4.  The applicant was born in 1973. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Vinnytsya. 5.  On 12 January 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of several counts of aggravated murder and robbery. In the course of his arrest force was used against the applicant. 6.  Subsequently, the applicant was taken to a police station, where he was allegedly tortured by unspecified police officers with the aim of extracting a confession of his having committed the crimes of which he was suspected. According to the applicant, during such ill-treatment, which continued for several days thereafter, he received an eye injury which eventually resulted in him suffering a complete loss of eyesight. 7.  Later on the same day he was taken to a temporary detention centre (ізолятор тимчасового тримання – “the ITT”) in Kharkiv. 8.  The next day the applicant was taken to the Kharkiv Emergency Hospital, where he was examined by a trauma specialist, a surgeon and a neurosurgeon. The applicant’s skull was x-rayed and samples of his blood and urine were taken. He was diagnosed with bruising to the chest, lumbar area, kidneys, and soft tissues on the face and the back of his head. The doctors prescribed a further examination of the applicant by an urologist and outpatient supervision by a neurologist. 9.  On 15 January 2001 a prosecutor from the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office questioned the applicant, in the presence of a lawyer appointed to assist him by the authorities, with a view to taking a decision concerning the applicant’s continued detention. The prosecutor noted a haematoma on the applicant’s face next to his right eye. According to the prosecutor’s report to his superior of the same date, the applicant explained that he had received the injury during his arrest, that he had not been ill‑treated by the police after his arrest and that he had voluntarily given his confession. 10.  On 16 January 2001 the prosecutor was instructed by his superior to carry out an inquiry in order to take a decision in accordance with Article 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 45 below). 11.  On the same date several police officers gave written explanations concerning the applicant’s arrest, in which they stated that the applicant had resisted arrest by “applying unarmed combat techniques and trying to escape”. According to them, “measures of physical restraint and special means [of restraint], namely handcuffs” had been used against the applicant and he had been taken to the police station. 12.  On 19 January 2001 the applicant was taken by the police to see a medical expert. The expert examined the applicant and noted that he displayed bleeding into the eyeball, haematomas and abrasions on the left side of his chest, arms and legs, some of which were three to four days old and others were nine to eleven days old. The expert noted that many of the injuries, including the bleeding into the applicant’s eyeball, had been caused by blunt solid objects. According to the expert’s notes, during the examination the applicant stated that some of his injuries had been caused by him falling down the stairs, that his vision had been deteriorating since he was young, and that he had no complaints about the authorities’ actions. The expert concluded that the injuries were of a minor character and that they had not lead to a deterioration of the applicant’s health. 13.  The applicant remained in police custody until 23 January 2001. On that date he was placed in an investigative detention unit (слідчий ізолятор – “SIZO”) in Kharkiv. Upon his arrival at Kharkiv SIZO, the applicant was examined by a paramedic, who noted several bruises on the left shoulder, chest, arm and knee. The applicant did not receive any treatment for his injuries in Kharkiv SIZO. 14.  According to the applicant, on 26 January 2001 he complained to the same prosecutor from the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office that had previously questioned him that he had been tortured by the police after his arrest. 15.  On the same date the prosecutor issued a decision rejecting the applicant’s complaints and informed the applicant of it. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows:
“...On 15 January 2001 A. V. Kaverzin was questioned at the regional prosecutor’s office in the course of consideration of the question of ... his placement in Kharkiv [SIZO] No. 27. During his questioning with the participation of [his] defence lawyer, A. V. Kaverzin explained that he had sustained the injuries in the course of his arrest, that he did not have any complaints against the police, [and] that he had made his first statements freely, without psychological or physical pressure on the part of the police officers.
The [police] officers ... who had taken part in the arrest of A. V. Kaverzin [were questioned and] explained that they had been aware that A. V. Kaverzin had used firearms during his attempted arrest by the police in the Khmelnytsk Region, as a result of which two police officers had died. Because of that [fact] they had been particularly cautious and when A. V. Kaverzin had attempted to resist [arrest] ... there had been measures of physical restraint and special means [of restraint], namely handcuffs, applied to him.
According to the records of the forensic examination ... dated 19 January 2001, [the following injuries on the body and face of A. V. Kaverzin] had been discovered: bleeding into the eyeball; a haematoma on the left side of the chest; numerous abrasions on the lower limbs that had been caused by blunt solid objects; abrasions and scratches on the wrists that had been caused by blunt solid objects, which could have been the handcuffs; numerous indurations of various parts of the skin with small wounds caused by insects ... the injuries could have been caused to A. V. Kaverzin in the circumstances described by [both] the police officers and A. V. Kaverzin himself. Therefore, there are no elements of a crime in the actions of the police officers.
On the basis of the foregoing, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 6 of [the Code of Criminal Procedure] of Ukraine [the prosecutor].
Decided: 1.  To refuse the opening of a criminal case against [the police] officers who took part in the arrest of ... A. V. Kaverzin on the ground there were no elements of a crime in their actions...” 16.  According to the applicant, he was not given a copy of that decision and its details were not explained to him. 17.  The decision was not challenged before the courts under the procedure envisaged by Article 236-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 18.  On 25 February 2001 the applicant was transferred to Khmelnytsk SIZO. On that date he was examined by a doctor, who noted that the applicant suffered from loss of eyesight as a result of a head injury in January 2001 and had several bruises on his body. 19.  On 24 April 2001 the applicant was examined by a medical expert, who noted that the applicant had suffered a head injury and was completely blind. 20.  During his detention in Khmelnytsk SIZO the applicant was examined by doctors and received specialist ophthalmological treatment in September and October 2001 and in August, September and November 2002. On several occasions he was taken to public hospitals for medical examination. The doctors concluded that the applicant did not require eye surgery and could receive the necessary medical treatment in the SIZO. 21.  On 23 September 2002, on the order of the trial court, a medical panel established that the applicant had become completely blind and, accordingly, suffered from the highest officially recognised degree of disability. The applicant was diagnosed with corneal cicatrix and leucoma, a cataract of the right eye resulting from a penetrating wound, and uveitis in the left eye. The doctors concluded that the applicant was in need of outside assistance to manage aspects of daily life. 22.  On 12 August 2003 the applicant was placed in Dnipropetrovsk Colony to serve his sentence. 23.  During his detention in Dnipropetrovsk Colony the applicant was examined by doctors, including an ophthalmologist, at least once every year. In 2004 he was prescribed eye surgery at a specialised hospital. According to the Government, the applicant did not avail himself of the possibility to undergo the surgery pursuant to paragraph 5 Article 116 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences (see paragraph 48 below). 24.  Subsequently, the applicant was prescribed anti-relapse treatment in view of his blindness, which mainly included administering medication. On several occasions the applicant refused to be examined by doctors and in January and February 2006 he refused to be transferred to a hospital within Vinnytsya Colony to receive specialised ophthalmological treatment. 25.  In February 2004 the administration of Dnipropetrovsk Colony did not allow the applicant’s mother to supply him with unspecified medication which he allegedly needed. The authorities explained that the applicant would be given the necessary medication if his doctors so decided. In March 2004 the authorities informed the applicant’s mother that her request for the applicant’s transfer to a specialised prison for persons suffering from the highest degree of disability could not be met as no such a prison existed. The applicant did not provide further details in that respect. 26.  The applicant alleged that in spite of his blindness he had been handcuffed when leaving his cell, including during daily walks and family visits, and had been followed by several wardens with a dog. 27.  He also stated that in Dnipropetrovsk Colony he had been unlawfully refused two-hour daily walks to which he had allegedly been entitled in view of his disability; that his cell had lacked ventilation; and that he had not been allowed to make phone calls. He provided no further details in this respect. 28.  According to the applicant, in April 2004 the prison authorities delayed, for about a month, the dispatch of one of his letters. 29.  By a letter of 16 December 2004 addressed to the applicant’s mother, the Head of the Dnipropetrovsk Penitentiary Service informed her that:
“...
During [daily] walks [the applicant] has been handcuffed with his hands behind his back, as are all other life-sentenced prisoners, in accordance with paragraph 25 of the Internal Regulations of the Penitentiary Institutions.
...
Once the area for [daily] walks is adapted to the requirements of the Internal Regulations ... as amended on 9 November 2004, life-sentenced prisoners will be allowed to stay there without handcuffs.
In accordance with Article 151 of the Code on Execution of Sentences and section 23 of the Internal Regulations of the Penitentiary Institutions, prisoners sentenced for life are entitled to one-hour daily walks.
Prisoners suffering from tuberculosis ... are entitled to two-hour daily walks.
[Mr Kaverzin] does not suffer from tuberculosis, he is being detained under the ordinary regulations, and he is being [taken for] one-hour daily walks.
All [of Mr Kaverzin’s] correspondence is dispatched in accordance with Article 113 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences; it has not been hindered.” 30.  By a letter of 2 March 2005, the Governor of Dnipropetrovsk Colony informed the applicant’s mother that in 2005 one of the dogs accompanying the prison guards had bit the applicant because of his own recklessness. It was also stated that handcuffs were not being applied during daily walks. 31.  The two above-mentioned letters contained a statement that the actions of the penitentiary authorities could be challenged before a prosecutor. 32.  On 3 December 2008 the applicant was moved to Vinnytsya Colony, where he is currently serving his sentence. The applicant has not provided information concerning the medical assistance provided to him in that colony. 33.  In May 2001 the applicant’s mother was informed that the applicant’s complaint of torture had been rejected as unsubstantiated, though no details of the decision were given to her. In November 2003 she requested a copy of the decision, which was sent to her in February 2004. 34.  Subsequently, the applicant’s mother complained to a Member of Parliament of the applicant’s torture by the police and the authorities’ failure to investigate the matter. Upon a request by the Member of Parliament, in 2005 the materials of the previous inquiry were checked by the prosecutor’s superior, who eventually confirmed the accuracy of the decision issued on 26 January 2001. In particular, the supervising prosecutor studied the materials of the 2001 inquiry. 35.  In March 2005 the applicant lodged a compensation claim with the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv against the State Department for the Execution of Sentences and the Ministry of Interior, alleging that his disability had been caused by the unlawful actions of the police and the failure of the penitentiary authorities to provide him with adequate medical assistance. The courts at two levels of jurisdiction refused to examine the applicant’s claim for failure to meet the relevant procedural requirements. The applicant challenged the refusal in cassation, the outcome of which is unknown. 36.  The criminal investigation in the applicant’s case was completed in November 2001. Subsequently, the criminal case was referred to the Khmelnytsk Court of Appeal for trial. 37.  In the course of the investigation and trial, the applicant was assisted by a lawyer appointed for him by the authorities. That lawyer took part in the first stages of the proceedings before the first-instance court and was later replaced by another lawyer for unknown reasons. The new lawyer continued defending the applicant until those proceedings were completed. 38.  In the course of the trial the applicant contested the charges against him and alleged that his confession to some of the crimes of which he had been accused had been obtained under physical and psychological pressure from the police. 39.  On 13 November 2002 the court found the applicant guilty of thirteen counts of aggravated murder, infliction of grievous bodily injuries, illegal possession of firearms, banditry, and robbery. In particular, the applicant was held to be responsible for the murder of seven people, including three police officers who had attempted to stop him from committing crimes. He was found to be exceptionally dangerous to society and was sentenced to life imprisonment, together with the confiscation of all his property. 40.  The court mainly based its judgment on the statements of about thirty witnesses and victims of the crimes, the testimony given by the applicant at the trial, and on the conclusions of several forensic, ballistic and other expert examinations. The findings of the court concerning one of the counts of murder were partly based on the confessions obtained from the applicant during his time in police custody. 41.  In the same judgment the court, relying on the decision of the prosecutor of 26 January 2001, dismissed the applicant’s complaints of torture by the police and found that there was no evidence that his confession had been obtained under duress. 42.  On 17 December 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation, contesting the first-instance court’s factual findings and legal conclusions. He further argued that, in determining his sentence, the court had not taken into account his poor state of health. The applicant also maintained his allegation of torture by the police. 43.  On 13 May 2003 the Supreme Court partly varied the judgment of 13 November 2002, while confirming the first-instance court’s findings concerning the applicant’s guilt and upholding his sentence. The Supreme Court also rejected the applicant’s allegation of torture on the same grounds as the first-instance court.