6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Aksay, Rostov Region. 7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 8.  On 13 November 2000 the applicant was arrested by three police officers and taken to Aksay police station, where he was allegedly beaten up. He was detained on remand. 9.  On 16 November 2000 the applicant was charged with a robbery committed as part of an organised gang. On the same day the Azov District Prosecutor authorised the applicant's pre-trial detention, and the applicant spent nine months in pre-trial detention facility IZ-61/1 in Rostov. 10.  In July 2001 the applicant wrote a letter, apparently a complaint, to the Rostov Regional Prosecutor's Office and submitted it to the administration of the detention facility for posting. 11.  On 22 August 2001 the Rostov Regional Court began its examination of the criminal charge against the applicant and his four co-accused. The applicant and his three co-accused contested their pre-trial testimonies as having been given under duress, but the court dismissed the allegations. 12.  On 30 August 2001 the applicant was found guilty of participation in an organised armed gang and of two armed robberies, and was sentenced to eight and a half years' imprisonment. His accomplices were convicted as well. 13.  On 17 September 2001 the Rostov Chief Prison Directorate, attached to the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, informed the applicant that the administration of detention facility IZ-61/1 had unlawfully delayed his July 2001 letter to the prosecutor's office by about a month, and that disciplinary proceedings had been taken against those responsible. 14.  On 19 February 2002 the applicant's conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 15.  On an unspecified date the applicant's wife brought a civil claim. On behalf of the applicant she challenged the acts of the police, claiming that her husband had been unlawfully arrested and ill-treated. She claimed damages of 2,900,000 Russian roubles in the applicant's favour. She also requested that the applicant be summoned from the prison to participate in the proceedings in person. On 19 December 2001 the Rostov Regional Court confirmed her standing as a plaintiff in the civil proceedings and decided that the claim should be accepted for examination in the form in which it was lodged. 16.  On 13 March 2002 the Aksay Town Court held a hearing in the proceedings, the applicant's wife stating the case with the assistance of a human rights NGO. At the hearing they reiterated the request for the applicant to be summoned to the courtroom, but the court ruled that the applicant's presence was not necessary and refused to order his attendance. The court held that it had no jurisdiction to examine the complaint relating to the arrest and detention, as these matters were covered by the rules of criminal procedure, and held that in any event the complaints were unsubstantiated. The court dismissed all the claims as a whole. 17.  The applicant's wife lodged an appeal, arguing that the court had not specified on what grounds it had dismissed the complaint alleging ill-treatment. She requested an expert examination and a full judicial examination of the circumstances surrounding the applicant's arrest. As a separate ground of appeal she complained about the court's refusal to summon the applicant and to have him heard in person. 18.  On 17 April 2002 the Rostov Regional Court dismissed the appeal. As regards the applicant's absence from the hearing, the court held that he had made this complaint in person at the hearing in the criminal case, and that there was therefore no need for his oral submissions to be heard again. As to the substance of the complaint alleging ill-treatment, it upheld the first-instance judgment, stating that the allegations of ill-treatment were not substantiated by any evidence.