails, hung him over a metal bar, and attempted to sexually abuse him. Unable to withstand the ill-treatment, the applicant made self-incriminating statements and also statements incriminating several other persons, who later became his co-defendants in the proceedings. The applicant stated that had he not done so, the police officers would have killed him as they had killed a certain M., whom the police had suspected of being the applicant’s accomplice, during his questioning in the same police station on 18 March 2004. As was later found by the trial court, M. had died in the course of a robbery he had committed together with the applicant (see paragraph 54 below). 11.     Allegedly, the police officers also forced the applicant to sign a written statement that he had no complaints about them and that he had received his injuries elsewhere. 12.     On 12 June 2004 the applicant complained to a prosecutor’s office that he had been tortured by the police. On the same day, on the prosecutor’s office’s instructions, the applicant was examined by a medical expert who noted multiple bruises on the applicant’s body and face, which the expert classified as minor. During his medical examination the applicant stated that he had been beaten up by the police officers at the police station during the night of 11 to 12 June 2004. The expert noted that the applicant could have been punched and kicked in the head and body during that time. 13.     According to the applicant, the police officers continued torturing him for the next three days. The applicant stated that two people had witnessed him being ill-treated by the police. He did not give their details. 14.     On 29 June 2004 the applicant handed the investigators a written statement informing them of his wish to withdraw his complaints of ill ‑ treatment. Notably, he stated that he had no grievances against the police and that he had been injured due to his own fault in a different location. He did not provide any details of how he had been injured. 15.     On 30 June 2004 an investigator from the Kotovsk police station, having questioned the applicant in the presence of his lawyer (see paragraph   38 below), decided not to launch a criminal investigation in respect of the applicant’s injuries, noting, mainly, that the applicant had withdrawn his complaints. 16.     Subsequently, the applicant lodged new complaints of alleged ill ‑ treatment by the police on 11-12 June 2004 with a prosecutor’s office. 17.     In particular, in August 2004 the applicant complained to the prosecutor overseeing the investigation that he had been beaten up by the police. On 30 August 2004 the prosecutor met with the applicant and allegedly tried to force him to confess to having committed other crimes. As the applicant refused, the prosecutor allegedly beat him up. As a result, the applicant decided to stop making complaints to that prosecutor. 18.     The applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment by the police on 11 ‑ 12   June 2004 made to other prosecutors were re-examined on several occasions. In particular, the prosecutors’ decisions refusing to prosecute the police officers issued on 6 July and 31 August 2004, 25 January, 28 July and 25 November 2005 were annulled by senior prosecutors for failure to investigate the matter in full. 19.     By a decision of 11   February 2006, the prosecutor’s office again rejected the complaints as unsubstantiated, finding that it had not been demonstrated that the police officers had committed a crime and that there was no evidence that the police had forced the applicant to give self ‑ incriminating statements after his arrest. Statements of a number of police officers were relied upon in that regard. It was also noted that at some point in time the applicant and his lawyer had made statements that the applicant had not been ill-treated by the police after his arrest, and that he had refused to give details as to how he had received the injuries noted in the medical examination of 12 June 2004 (see paragraphs 14 and 15 above). The prosecutor’s office further found no issue in the way the police had arrested the applicant, relying on the report of 17   August 2004 (see   paragraph 9 above). 20.     The applicant did not challenge that decision in a separate appeal to a higher prosecutor or the courts, though he raised the complaints of ill ‑ treatment by the police raised during his trial (see paragraph 49 below). 21.     According to the applicant, during further stages of the criminal proceedings against him, he was subjected to beatings by the police on several occasions. 22.     The applicant also stated that during his trial he had been subjected to various forms of ill-treatment by the guards, who had been escorting him to court hearings. In particular, the guards had twisted his hands and tried to break his vertebral column; they had not provided him with food during the lunch breaks; and they had threatened the applicant with physical punishment. They had also placed him temporarily in cells together with inmates whom the applicant claims he had arrested when he had worked for the police (see paragraph 5 above). The guards had informed the inmates that they would go unpunished had they killed or raped the applicant. Allegedly, the prosecutors to whom the applicant had brought his complaints of ill-treatment did not examine those complaints on the merits. 23.     After his trial, in particular between February 2009 and November 2012, the applicant was detained in “ordinary” prisons, where he was allegedly subjected to abuse and threats by inmates on account of his previous service in the police. Eventually he was transferred to a specialised prison in Mena in which inmates with law-enforcement backgrounds were detained. 24.     On 15 February 2016 the applicant was released from prison. III.     Allegedly inadequate medical assistance to the applicant while in detention 25.     The applicant stated that during his detention he had suffered from different health issues, including a gastric ulcer, kidney disease and an eye issue, for which he had not been provided adequate medical assistance. Consequently, his health condition had deteriorated. The applicant had lodged multiple complaints concerning his allegedly inadequate medical assistance with a prosecutor’s office. 26.     In 2006 the prosecutor’s office instructed the head of the Prisons Service in Odessa to ensure that the applicant received adequate medical assistance while he was detained in Odesa Pre-Trial Detention Centre (“the SIZO”). Allegedly, the SIZO administration did not comply with that instruction and he was not given the assistance he needed. Thus, he continued to lodge complaints with the prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor’s office eventually rejected the complaints as unsubstantiated, having studied the applicant’s medical file and noted that he had been medically examined and provided with adequate medical assistance during his detention in the SIZO. The applicant’s further complaints of inadequate medical assistance while in prison were also rejected as unsubstantiated. 27.     The Government submitted detailed information regarding the medical assistance which the applicant had received in detention. It demonstrates that throughout the period of his detention in the SIZO and in different prisons he had been examined by various doctors, including those from civilian medical institutions, and had been provided with treatment for the different medical issues he had had at the time. IV.     The applicant’s detention prior to his conviction on 30 March 2007 28.     After his arrest on 11   June 2004, the applicant was detained on the basis of the decision of the Town Court of 12 June 2004 sentencing him to twelve days’ administrative detention (see paragraph 8 above). 29.     On 24 June 2004 the applicant was informed that he was being arrested in connection with his criminal prosecution. The next day the Town Court ordered his further detention for two months on the grounds that the applicant was accused of serious crimes and that he might evade investigation or commit a new crime. No further details were given in that regard. 30.     The applicant did not appeal against the decision of the Town Court of 25 June 2004. Nor did he appeal against the decision of the same court of 10   August 2004 extending the maximum period of his detention to 21   October 2004. 31.     Between 21 October and 24 December 2004 the applicant was detained solely on the basis of his case having been referred to the trial court. 32.     Subsequently, the applicant was detained partly on the basis of the decision of the Town Court of 24 December 2004 and the decisions of the Odesa Regional Court of Appeal (“the Appeal Court”) of 3 June 2005 and 10 January 2006 returning the case for additional investigation, and partly on the basis of the decisions of the Appeal Court of 4 March, 29 July and 2   November 2005 and 10 March 2006 repeatedly extending the maximum period of his pre-trial detention. Those decisions were based mainly on the grounds that further investigative measures had to be performed, that the applicant was accused of serious crimes, and that he might evade investigation and trial and obstruct the establishment of the truth in the case. Those decisions contained no further details in that connection. No appeal against those decisions could be lodged. The applicant alleged that they were taken in violation of procedural norms, in particular without him or his lawyer taking part in the hearings on the matter. 33.     Some of the periods of the applicant’s detention between 4 March 2005 and 18 April 2006 – notably, from 10 May to 3 June and from 4   to 16   December 2005 – were not covered by any decision at all, the applicant having been detained on the grounds that the case was pending commencement of the trial. 34.     According to the applicant, his detention between 10 and 15 May 2005 was also not covered by any decision at all. V.     The applicant’s criminal prosecution 35.     On 13 June 2004 the applicant was questioned as a witness concerning several cases of robbery. The applicant made self-incriminating statements, giving details of the crimes which he and several other persons had committed. 36.     On 15 June 2004 the applicant was questioned on suspicion of murder, as one of his accomplices had given statements implicating him in that crime, which he had allegedly committed in the course of a robbery. The accomplice had been with the applicant when the murder had been committed, but had not seen how it had happened. In the course of the applicant’s questioning on that date he confessed to having committed the murder and gave details in that regard. On the same date the applicant was officially charged with that crime. The applicant stated that he had been questioned without a lawyer being present. The Government did not address this submission. No documents regarding the applicant’s questioning of 15   June 2004 were provided. Reference to that questioning was made in the judgment of 30 March 2007 (see paragraph 53 below). Notably, when assessing evidence concerning the murder charges, the Appeal Court held that: “... [T]he questioning of Sadkov V.A. was conducted with the participation of a lawyer [while Mr Sadkov had the procedural status of] a suspect on 15   June 2004 ([pages] 64-65, [volume] 12 [of the case file]) and an accused ([pages] 69-70, [volume] 12 [of the case file]) ... during which Sadkov explained that he had stabbed [the victim] repeatedly with a knife ... [and that] subsequently, he threw that knife into a lake. [His] statements contained information about the way the victim had been stabbed ... which was later confirmed by a forensic expert ... and which was not present in the statements of [his accomplice] ... [O]n 15 June 2004, immediately after that information was received, the police officers searched the lake which [Mr Sadkov and his accomplice] had indicated and found a knife, which, according to the experts’ report, could have been used to inflict the injuries of the victim ...” 37.     Subsequently, the applicant took part in a number of investigative procedures, notably crime reconstructions and witness confrontations. According to the applicant and the information contained in the judgment of 30 March 2007 (see paragraph 53 below), he was not represented by a lawyer during those procedures. 38.     According to the parties’ submissions, on 24 June 2004 a lawyer was appointed by the investigator to represent the applicant in the proceedings. No copy of the relevant decision was provided. The applicant was questioned in the lawyer’s presence where he confirmed his previous statements to the police. 39.     During questioning at later stages of the investigation and at the trial, the applicant, with his lawyer present, repeatedly changed his version of the events pertaining to the charges against him. For instance, while initially he testified that it had been only him who had committed the murder, during subsequent questioning he stated that one of his co-defendants had also taken part in the murder. Ultimately, the applicant denied his responsibility for the murder and the majority of the counts of robbery. In particular, he stated that the crimes had been committed by his co ‑ defendants, who had informed him of the relevant details, and that his confession during the initial questioning in June 2004 had been extracted as a result of ill ‑ treatment by the police. 40.     On 22 October 2004 the investigation was completed and the applicant was given the case file to study. 41.     On 24 December 2004 the Town Court returned the case for additional investigation for failure to complete the required investigative steps in full. It also instructed the investigator to look into one of the applicant’s co-defendants’ complaints of ill-treatment by the police. 42.     Subsequently, the case was returned to the prosecutor’s office for additional investigation two more times, on 3 June and 16 December 2005, mainly for failure to complete the required investigative steps in full. 43.     In the meantime, on 28 April 2005 the applicant asked the investigators to terminate the criminal proceedings against him and to release him from detention, stating that the charges against him were based on his self-incriminating statements obtained as a result of ill-treatment in June 2004. 44.     On 29 April 2005 the request was refused as unsubstantiated. 45.     On 30 November 2005 the investigators rejected a similar request made by the applicant’s lawyer on 29 November 2005, in which he also alleged that the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment by the police had not been duly examined. 46.     During the pre-trial investigation the applicant was given access to the entire case file and studied it together with his lawyer on several occasions, notably in April and September 2005 and February 2006. He was also given access to the case file during the trial. 47.     According to the reports of the police, while the applicant was studying the case file on 29 September 2005 he tried to destroy several documents, in particular those concerning his statements made on 29 June 2004 (see paragraph 14 above). The applicant did not make any comments in that regard. 48.     In April 2006 the case was referred to the Appeal Court for trial. 49.     During the trial the applicant denied being guilty of the crimes he was charged with. The applicant’s principle argument was that the charges were based on his and his co-defendants’ testimony obtained as a result of ill-treatment by the police, and on false evidence. 50.     On 30 March 2007 the Appeal Court found the applicant and five others guilty of a number of crimes, including murder, illegal possession of firearms and on multiple counts of robbery, sentenced the applicant to fifteen years’ imprisonment and ordered the confiscation of all his property. 51.     The court based its judgment regarding most of the charges mainly on the testimony of the applicant’s co-defendants obtained in the course of the investigation and during the trial. The court also relied on the testimony of a number of witnesses and victims of the crimes and on the conclusions of several forensic, ballistic and other expert examinations. 52.     The court noted that the applicant’s and his co-defendants’ arrest and administrative detention at the initial stage of the investigation (in the applicant’s case between 11 and 24 June 2004) had been contrary to Articles   106 and 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (setting-out rules on pre ‑ trial detention), as they had actually been arrested on suspicion of having committed crimes. The court also noted that during that period they had been questioned as witnesses concerning the relevant events and had taken part in other investigative procedures, notably crime reconstructions and witness confrontations. According to the court, that situation had entailed a violation of their right to mount a defence. The court decided not to accept as evidence all the verbatim records of the investigative actions in which the applicant and his co-defendants had taken part as witnesses during the relevant periods (see paragraph 35 above). 53.     As regards the charge of murder, the court relied principally on the statements of one of the applicant’s accomplices and the applicant’s self ‑ incriminating statements made at the pre-trial stage, in particular during his interview on 15 June 2004 and during subsequent questioning, having noted that the applicant had been assisted by a lawyer when he had made those statements (see paragraphs 36 and 38 above). The court found that the statements were reliable and noted that during the trial the applicant had made conflicting submissions concerning the relevant events, which could not be accepted. 54.     Relying on the prosecutor’s office’s decision of 11 February 2006 (see paragraph 19 above), the court found that the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment by the police had been unsubstantiated. The court also found that, contrary to the applicant’s submissions, one of his accomplices, M., had died of blood loss after he had been injured by the applicant’s other accomplice in the course of one of the robberies they had committed. 55.     The applicant and the prosecution challenged the judgment of 30   March 2007 on appeal. While the prosecution disagreed with the first-instance court’s legal qualification of some of the crimes, the applicant argued that he had not been guilty, that he had made self-incriminating statements as a result of ill-treatment by the police and that his co ‑ defendants had made untruthful statements concerning his involvement in the crimes. 56.     On 4 December 2007 the Supreme Court heard the case and delivered its decision in the applicant’s presence. It upheld the judgment of 30   March 2007 in so far as it concerned the majority of the convictions, including murder. The Supreme Court found that the applicant’s guilt had been duly established. In its decision, it referred to the statements of the applicant’s co-defendants, witnesses and victims, and also to different forensic evidence. 57.     By the same decision, the Supreme Court ordered a retrial of several of the convictions of robbery, holding that the first-instance court had erred in the legal qualification of the crimes. In particular, it ordered the examination of whether those crimes could be considered as having been committed by an “organised group”. 58.     The applicant stated that a copy of the decision of the Supreme Court of 4   December 2007 had been given to him, after a substantial delay, on 19   June 2008. 59.     During the retrial the applicant argued that he was not guilty and that he had been ill-treated by the police on 11-12 June 2004. 60.     On 11 August 2008 the Appeal Court convicted the applicant and his co-defendants on the remaining counts of robbery. It did not change the applicant’s sentence. The conviction was based mainly on the testimony of the applicant’s co-defendants obtained in the course of the investigation and trial. To a certain extent, the court also relied on the testimony of several witnesses and victims and the results of various expert examinations. 61.     Relying on the prosecutor’s office’s decision of 11 February 2006, the court found that the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment by the police were unsubstantiated. 62.     The applicant appealed in cassation. 63.     On 16 December 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 11   August 2008, noting, inter alia , that there had been no evidence that the applicant’s co-defendants had perjured themselves. It also noted that the applicant had acknowledged his guilt and had given details of the relevant events on several occasions during the investigation. The Supreme Court did not specify the period of the investigation to which it referred. 64.     The Supreme Court generally noted that the applicant’s complaints of a violation of his right to mount a defence did not have any basis in the case file. It further found no violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960 (“the CCrP”) in that the applicant had taken part in the investigative actions during his administrative detention. The applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment were considered to be unsubstantiated. 65.     On 13 February 2009 the Appeal Court sent the applicant a copy of the decision of the Supreme Court of 16 December 2008, noting that after that date the applicant would not be entitled to study the case file. VI.     The application to the Court 66.     In June and July 2005 the applicant made submissions to the Court, complaining principally of ill-treatment by the police and of the unlawfulness of his arrest and detention. 67.     By a letter of 22 August 2005, the Court invited the applicant to provide copies of documents pertinent to his complaints. 68.     In his letter of 29 September 2005, the applicant stated that his requests for copies of the necessary documents had been refused by the domestic authorities. In particular, in September 2005 the prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that the CCrP did not provide for the issuing of copies of documents from criminal case files and that once the investigation had been completed the applicant and his lawyer would be given a possibility to study the case file and to make copies of documents by hand. 69.     By a letter of 5 December 2005, the Court invited the Government to provide factual information concerning the applicant’s complaints regarding his inability to obtain copies of the documents needed for his application. 70.     In January 2006 the applicant and the Government submitted copies of a number of documents relating to the applicant’s complaints of ill ‑ treatment and unlawful detention. 71.     In their reply to the Court’s letter of 5 December 2005, the Government also stated that pursuant to the CCrP the applicant had the right to study the case file and to make copies of documents after the completion of the investigation against him. 72.     Subsequently, the applicant allegedly also had difficulties obtaining copies of other documents from the case file. He stated that his requests to the prosecutor’s office and the courts for such copies had been to no avail. According to the documents provided by the parties, it was noted that the applicant had been given access to his case file during the criminal proceedings against him and that the courts had not been required to issue him copies of documents other than judgments in his criminal case. 73.     The applicant alleged that the administration of a prison in which he had been detained in August 2009 had destroyed a letter which he had asked them to send to the Court on 3 August 2009. 74.     The prosecutor’s office examined the alleged destruction of the letter and found that it had been duly dispatched. 75.     The Court did not receive a letter from the applicant dated 3 August 2009. THE LAW I.     SCOPE OF THE CASE 76.     The Court notes that, after the communication of the case to the respondent Government, the applicant lodged new complaints. In particular, in his submissions dated 10 July 2014 the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against him, under Article 8 of the unlawfulness of the search of his home in the course of those proceedings, and under Article 9 that he had not been allowed to keep religious texts or to meet with a priest during his pre-trial detention. 77.     In the Court’s view, the applicant’s new complaints are not an elaboration of his original complaints to the Court on which the parties have commented. The Court considers, therefore, that it is not appropriate to take these matters up in the context of the present case (see Piryanik v. Ukraine , no.   75788/01, § 20, 19 April 2005). II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 78.     The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by the police in June and December 2004, by a prosecutor on 30 August 2004 and by the guards escorting the applicant to court hearings during his trial. The applicant alleged that his complaints at the domestic level had not been duly examined. 79.     The applicant further complained of inadequate medical assistance in detention and the prosecutor’s office’s inaction in that regard. 80.     He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” A.     Admissibility 1.     Alleged ill-treatment during the criminal proceedings 81.     The Court notes that parts of the applicant’s complaints under Article   3 of the Convention, specifically those of him being subjected to electric shocks, suffocation using a gas mask, insertion of needles under his nails, hanging him over a metal bar and sexual abuse between 11 and 12   June 2004 (see paragraph 10 above), are not supported by any evidence. Nor is there any evidence for the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment by the police after 12 June 2004, by a prosecutor on 30 August 2004 and by the guards escorting him to court hearings (see paragraphs 13, 17, 21 and 22 above). Also, it should be noted that the applicant did not demonstrate that he had raised those complaints in a meaningful way before the domestic authorities. Thus, the Court considers that they are not “arguable” for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention and that the domestic authorities were not required to carry out an effective investigation into the alleged events. Accordingly, the Court finds that this part of the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment, under both the substantive and the procedural limbs of Article 3, should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 82.     In so far as the applicant can be understood as having complained of his alleged ill-treatment by inmates on account of his past service in the police (see paragraph 23 above), the Court finds that that complaint is entirely unsubstantiated and rejects it as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 83.     In contrast, the Court notes that the applicant’s allegation that he was beaten up by the police between 11 and 12 June 2004 is supported by a medical report (see paragraph 12 above). Accordingly, that complaint was prima facie arguable and, given the Court’s settled case-law on the matter, the authorities were required to conduct an effective official investigation (see, for instance, Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, § 106, 15 May 2012). 84.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention of having been beaten by the police between 11 and 12 June 2004 and the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation in that regard are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3 (a) of the Convention. The Court further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. 2.     Allegedly inadequate medical assistance 85.     The Court observes that, while in detention, the applicant suffered from various medical issues (see paragraph 25 above). According to the detailed information submitted by the Government, the applicant’s complaints of specific health problems were dealt with by the authorities (see paragraph 27 above). On the whole, it cannot be argued that they addressed them inadequately. The applicant was examined by a number of doctors, including some from civilian medical institutions. He remained under their supervision throughout the entire period of his detention. They were best placed to determine the applicant’s treatment and he was provided with the prescribed therapies. There is no evidence and it was not persuasively argued that the doctors had acted in bad faith or that the treatment provided had been ineffective. Nor did the applicant demonstrate that the domestic examination of his complaints of inadequate medical treatment had been deficient (see paragraph 26 above). Moreover, the shortcomings in the medical assistance provided to the applicant in the SIZO, identified by the prosecutor’s office, were eventually adequately addressed and resolved (ibid.). 86.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the applicant’s complaints of inadequate medical assistance and the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation in that regard should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. B.     Merits 1.     The parties’ submissions 87.     The applicant complained that he had been beaten up by the police between 11 and 12 June 2004 and that there had been no effective investigation into that incident. 88.     The Government contended that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he had been ill-treated by the police after his arrest on 11   June 2004. According to them, the applicant had received the injuries, which had been discovered during a medical examination on 12 June 2004, during his arrest as the police had had to use force to subdue him. The Government argued that the use of force by the police had been lawful and that the authorities’ examination of the incident had been prompt and accurate. 2.     The Court’s assessment 89.     The Court observes that the applicant’s complaints under consideration concern both the substantive and the procedural aspects of Article   3 of the Convention. As regards the former aspect, the Court notes that it is now common ground between the parties that the police had been responsible for the applicant’s injuries. The medical report of 12 June 2004 also confirmed that the applicant had been injured during the time he had been at the hands of the police (see paragraph 12 above). The parties however disagreed as to whether those injuries had been inflicted during or after the applicant’s arrest on 11   June 2004 and whether they were the result of the use of proportionate force. 90.     The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its task and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case. Therefore, the Court considers it appropriate to examine first whether the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment between 11 and 12   June 2004 was adequately investigated by the authorities (see, for example, El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no.   39630/09, §§ 155 and 181, ECHR 2012; Kaverzin , cited above, §   107; Baklanov v. Ukraine , no. 44425/08, §§ 70, 71 and 91, 24 October 2013; Dzhulay v. Ukraine , no. 24439/06, § 69, 3 April 2014; Chinez v. Romania , no.   2040/12, § 57, 17 March 2015; and Yaroshovets and Others v. Ukraine , nos.   74820/10, 71/11, 76/11, 83/11, and 332/11, § 77, 3 December 2015). It will then turn to the question of whether the alleged ill-treatment took place, bearing in mind the relevant domestic findings. (a)     Alleged failure to investigate the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment by the police 91.     The Court reiterates that where an individual makes a credible assertion that he or she has suffered treatment infringing Article 3 at the hands of the police or other agents of the State, that provision, read in conjunction with the State’s general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to “secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in ... [the] Convention”, requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation. As with an investigation under Article   2, such an investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. Otherwise, the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment would, despite its fundamental importance, 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, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV). 92.     The investigation into serious allegations of ill-treatment must be thorough. That means that 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 (see, for example, El-Masri , cited above, § 183). They must take all reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia , eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 1999 ‑ IV, and Gül v. Turkey , no. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000). Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of those responsible will risk falling foul of this standard. 93.     Turning to the present case, the Court notes that a pre-investigation inquiry into the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment between 11 and 12   June 2004 was launched and relevant medical evidence was secured shortly after the alleged events. Although the matter was reconsidered on a number of occasions, the prosecutor’s office maintained its finding that the applicant had been injured during his arrest on 11 June 2004. That finding was based, principally, on the police report of 17 August 2004 into the applicant’s arrest (see paragraphs 9 and 19 above). 94.     Although it is in the first place for the national authorities, in this case for the public prosecutor, to assess the relevant evidence and to draw conclusions on the basis of such assessment, the Court cannot disregard the fact that the prosecutor’s office’s findings lacked important details and relevant substantiation. 95.     First, neither the police report of 17 August 2004 nor the prosecutor’s office’s decision of 11 February 2006 contained any details as to how the injuries had been inflicted on the applicant. Both documents referred to vague and unspecified “hand-to-hand combat techniques” which the police had used to subdue him, whereas the medical report of 12 June 2004 suggested that the applicant might have been punched and kicked in the head and on the body (see paragraph 12 above). 96.     Secondly, even assuming that the applicant was injured because the police had tried to subdue him in order to arrest him and because, as the Government submitted, he had tried to escape (ibid.), no attempt was made to look into the questions of the lawfulness and proportionality of the force used against the applicant. 97.     Thirdly, it remains unclear why the prosecutor’s office relied, in its decision of 11 February 2006, on the applicant’s statements of 29 and 30   June 2004 denying any ill-treatment (see paragraph 19 above), in spite of his more recent submissions to the contrary (see paragraphs 16 and 17 above). 98.     Although the domestic courts dealing with the applicant’s criminal case eventually addressed his repeated complaints of ill-treatment by the police between 11 and 12 June 2004, the shortcomings in the pre ‑ investigation inquiry noted above were not remedied. Ultimately, the courts rejected the complaints as unsubstantiated, fully relying on the prosecutor’s office’s decision of 11 February 2006 (see paragraphs 54, 61 and 64 above). 99.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the domestic authorities did not fulfil their obligation to investigate the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment by the police between 11 and 12 June 2004. Accordingly, there has been a procedural violation of Article 3 of the Convention in that regard. (b)     Alleged ill-treatment by the police 100.     Turning to the substantive aspect of the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment by the police, the Court notes that in assessing evidence in a claim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” must be applied (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom , 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A no. 25, and Avşar v. Turkey , no.   25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001 ‑ VII (extracts)). Such proof may, however, follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Labita , cited above, § 121). Where the events at 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 v. Austria , 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336, and Salman v.   Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII). 101.     In the present case, having regard to the parties’ submissions and the relevant medical evidence, it is uncontested that the applicant’s injuries were sustained when under the control of the police, either during his arrest or thereafter when he was being questioned at the police station (see paragraphs 12, 87 and 88 above). Although no conclusive evidence is available concerning the time and other circumstances in which the applicant was injured, the exact nature and degree of force used against him and whether, in the circumstances, that force was proportionate, mainly because of the shortcomings in the domestic investigation (see paragraphs 95-99 above), the applicant’s version of events, which he changed on several occasions during the proceedings (see paragraphs 12, 14, 15 and 17   above), cannot be accepted as presented. However, given the burden on the State to provide a plausible explanation for injuries sustained by a person under control of the police, the Court concludes that the Government have not satisfactorily established that the use of force against the applicant was lawful and absolutely necessary and that the applicant’s injuries were wholly caused otherwise than by ill-treatment by the police (see Sylenok and Tekhnoservis-Plus v. Ukraine , no. 20988/02, §§ 69-70, 9 December 2010). Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in that the applicant was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by the police between 11 and 12 June 2004. III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION 102.     The applicant complained that he had been arrested on 11 June 2004 for the purpose of prosecuting him, although there had been no decision warranting his arrest. 103.     He further complained of the unlawfulness of his detention between 4 March 2005 and 18 April 2006, stating in particular that the decisions of the Court of Appeal authorising his detention during part of that period had been taken in violation of procedural norms and had contained no justification for his continued detention. He also contended that his detention between 10 and 15 May 2005 had not been covered by any decision. 104.     The applicant complained that the courts had failed to consider thoroughly and without delay his complaints concerning the unlawfulness of his detention during the abovementioned periods. 105.     The applicant relied on Article 5 of the Convention, the relevant parts