CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 19 février 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB95D6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#c00000 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; 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 } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E1DABD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s5830ECD9 { width:0.2pt; display:inline-block } .sF5BD4437 { width:186.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }       FOURTH SECTION                 CASE OF BEKETOV v. UKRAINE   (Application no. 44436/09)                 JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   19 February 2019             This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Beketov v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Georges Ravarani, President,   Marko Bošnjak,   Péter Paczolay, judges, and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 29 January 2019, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 44436/09) 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 Yuriy Oleksiyovych Beketov (“the applicant”), on 7   August 2009. 2 .     The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms   Olga Belyayeva, a lawyer practising in Dnipro. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, most recently Mr   I.   Lishchyna of the Ministry of Justice. 3.     The applicant alleged under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the police, that no effective investigation into his complaints had been carried out, that the material conditions of his detention had been poor, that he had not been provided with food and water on days when there had been hearings, and that he had had no access to adequate medical treatment in detention. He also complained under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of the above complaints. 4.     On 5 June 2013 the application was communicated to the Government. The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. After having considered the Government’s objection, the Court rejects it. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Mankivka. 6 .     On 2 April 2007 the applicant underwent surgery in connection with an umbilical hernia (exomphalos). A.     The applicant’s arrest, alleged ill-treatment by the police, and ensuing investigation 7 .     According to the applicant, on 9 February 2008 the police arrested him in Vinnytsya on suspicion of abduction and murder. On the same day he was transferred to Kyiv and placed in detention in a cell of the Shevchenkivskyy district police station. 8 .     According to the Government, the applicant was arrested in Kyiv on 10 February 2008 on suspicion of abduction and murder, and on the same day he was placed in detention in a cell of the Shevchenkivskyy district police station. 9 .     According to the applicant, between 10 and 16 February 2008 he was beaten by police officers who tried to force him to confess to the abduction and the murder. In particular, Officer G., the first deputy head of Kyiv Shevchenkivskyy district police station, kicked the applicant in the face and abdomen, injuring the area where he had had the operation for his umbilical hernia (see paragraph 6 above). After the beating, the applicant started suffering from constant pain in his abdomen. 10 .     On 16 February 2008 the applicant confessed to the murder and the abduction and signed several documents which were undated. On the same day the police transferred him to the Kyiv Temporary Detention Facility (hereinafter, “the ITT”). The ITT medical staff examined the applicant on the same day and noted that he had a bruise under his right eye. 11 .     According to the applicant, on 19 February 2008 the Kyiv Pre-trial Detention Centre (hereinafter, “the SIZO”) administration refused to admit him because of his poor state of health. This was the second time that the SIZO administration refused to admit him (see paragraph 39 below). The applicant was sent back to the ITT and the ITT staff called an ambulance, which transported him to the Kyiv Medical Emergency Hospital (“the Emergency Hospital”). According to a certificate issued by the Emergency Hospital, the applicant stayed there from 20 to 25 February 2008 and received treatment for “contusion to the abdomen and facial tissue”. 12 .     On 26 February 2008 the applicant was placed in the SIZO. He was examined by a SIZO doctor, who diagnosed him with a “post-operative condition” following the operation on his umbilical hernia in 2007. 13 .     On 16 May 2008 the applicant’s defence lawyer complained to the prosecutor’s office regarding the applicant’s ill-treatment by the police officers of the Kyiv Shevchenkivskyy district police station between 10 and 16 February 2008. 14 .     On 24 June 2008 the investigator dealing with the criminal case against the applicant ordered a forensic medical expert to establish the injuries the applicant had sustained between 9 and 16 February 2008. The forensic medical expert examined the applicant on 4 July 2008 and did not find any injuries on him which could have been inflicted during that period. The expert noted that a liquid was leaking from the applicant’s navel, and recommended that he be examined by a surgeon. 15 .     On 11 August 2008 the applicant’s lawyer submitted a petition to the prosecutor’s office in which he stated that the applicant had been beaten by Officer G., the first deputy head of the Kyiv Shevchenkivskyy district police station. 16 .     On 16 September 2008 the investigating officer of the Kyiv Shevchenkivskyy district prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings in relation to the applicant’s ill-treatment complaints on the grounds that there were no constituent elements of an offence . The investigating officer based his decision on statements of the investigator and the police officers dealing with the initial investigative activities concerning the applicant. Those questioned denied that the applicant had been ill ‑ treated. 17.     On 29 September 2008 the applicant’s defence counsel lodged a complaint with the Kyiv City public prosecutor against the decision of 16   September 2008. 18.     On 16 October 2008 the Kyiv City public prosecutor’s office considered that there were no legal grounds for quashing the decision of 16   September 2008 (see paragraph 16 above). 19 .     On 18 November 2008 the Kyiv Shevchenkivskyy District Court (hereinafter, “the local court”) quashed the decision of 16 September 2008. It held that, in the course of the inquiry, the investigating officer had failed to question the applicant and Officer G., the police officer whom the applicant had pointed out. The local court also found that the investigator had failed to append to the case file the results of the forensic examination of the applicant’s injuries which his lawyer had referred to in the application of 11   August 2008 (see paragraph 15 above). 20 .     On 19 December 2008, following an inquiry into the applicant’s ill ‑ treatment complaints, the prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers because there were no constituent elements of an offence. In the course of the above inquiry, Officer G. was questioned. He said that he had not taken part in the applicant’s arrest or in any other investigative activities relating to him. 21 .     On 1 December 2009 the local court quashed the above decision and remitted the case file for an additional inquiry. The local court noted that the investigating officer had failed to comply with the instructions it had given in the decision of 18 November 2008 (see paragraph 19 above). In particular, the investigating officer had not questioned the applicant and had failed to provide any substantiation for his decision of 19 December 2008 (see paragraph 20 above). 22.     On 30 January 2010, following an additional inquiry into the applicant’s ill-treatment complaints, the prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers because there were no constituent elements of an offence. In the course of the above inquiry, Officers О., L., Psh., and S., were additionally questioned and they denied physically or psychologically coercing the applicant into making a confession. 23.     On 18 May 2010 the local court quashed the above decision and remitted the case file for an additional inquiry. The court noted that the instructions it had given in the decisions of 18 November 2008 and 1   December 2009 (see paragraphs 19 and 21 above) had not been followed by the investigating officer. 24 .     On 23 August 2010, following an additional inquiry into the applicant’s complaints, the prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against Officer G., the person who had allegedly ill-treated the applicant (see paragraph 9 above), because there were no constituent elements of an offence. In the course of that additional inquiry, the applicant was questioned and he reiterated his account of the events relating to the ill ‑ treatment. The investigating officer concluded that there was no evidence proving Officer G.’s involvement in those events. 25.     On 5 December 2010 and 30 March 2011 the applicant lodged petitions with the Prosecutor General of Ukraine in which he reiterated, inter alia , that he had been ill-treated by Officer G. and that the investigation into his complaints in that respect had been ineffective. 26.     On 17 January 2011 a superior prosecutor quashed the decision of 23   August 2010 (see paragraph 24 above) and remitted the case file for an additional inquiry. 27.     On 12 April 2011, following an additional inquiry into the applicant’s complaints, the investigating officer refused to institute criminal proceedings against Officer G. because there were no constituent elements of an offence. In the course of the above inquiry, the investigating officer questioned Officer Ovs., who had been on duty at the time of the applicant’s arrest. The officer denied that there had been blood on the applicant’s body in the stomach area. The investigating officer also noted that the applicant had not raised any complaints either during his time at the police station or after his transfer to the Kyiv SIZO. On 30 March 2012 the local court quashed that decision and remitted the case file for an additional inquiry. 28.     On 28 June 2012, following an additional inquiry, the prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against Officer G. because there were no constituent elements of an offence. The investigating officer came to the conclusion that it was impossible to question the people who had been at the police station with the applicant in February 2008. On an unspecified date that decision was quashed and the case file was remitted for an additional inquiry. 29.     On 7 September 2012, following an additional inquiry, the investigating officer refused to institute criminal proceedings against Officer G. because there were no constituent elements of an offence. On 17   September 2012 a superior prosecutor quashed that decision and remitted the case file for an additional inquiry. 30 .     On 27 September 2012, following an additional inquiry into the applicant’s complaints regarding ill-treatment, the prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against Officer G. because there were no constituent elements of an offence. In the course of the inquiry, the inspector on duty at the material time, Inspector Ag., was questioned and stated that he didn’t remember whether he had seen the applicant. 31 .     On 7 May 2013 the local court quashed the decision of 27 September 2012 (see paragraph 30 above) and remitted the case file for an additional inquiry. The court held that the investigating officer had failed to interrogate and/or properly analyse the statements of: - the people who had been detained with the applicant in the cell at the Kyiv Shevchenkivskyy district police station in February 2008; - the ITT and SIZO staff, in relation to the applicant’s alleged ill ‑ treatment and the SIZO’s alleged refusal to admit him after the court had ordered his arrest; - the medical personnel from the emergency service who had provided the applicant with medical assistance in February 2008; - the surgeon from Buchanska Prison Hospital who had performed an operation on the applicant on 20 January 2010; - the police officers who had arrested the applicant in Vinnytsya on 9   February 2008. 32 .     On 21 May 2013 the information about the physical injuries inflicted on the applicant was entered into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations and the respective pre-trial investigation started, in accordance with the provisions of the new Code of Criminal Procedure. 33.     On 27 June 2013, following the results of the pre-trial investigation, the prosecutor’s office issued a decision to terminate the criminal proceedings because there were no constituent elements of an offence. 34 .     On 4 July 2013 a superior prosecutor quashed the above decision, holding that the investigating officer had failed to follow the instructions given by the local court in its decision of 7 May 2013 (see paragraph 31 above). 35.     On 5 July 2013 the investigating officer questioned S., who had been detained with the applicant in the ITT cell. The witness stated that he did not remember the applicant being beaten. 36 .     On 29 August 2013, following the results of the investigation, the prosecutor’s office issued a decision to terminate the criminal proceedings because there were no constituent elements of an offence. On 18 February 2014 the local court upheld that decision. 37 .     On 15 April 2014 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the investigating officer of 29 August 2013 and the decision of the local court of 18 February 2014 (see paragraph 36 above) and remitted the case file for a pre-trial investigation. The court held that the investigating officer had failed to comply with the instructions given by the local court in its decision of 7   May 2013 (see paragraph 31 above), and in particular had failed to establish the origin of the injuries sustained by the applicant in February 2008. 38 .     The parties did not submit information about further developments in the case. B.     The applicant’s detention and the medical assistance provided to him 39 .     Meanwhile, on 13 February 2008 the local court had ordered the applicant’s detention on remand and ordered that he be transferred to the SIZO. As indicated before (paragraph 11 above), according to the applicant, the SIZO administration refused to admit him because of his poor state of health. The police then transported the applicant back to the Shevchenkivskyy district police station. 40.     On 16 February 2008 the applicant was placed in the ІТТ (see paragraph 10 above). As a result of a medical examination, a bruise was found under his right eye. It was classified as a minor physical injury. 41.     Following a deterioration in the applicant’s state of health, the ITT staff called an ambulance, which transported him to the Emergency Hospital. According to a certificate issued by the Emergency Hospital, the applicant stayed in that facility from 20 to 25 February 2008 and received treatment for “contusion to the abdomen and facial tissue” (see paragraph   11 above). 42.     On 26 February 2008 the applicant was transferred from the ITT to the SIZO. As indicated in paragraph 12 above, upon his arrival he was examined by a SIZO doctor, who diagnosed him with a post-operative condition following his umbilical hernia operation in 2007 (see paragraph 6 above). 43.     According to the applicant, on 29 February, 5, 10, and 16 March 2008 he complained to the SIZO staff of constant pain in his abdomen. The SIZO doctors examined him and established that the pain was due to a post-operative navel fistula. On 21 March 2008 he was examined by a SIZO general practitioner who gave him an anaesthetic. Between 13 May and 2   July 2008 the applicant stayed in the SIZO medical unit and was treated with the following: lactulose, aloe, fluconazole, ascorbic acid, and Captopril. His navel injury was treated with hydrogen peroxide, vitamins В1 and В6, Thiotriazolin, Levomekol (an ointment), Riboxin, and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE). After being treated, he was discharged and placed in a cell. 44.     On 13 June 2008 the applicant was examined by a surgeon from the Emergency Hospital, who diagnosed a suture sinus (a type of wound complication) following the umbilical hernia operation. He recommended that a bandage be applied to the applicant’s navel area, and also recommended that he be treated with antiseptics, antibiotics and have elective surgery. The surgeon noted that the applicant did not need urgent inpatient treatment, and the applicant was returned to the SIZO on the same day. 45.     On 22 October 2008 the applicant was examined in the SIZO by another surgeon, who noted that he did not need inpatient treatment or an urgent operation in connection with his navel fistula. 46 .     From 26 November to 15 December 2008 the applicant had examinations at the Emergency Hospital in connection with the constant pain in his abdomen. He was diagnosed with omphalitis (inflammation of the navel and the surrounding area) and a suture sinus following the umbilical hernia operation in 2007 (see paragraph 6 above). He was also diagnosed with: ischemic heart disease, myocardial cardiosclerosis, category II hypertension, hypertonic crises of 27 November, 1 and 4   December 2008, category I cardiac failure with cephalgia phenomena, asthenoneurotic syndrome, discirculatory encephalopathy, and chronic acute cholecystopancreatitis. The applicant received the following treatment: antispasmodic drugs, hepatoprotectors, antibiotics, biocatalysts, antihypertensive drugs (inhibitors, angiotensin-converting enzyme, beta-blockers, diuretics), and bandages on his umbilical area. On 5 December 2008 and 30 January 2009 the surgeon from the Emergency Hospital recommended that the applicant have elective surgery on the fistula and continue with the care and treatment of his symptoms under the surgeon, neuropathologist and cardiologist at the SIZO medical unit. 47.     Between 9 February and 10 April 2009 the applicant stayed in the SIZO medical unit. He was diagnosed with and received treatment for: omphalitis, a urachal cyst, a navel fistula and suture sinus, ischemic heart disease, encephalopathy and an exacerbation of his chronic pancreatitis. The treatment consisted of oral medication and the application of antiseptic to the applicant’s navel area. 48.     On 6 and 7 May 2009 the applicant was examined by the SIZO cardiologist, neuropathologist and surgeon. He was diagnosed with a urachal cyst, a ligature fistula and category II hypertension. He was prescribed outpatient treatment for his symptoms. 49 .     On 31 July 2009 the SIZO surgeon recommended that the applicant have an operation on the fistula, to be performed in a public hospital. 50.     On 4 August 2009 the SIZO informed the applicant’s wife that the operation to remove his navel fistula would be arranged as soon as the court dealing with the criminal case against him allowed him to be transferred to an outside medical facility. 51.     On 15 August 2009 the applicant was examined by the SIZO therapist. He was diagnosed with a urachal cyst, a ligature fistula, and category II hypertension. It was recommended that he continue with the prescribed outpatient treatment. 52.     On 24 September 2009, during hearings at the Kyiv City Court of Appeal, an ambulance was called for the applicant. The ambulance team suggested that the applicant had peritonitis, and recommended that he be hospitalised urgently. According to the ambulance team report, the person in charge of the prison escort refused to allow him to be hospitalised. After the hearing, the applicant was taken back to the SIZO medical unit. He remained in that unit until 8 October 2009 and was treated for his navel fistula and inflammation of the navel. He received oral medication and antiseptic was applied to his navel area. 53.     On 29 September 2009 the applicant was transported to the Emergency Hospital in connection with the constant pain in his abdomen. A duty surgeon and a supervising surgeon diagnosed him with omphalitis with a small amount of purulent discharge. The doctors did not prescribe any emergency operation, but recommended that bandages be applied, with Levomekol and Ceftriakson. On the same date the applicant was returned to the SIZO. 54.     Between 24 September and 8 October 2009 the applicant remained in the SIZO medical unit, where he received the necessary treatment. He was discharged with a recommendation that his health be further monitored by the therapist and the surgeon of the SIZO medical unit. 55 .     On 30 October 2009 the Court granted the applicant’s request under Rule   39 of the Rules of the Court and indicated to the Government that he should be placed in a medical facility where he could receive appropriate medical treatment. 56 .     On 4 November 2009 the SIZO administration proposed to place the applicant in the Emergency Hospital. The applicant refused that proposal, explaining that he did not trust the Emergency Hospital’s doctors. An ambulance team which had been called for the applicant did not transfer him to the Emergency Hospital, but recommended that he see a surgeon. 57.     On the same day V., one of the applicant’s lawyers, asked the SIZO administration to transfer the applicant to Public Hospital no. 6 for inpatient treatment in connection with his fistula. Another of the applicant’s lawyers, A., asked the SIZO to place the applicant in a private hospital. The applicant agreed to be placed in that hospital. Eventually, he was not placed in either of those hospitals. 58.     On the same day the SIZO staff called an ambulance for the applicant. The ambulance team noted that the applicant did not require urgent hospitalisation, and recommended that he continue with the outpatient treatment in connection with his fistula. The applicant was then placed in the SIZO medical unit. 59.     On 9 November and 16 November 2009, in reply to the requests of the applicant’s lawyers concerning his hospitalisation, the SIZO administration advised that it was not competent to decide on the applicant’s placement in an outside medical facility, and suggested that the lawyers should address the requests to the court dealing with the applicant’s case. 60 .     On 10 November 2009 the applicant was taken to Public Hospital no. 9 for an examination. The doctors recommended that he have an operation on his navel fistula. On the same date the applicant was returned to the SIZO. 61.     On 24 November 2009 an ambulance doctor examined the applicant in the hearing room of the Kyiv City Court of Appeal in connection with the constant pain in his abdomen. The applicant was given treatment for his symptoms. 62.     On 26 November 2009 an ambulance doctor examined the applicant in the SIZO in connection with the constant pain in his abdomen, and found that he did not require urgent hospitalisation. 63.     On 27 November 2009 a surgeon from the Emergency Hospital examined the applicant and recommended that he continue with the outpatient treatment for his navel fistula. 64 .     On 4 December 2009, in the light of additional information from the respondent Government on the applicant’s state of health and the treatment provided to him in the SIZO, the Court decided to lift the interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (see paragraph 55 above). 65.     In December 2009 the applicant lodged several requests with the SIZO administration, asking to be transferred to any medical facility in view of the serious deterioration in his state of health. 66.     On 25 December 2009 the SIZO administration informed the applicant’s lawyer that the applicant did not require urgent hospitalisation in an outside medical facility and was receiving adequate medical treatment for his fistula in the SIZO. 67.     On 18 January 2010 the applicant was placed in the surgery department of Buchanska Prison Hospital, diagnosed with a ligature fistula of the umbilical area. 68 .     On 20 January 2010 the applicant underwent an operation to remove the navel fistula. On 26 February 2010 he was discharged and sent back to the SIZO. 69 .     The Government did not provide information or supporting documents as to the treatment provided to the applicant after his discharge from the hospital. They submitted that the medical documentation for the period of time from 26 February 2010 onwards had been lost. C.     Material conditions of the applicant’s detention in the SIZO 70.     According to the applicant, the cells in which he was kept in the SIZO lacked natural light, and the electric light was dim and constantly on. The inmates slept on beds without mattresses or bed linen. 71.     He added that the food was unsatisfactory in terms of quality and quantity, and the prisoners were given tea and bread in the morning, porridge in the afternoon and boiled water in the evening. D.     Provision of food and water to the applicant on hearing days 72.     According to the applicant, he was not provided with food and water on hearing days, since Ukrainian legislation did not make provision for this. It was not possible to have meals or drinks at the courts dealing with his case. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 73.     The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960 concerning pre-investigation enquiries can be found in Kaverzin v. Ukraine (no. 23893/03, § 45, 15 May 2012). 74.     The Code of Criminal Procedure of 28 December 1960 was repealed with effect from 19 November 2012, when the new Code of Criminal Procedure of 2012 came into force. The new Code abolished the stage of pre-investigation enquiries. The relevant provisions of the new Code can be found in Nagorskiy v. Ukraine ((dec.), no. 37794/14, § 38, 4   February 2016). III.     RELEVANT MATERIAL OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE 75.     The relevant Council of Europe material and other material establishing standards for the conditions of detention, together with reports concerning the conditions of detention in Ukraine, can be found in Davydov and Others v. Ukraine (nos.   17674/02 and 39081/02, §§ 101-108, 1 July 2010) and Gorbatenko v.   Ukraine (no. 25209/06, §§ 97-100, 28 November 2013). THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 76.     The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by the police and that no effective investigation into his complaints had been carried out. He further complained that he had had no access to adequate medical treatment in detention and that the material conditions of his detention had been poor. Lastly, he complained that he had not been provided with food and water on hearing days. He relied on 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.     Alleged ill-treatment by the police and alleged ineffectiveness of the ensuing investigation 77.     The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by the police and that no effective investigation into his complaints had been carried out. 1.     Admissibility 78.     The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 2.     Merits 79.     The relevant general principles of the Court’s case-law concerning Article 3 of the Convention and the State’s obligations stemming from that provision are summarised in particular in El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ([GC] no.   39630/09, §§ 182-185 and 195-198, ECHR 2012) and Bouyid v.   Belgium ([GC] no. 23380/09, §§   81-90 and 100-101 ECHR 2015). (a)     Substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention i.     The parties’ submissions 80.     The applicant submitted that police officers had beaten him in order to extract a confession from him. In particular, he stated that Officer G., the first deputy head of the Kyiv Shevchenkivskyy district police station, had kicked him in the face and abdomen and injured the area where he had had an operation for his umbilical hernia. He added that the ITT and SIZO doctors had seen the injuries which he had sustained; however they had been forced not to register them. No detailed record of his injuries or condition had been made upon his admission to the SIZO on 26 February 2008. He further stated that the police and the ITT and SIZO administrations had ignored his numerous complaints regarding the ill-treatment and the deterioration in his health. 81 .     The Government submitted that there was no evidence of the applicant being ill-treated in the material relating to the inquiries and the investigation, and that the applicant had failed to present any evidence in support of his allegation. They further stated that the applicant had complained of ill-treatment for the first time four months after the events in question had taken place. Upon his admission to the SIZO he had been examined by medical staff and no injuries had been found on his body. He had not expressed any complaints in this regard. The absence of physical injuries had been confirmed by the forensic medical examination which had been conducted at the applicant’s request on 24 June 2008 (see paragraph 14 above). ii.     The Court’s assessment 82 .     The Courts reiterates that where 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. The burden of proof is then on the Government to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation by producing evidence establishing facts which cast doubt on the account of events given by the victim. In the absence of such an explanation, the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the Government (see, among other authorities, El-Masri , cited above, § 152, and Bouyid , cited above, § 83). 83.     Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that although the parties disagreed as to the date of the applicant’s arrest (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above), it is undisputed that he remained under the control of the police from 10 to 16   February 2008. 84.     The Court further notes that the applicant had the following injuries: - a bruise under his right eye, according to the results of the medical examination carried out upon his arrival at the ITT on 16 February 2008 (see paragraph 10 above); - contusion to the abdomen and facial tissue, according to the certificate issued by the Emergency Hospital following the applicant’s treatment there from 20 to 25 February 2008 (see paragraph 11 above). Upon his admission to the SIZO on 26   February 2008, a doctor examined the applicant and classified the above injuries as “a post-operative condition” following an operation on his umbilical hernia in 2007 (see   paragraph 12 above). 85.     The Court observes that it has not been disputed that the applicant did not have any marks on his face or body when he entered the Shevchenkivskyy district police station on 9 or 10 February 2008. 86.     In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of explanations from the Government as to the origin of the applicant’s injuries, the Court deems it sufficiently established that the injuries described in the certificates produced by the ITT and the Emergency Hospital occurred while he was under police control in the Shevchenkivskyy district police station. The Court further notes that the above injuries correspond to the kind of traces that would originate from kicks in the face and the abdomen such as those that he described (see paragraph 9 above). 87.     It remains to be established whether the applicant is justified in claiming that the treatment of which he complained was in breach of Article   3 of the Convention. 88.     In this regard, the Court reiterates that, in respect of a person who is deprived of his or her liberty, or, more generally, 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, among other authorities, Bouyid , cited above, §§ 88 and 101). 89.     In the present case, the Government denied that police officers had used physical force on the applicant (see paragraph 81 above). They did not submit any arguments providing a basis for an explanation or justification of the force used against him that resulted in the above-mentioned injuries. In the absence of explanations from the Government, the Court must conclude that the physical force had been used against the applicant and had not been made necessary by his own conduct. 90.     There has therefore been a violation of the substantive limb of this provision. (b)     Procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention i.     The parties’ submissions 91.     The applicant stated that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective and prompt investigation into his ill-treatment complaints. He submitted that the investigating officer had questioned him for the first time in August 2010, more than two years after he had complained of being ill ‑ treated. He further stated that the courts and superior prosecutors, when quashing the decisions of the investigating officer refusing to initiate criminal proceedings into his ill-treatment complaints, had consistently noted similar investigative defects. Lastly, referring to the Court’s case law, the applicant stated that the investigation into his ill-treatment complaints, a pre-investigation inquiry rather than a full-scale investigation, could not be considered effective. 92.     The Government maintained that the domestic authorities had conducted all necessary investigative actions and carried out an effective investigation into the applicant’s complaints. They further stated that the repeated quashing of the decisions refusing to initiate criminal proceedings, as well as the instructions given by the court and superior prosecutors to the investigating officer, indicated that the domestic authorities had intended to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant’s complaints. ii.     The Court’s assessment 93 .     The Court notes that, in the present case, the applicant had an arguable claim that he had been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article   3 of the Convention by the police. The authorities therefore had an obligation to investigate it, in accordance with the effectiveness standards established in the Court’s case-law (see, amongst many other authorities, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria , 28 October 1998, § 102, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ VIII). 94.     The Court observes that between 16 May 2008 and 21 May 2013 the applicant’s complaint was handled in the form of a pre-investigation inquiry under the 1960 Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraphs 13-32 above). Within that procedure, the inquiring officer could only take a limited number of steps and the victim had no formal status and could not effectively participate in the procedure (see, for example, Savitskyy v.   Ukraine , no.   38773/05, § 105, 26 July 2012). 95.     The Court further notes that, during the above-mentioned period of time, the investigating officer dealing with the applicant’s case refused to institute criminal proceedings concerning his ill-treatment complaints eight times. All the decisions in this respect were subsequently quashed, mostly for non-compliance with the instructions given by either the local court on 18 November 2008 (see paragraph 19 above) or a superior prosecutor. Moreover, as the applicant pointed out in his submissions, the investigating officer questioned him for the first time in August 2010 (see paragraph 24 above), more than two years after he had complained of ill-treatment. The Government did not explain the delay in questioning the applicant, who, while detained, had been under the control of the State at all times and thus easily accessible for the investigating authority. 96.     The Court further observes that from 21 May 2013 onwards the investigation into the applicant’s ill-treatment complaint was conducted in accordance with the 2012 Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it did not prove to be fruitful. The Court observes in this respect that the decisions of the investigating authority on terminating the criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s ill-treatment complaints were quashed twice on the basis of reasons similar to those set out previously – failure to comply with the instructions of the local court (see paragraphs 34 and 37 above). 97.     The Court further observes that, as the case-file material indicates, the investigation did not inquire into the origin of the bruise under the applicant’s right eye identified by the ITT staff on 16 February 2008 (see paragraph 10 above). Similarly, the investigation did not attempt to establish the origin of the injuries registered by the Emergency Hospital during the applicant’s stay there from 20 to 25 February 2008 (“contusion to the abdomen and facial tissue” – see paragraph 11 above). According to the material in the case-file, the investigating authorities considered that those injuries were the result of an operation on the applicant’s abdomen performed in April 2007 (the “post-operative condition”). However, the case file does not contain any evidence that the applicant had a “post-operative condition” before his arrest. It appears that the investigating authorities never tried to examine the applicant’s “post-operative” medical history prior to his arrest, in order to verify the existence of such a condition. 98.     Overall, it appears that the manner in which the authorities approached the investigation of the applicant’s complaints was largely aimed at exonerating the officers suspected of having ill-treated him, rather than establishing the actual circumstances in which his injuries had been sustained (see, for instance and mutatis mutandis , Pomilyayko v. Ukraine , no. 60426/11, § 56, 11   February 2016). 99.     The Court notes that it has already condemned patterns of investigation similar to those in the present case in a number of other cases against Ukraine (see, for example, Drozd v. Ukraine , no. 12174/03, §§   63 ‑ 71, 30 July 2009; Savitskyy , cited above, §§ 121-122; Grinenko v.   Ukraine , no.   33627/06, § 62, 15 November 2012; and Zhyzitskyy v.   Ukraine , no.   57980/11, §§ 49-53, 19 February 2015). Moreover, in the case of Kaverzin v. Ukraine (no. 23893/03, §§ 173-180, 15 May 2012), the Court found that the reluctance of the authorities to ensure a prompt and thorough investigation of ill ‑ treatment complaints by criminal suspects constituted a systemic problem within the meaning of Article 46 of the Convention. 100.     In view of the circumstances of the present case and its earlier case ‑ law, the Court concludes that, in the present case, no serious effort was made to investigate the allegations of ill-treatment made by the applicant. 101 .     In addition, the Court notes that the inquiries and investigations into the applicant’s case lasted five years and eleven months and, according to the information submitted to the Court, were still ongoing in April 2014 at least (see paragraphs 37 and 38 above). There is no valid explanation for the length of the domestic proceedings. Thus, the requirement of promptness and expedition under Article 3 of the Convention was not complied with. 102 .     It follows that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb in respect of the investigation into the applicant’s complaints concerning his ill-treatment by the police. B.     Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the medical assistance provided to the applicant in detention 103.     The applicant complained that he that he had had no access to adequate medical treatment in detention. 1.     Admissibility 104.     The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 2.     Merits (a)     The parties’ submissions 105 .     The applicant submitted that despite numerous complaints to the SIZO administration regarding his medical condition, he had had no medical assistance between 26 February and 21 March 2008. On 21 March 2008 he had been examined by a SIZO general practitioner for the first time, yet the doctor had only given him an anaesthetic. The applicant further maintained that during his detention in the SIZO he had suffered from severe pains, but had only been provided with treatment for his symptoms. In response to the Government’s observations, he submitted that he had refused to be treated at the Emergency Hospital on 4 November 2009 (see paragraph 56 above) because he had not trusted the hospital doctors, having previously had a negative experience of treatment there. After the operation performed in January 2010 (see paragraph 68 above), his rehabilitation had been difficult and lengthy, since his navel area had been purulent all the time. Lastly, the applicant noted that the Government’s failure to provide medical documentation for the period after 26 February 2010 relating to his medical rehabilitation (see paragraph 69 above) was another reason to find a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. 106 .     The Government submitted that the medical assistance provided to the applicant had been adequate and full, and had been in accordance with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. They further contended that the applicant had refused the treatment at the Emergency Hospital offered to him on 4 November 2009 (see paragraph 56 above). (b)     The Court’s assessment i.     General principles 107 .     The Court reiterates that, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his or her human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him or her to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his or her health and well-being are adequately secured (see,   for instance,   Kalashnikov v. Russia , no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002 ‑ VI). 108.     However, the Court has held that Article 3 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as ensuring that every detainee should receive medical care at the same level as “in the best civilian clinics” (see Mirilashivili v.   Russia (dec.), no. 6293/04, 10 July 2007). It has further held that it is “prepared to accept that, in principle, the resources of medical facilities within the [prison] system are limited compared to those of civil clinics” (see Grishin v. Russia , no. 30983/02, § 76, 15 November 2007). On the whole, the Court takes a flexible approach in defining the required standard of health care, deciding it on a case-by-case basis. That standard should be “compatible with the human dignity” of a detainee, but should also take into account “the practical demands of imprisonment” (see Aleksanyan v.   Russia , no.   46468/06, § 140, 22 December 2008). 109.     The Court further notes that the “adequacy” of medical care remains a difficult element to determine. The mere fact that a detainee is seen by a doctor and prescribed a certain form of treatment cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that the medical care provided was adequate (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan , nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 116, 29 November 2007). The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept of the detainee’s state of health and his treatment while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia , no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII), that the diagnoses and care are prompt and accurate (see   Hummatov , cited above, § 115, and Melnik v. Ukraine , no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006), and that – where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition – supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee’s diseases or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov , cited above, §§ 109 and 114; Sarban v.   Moldova , no. 3456/05, §   79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia , no.   26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006). The authorities must also show that the necessary conditions were created for the prescribed treatment to be actually followed through (see   Hummatov , cited above, § 116, and Holomiov v.   Moldova , no.   30649/05, §   117, 7 November 2006). ii.     Application of these principles to the present case 110.     Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the applicant’s principal “medical” grievance concerned the authorities’ failure to provide him with adequate treatment for his navel fistula, in particular the