5.  The applicant was born in 1982 and is currently serving a life sentence in prison. 6.  In 1995 the applicant was identified as suffering from schizophrenia and between 2001 and 2004 he underwent various types of compulsory medical treatment on account of his illness. 7.  In January 2005 the applicant and his friend were charged with robbery. The applicant remained at liberty during the pre-trial investigation of the case. 8.  On 7 April 2005 the police instituted criminal proceedings in respect of the murder of two women which had been committed the day before. 9.  On the evening of 9 April 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed the murders. According to his submission, after the applicant was brought to the police station the officers started pressuring him to confess to the murders. His requests to be provided with a lawyer were ignored. The officers showed him a gun and hinted that they could easily shoot him and then fabricate a story that he had attempted to escape. In view of his poor mental health they claimed, nobody would doubt their version of events. They then punched him and started hitting him with a bat. He started to parry the blows with his arms, but then soon gave up and agreed to write a confession dictated to him by the police officers. 10.  On 10 April 2005 the police officers formally questioned the applicant as a suspect and carried out a reconstruction of the events at the scene of the crime in the presence of a legal-aid lawyer, G. The applicant then confessed to the murders. 11.  On 11 April 2005 the applicant was examined by a medical expert. Following the medical examination the expert issued a report which determined that the applicant was suffering from bruising to both arms and an abrasion to his right arm which had been inflicted by blunt objects and could have been sustained on 9 April 2005. The expert also stated that the applicant had an injury on his right hand which could have been inflicted on 6 April 2005. 12.  On 13 April 2005 the applicant again confessed to the murders and denied that any physical or psychological pressure had been put on him when he had written his initial confession. The questioning was held in the presence of his lawyer. 13.  Later, the applicant changed his lawyer during the pre-trial investigation, but he subsequently reappointed G as his lawyer. When he was questioned on 14 June 2005, in the presence of the new lawyer, he denied any involvement in the murders while acknowledging his guilt in the robbery. 14.  On 14 June 2005 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant’s injuries as documented by the medical expert on 11 April 2005, for lack of evidence that any crime had been committed. The investigator concluded that the injuries had been self- inflicted. That decision was taken by the investigator on his own initiative, without the applicant’s formal complaint of ill-treatment. 15.  On 24 June 2005 the investigation was completed. After the parties examined the case file, it was referred to the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal where the applicant was to be tried. 16.  During the trial the applicant raised the issue of his alleged ill-treatment. He admitted that he had committed a robbery, but denied any involvement in the murders. He insisted that the police officers had illegally compelled him to confess to the murders. 17.  On 23 September 2005 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal found the applicant guilty of the murders as well as the robbery and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The court based its conclusions, inter alia, on the applicant’s confession made on 9 April 2005. After assessing the opinions submitted by experts the court concluded that the applicant was mentally sound. 18.  The court also examined the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. It called all the police officers dealing with the applicant and questioned them in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer, also taking into consideration the other evidence available in the case file. The court concluded that the allegations of ill-treatment were unsubstantiated, pointing out, in particular, that there had been no eyewitnesses other than the police officers who denied having used any duress in respect of the applicant and that, moreover, subsequently during the investigation, the applicant had again confessed to having committed the murders. 19.  The applicant appealed, claiming, inter alia, that he had confessed to the murders under duress and as a result of ill-treatment by the police officers and that he had not been provided with a lawyer immediately after his arrest. 20.  On 10 January 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the applicant, finding that his guilt had been well established by various pieces of evidence including his confession of 9 April 2005. The allegations of ill-treatment had been rejected as unsubstantiated. The applicant was still represented by G. 21.  On 18 December 2009, at the request of the applicant’s mother, the Kyiv Scientific and Research Institute of Forensic Examination issued a report which claimed that the confession of 9 April 2005 had been written by the applicant with the active assistance of another person. 22.  Following his conviction, the applicant was transferred to Sokal Prison no. 47 to serve his life sentence. 23.  On 17 November 2007 preventive searches were carried out in the prison cells. 24.  According to the applicant, on that day a group of hooded prison officers burst into cell no. 16, in which the applicant was held together with other prisoners, and started beating them. The officers ordered the applicant and the other prisoners to undress down to their underwear. They then ordered them to squat down thirty times and then to go out into the prison yard. Despite the fact that the temperature was -6 degrees Celsius, the applicant was made to stay in the prison yard for two hours in only his underwear. 25.  According to the applicant, on the same day he applied for medical assistance to the prison medical department but was not examined by a doctor. A few days later the applicant contacted his lawyer and described what had happened. No complaint to the domestic authorities from the applicant or his lawyer followed. 26.  On 20 November 2007 five prisoners from cell no. 9 of the same prison complained to the prosecutor’s office, claiming that on 17 November 2007 a group of special prison officers had beaten them up and some of their personal belongings had disappeared. 27.  On 23 and 24 November 2007 the same five prisoners were examined by doctors, following which it was reported that one of them had sustained a bruise on his left leg. 28.  On 26 November 2007 the prosecutor’s office refused to open an investigation in respect of the five prisoners’ allegations after finding that those allegations had been unsubstantiated. 29.  It appears that another prisoner from cell no. 9 also complained of ill-treatment which allegedly occurred on 17 November 2007. Later on that prisoner did not maintain his allegations, however. The applicant submitted a copy of that prisoner’s submission to the Court.