5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Petrozavodsk. He is a practising martial arts instructor specialising in kickboxing and Thai boxing. 6.  On 30 October 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm to an employee of a tyre shop. According to the prosecution, the crime had been committed on 17 June 2002 by the applicant, Va., Ku. and Pa., with intent to coerce the shop owner into accepting their “security services”. 7.  On the following day the Petrozavodsk Town Court authorised the applicant’s remand in custody, citing the gravity of the charges against him and the risk that he would abscond or obstruct the course of justice. The applicant was placed in a temporary detention centre in Petrozavodsk. He remained in custody pending investigation and trial. 8.  On 12 March 2004 the applicant was transferred to a Petrozavodsk Town Police Department temporary detention centre to study the case file materials. He was placed in cell no. 11 together with eight other inmates. On the same day he had an altercation with officer N. The parties presented differing descriptions of the incident. 9.  According to the applicant, at approximately 11 a.m. officer N. opened the cell door and dragged him out of the cell into the hallway. The applicant did not resist in any way. Several police officers on duty and the head of the duty unit L., as well as the inmates of cell no. 11, witnessed the scene. N. threw the applicant on to the floor, leaned on him and squeezed his neck, applying force to the carotid artery and the Adam’s apple. The policeman accompanied his actions with obscene language and threats. Only the intervention of the head of the duty unit stopped him and allowed the applicant to stand up. The applicant asked for a meeting with a prosecutor and for a medical examination. N. again approached the applicant, threatening him. Afraid for his life and desperately trying to get back into his cell, the applicant raised his leg, apparently in a non-threatening manner. He did not hit anyone. However, the police officers, including N., immediately pinned him to the floor. N. again squeezed the applicant’s neck with both hands. Officer M. stepped over the applicant’s face. The applicant was dragged back to his cell. He again unsuccessfully repeated his requests for a medical examination and a meeting with a prosecutor or a higher‑ranking police officer. The inmates refused to leave the cell and asked the police officers to call a doctor. However, their requests were to no avail. 10.  Half an hour later the applicant and Ga., one of the inmates, were taken to see a deputy head of the Petrozavodsk Town Police Department. The applicant described the incident and showed the injuries on his neck and chest. Ga. corroborated his version of events. They were promised a thorough inquiry into the events in question. 11.  The applicant repeated his allegations of ill-treatment during the subsequent interview with investigator I. After the interview the applicant was taken back to cell no. 11, where an emergency doctor was assisting another inmate. According to the applicant, his request for a medical examination was abruptly dismissed by N., who was present in the cell. In the evening of the same day the applicant was transported back to the remand prison in Petrozavodsk. 12.  The official version of the events of 12 March 2004 was summarised in the judgment of 20 December 2004 (see paragraph 23 below) as follows:
“The [applicant] ... and other inmates held in the same cell asked to be transferred to another cell. He shouted, knocked on the door of the cell and uttered profanities against the [guards] ... . The applicant and other inmates in cell no. 11 ignored numerous orders of the ... officers to stop the disturbance ... officer N. entered cell no. 11 in order to identify the instigator and to take him out of the cell ... the applicant ... put his arms around N. to restrain him. Then N. raised the applicant slightly off the floor and carried him out of the cell into the hallway. The applicant released N. In the hallway the applicant ... threatened N. and kicked him in the head. ... N. blocked the blow with his left arm. In order to stop the applicant’s illegal actions ... , N. used physical force against him and threw him to the floor. While lying on the floor, the applicant continued kicking N. As a result of the applicant’s actions, N. sustained the following injuries: a blunt injury to the head and concussion, a blunt injury to the left hand with a finger fracture coupled with tissue swelling and a bruise ..., as well as bruises on the left hand and the right arm ... . The applicant’s illegal actions were stopped by the officers.” 13.  On 12 March 2004, the applicant was examined by a prison doctor, who made the following entry in the medical record:
“No complaints. Objectively: in the middle and third parts of the right side of the neck surface [there are] three bruises of an unidentifiable form, measuring from 2.5 by 1 centimetres to 5 by 2.5 centimetres ... , [there is] a bruise of a similar colour on the front surface of the right side of the chest situated ... closer to the second rib [and] measuring 3 by 2 centimetres. [There is] a linear abrasion on the back surface of the right hand, measuring 0.8 by 0.1 centimetres ... . According [to the applicant], he had an abrasion on the parietal region of the head; ‘there was a small amount of blood on the abrasion’. No other visual injuries ... have been discovered.” 14.  On the same day N. consulted a neurologist, who diagnosed him with concussion and a closed fracture of the little finger on the left hand. 15.  On 17 March 2004 the applicant’s lawyer asked the town prosecutor’s office to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers who had allegedly beaten up the applicant. 16.  On 26 March 2004 the deputy head of the town police department completed an internal investigation into the incident of 12 March 2004. He concluded that the use of force against the applicant had been lawful. As regards, the events of 12 March 2004, the report stated as follows:
“... On 12 March 2004 at 11 a.m. [the police officers] heard loud knocking ... on the door of cell. [11]. ... When [the police officers] opened the viewing panel, ... inmate Sh. asked to be transferred to the cell ... where [his relative S.] was being held. It was explained to him that it was impossible to satisfy his request and the viewing panel was closed. Some thirty to forty seconds later, [someone] started knocking on the cell door again, uttering profanities.
Warden L. and officers F., N. and M. approached the cell, opened the viewing panel to hear Sh.’s demands for a transfer ... . The warden explained that it was impossible to transfer him. Then Sh. claimed that he was not feeling well, that the panel should remain open, that they should be given tea and that the smell in the cell was bad. In response, warden L. explained patiently that, in accordance with the centre’s schedule and in compliance with sanitary standards the cell was to be cleaned in the evening ... . Then the warden ordered the door to cell 11 to be opened. Sh. was told to take his personal effects and move to another cell ... . [The applicant], who was, for no reason, uttering profanities, demonstrating his martial arts skills and making threats ... , was asked to prepare for a transfer too. The atmosphere in the cell was heated. Other inmates started making similar demands about tea, opening up the viewing panel and complaining about a bad smell in the cell. Sh. and [the applicant] refused to transfer to another cell.
In accordance with [relevant] regulations, ... the police officers informed [the police department] of the situation. When all the inmates, except for Sh., stepped away from the cell door, officer N. entered the cell and approached Sh. to take him out of the cell ... . At that moment [the applicant] assaulted N., trying to drag him further into the cell. N. put his arms around [the applicant] and carried him out into the hallway, put him face to the wall on the left and let go of him. The other inmates, led by Sh., tried to open the cell door while warden L., officers M. and F. were forcing it closed from the other side ... [The applicant], who was standing by the wall, continued making threats to N. and showing his martial arts skills. Then he assaulted N., locked N.’s neck with his left arm and pulled him towards himself, dragging him to the floor. N. got out of the applicant’s lock, pinned [the applicant] to the floor and restrained him by pressing his arms against the applicant’s chest. ... [The applicant] stopped resisting and said that he had calmed down and would behave in the cell. N. let go of him to let [the applicant] stand up, and stood up himself. At that moment ... [the applicant] kicked N. with his right foot ... in the lower jaw. Trying to cover his face, N. raised his arm. [The applicant] kicked him again, hitting the fingers on N.’s left hand ... . N. put his arms around [the applicant] and they both fell to the ground. N. still had his arms around [the applicant] trying to avoid [the latter’s] kicks ... . Officer M. held [the applicant] by the feet. Then [the applicant] again claimed that he would not resist and would bring the cell back into order ... . The officers let go of [the applicant] and he was taken back into the cell.” 17.  On 8 April 2004 forensic medical expert U. completed a report concerning the applicant’s injuries. In particular, he concluded as follows:
“The applicant sustained the following injuries: a bruise on the ... back of the head, bruises on the right side of the neck surface and the front of the rib cage on the right, and an abrasion on the right hand. These injuries could have been caused on 12 March 2004. The bruises on the neck and the rib cage were caused by an impact from solid blunt objects. The bruises on the head and the right hand were caused by the impact of blunt objects.” 18.  On 12 April 2004 a senior investigator from the town prosecutor’s office questioned three of the applicant’s fellow inmates on 12 March 2004. Sh. confirmed the applicant’s version of events. B. alleged that the applicant had not attacked N. in the cell. He further submitted that N. had dragged the applicant out of the cell in response to the inmates’ demands to be transferred. He conceded that he could not see what was going on in the hallway after the applicant had been taken out of the cell. Ga. stated that N. had hit the applicant in the cell and had dragged him out. He could not see the rest as the police officers had tried to close the door to the cell. 19.  On 13 April 2004 an investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against police officers L., M., N. and F., finding that the use of physical force by the police officers against the applicant had been lawful. He relied on the statements made the police officers, several inmates of cell no. 11, and the forensic report on the applicant’s injuries. The applicant did not appeal. 20.  On 17 March 2004 a senior investigator with the town prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on a charge of assault on a police officer. Two days later the applicant was served with a copy of the relevant decision. 21.  On 3 April 2004 the applicant was placed for fifteen days in a punishment cell. He was registered as “an inmate with violent tendencies and a propensity to abscond”. 22.  On 28 April 2004 the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the charges of causing grievous bodily harm to an employee of a tyre shop (see paragraph 6 above) and assault on the police officer were joined. 23.  On 20 December 2004 the Petrozavodsk Town Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to nine and a half years’ imprisonment. As to the events of 12 March 2004, i.e., the alleged assault on the police officers, the Town Court relied on the statements given in court by N., warden L., and police officer P., who had been on duty at the temporary detention centre; on the reports prepared by police officers N., M. and F., and on the findings of the internal inquiry of 26 March 2004. The court viewed the video recording of the incident of 12 March 2004, which corroborated the police officer’s account of the events. The court also heard inmates Sh. and B. and examined earlier statements made by inmates D., G. and Ga. The court dismissed their statements as untrue, noting in addition that B., D. and G. had admitted that they had not witnessed the altercation between N. and the applicant in the hallway. Lastly, the court assessed the injuries sustained by the applicant on 12 March 2004 and, with reference to the internal inquiry of 26 March 2004, concluded that they had not caused any permanent damage to his health and that the use of force against the applicant had been lawful. 24.  As to the charge of causing grievous bodily harm to an employee of a tyre shop, the Town Court based its findings on the victim’s statement and on the confession of one of the applicant’s co-defendants K., which he made in court, records of identification parades during which the victim had identified the perpetrators of the criminal offence against him, statements by a number of witnesses made in open court, and physical evidence, including expert opinions, records of scene examinations, etc. The Town Court also relied on the statement made by Pa., another co-defendant, admitting that he had committed the criminal offence together with the applicant. Pa. had died before the trial started. According to the minutes of the trial hearing, the applicant and his lawyer did not object to the reading out of Pa.’s statement. 25.  The applicant appealed maintaining his innocence. He claimed that his guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt and that the Town Court’s findings were based on inadmissible, inconclusive and contradictory evidence. 26.  On 21 February 2005 the Supreme Court of the Kareliya Republic upheld the judgment of 20 December 2004 on appeal, endorsing the reasoning given by the Town Court. 27.  On 20 December 2005 judge R. of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation granted the application for the supervisory review of the appeal judgment of 21 February 2005 lodged by the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation. The case was remitted to the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Kareliya Republic. 28.  On 25 January 2006 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Kareliya Republic noted that the applicant had not been provided with an opportunity to study the trial record, and quashed the appeal judgment of 20 December 2005 by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the appeal court. 29.  On 27 March 2006 the Supreme Court of the Kareliya Republic found that the trial court had erred when indicating the applicant’s place of birth in the verdict, quashed the applicant’s conviction and remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the Town Court. 30.  However, on 17 May 2006 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Kareliya Republic quashed the judgment of 27 March 2006 by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh examination to the appeal court. The court noted that the trial court’s erroneous indication of the applicant’s place of birth had not affected the substance of the verdict. 31.  In a new set of appeal proceedings, on 3 July 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 20 December 2004. 32.  On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with manslaughter and aggravated robbery. According to the prosecution, (1) on 6 October 2002 the applicant and several other persons assaulted D. and beat him to death; (2) on 14 July 2002 the applicant and several other persons attacked Zh. and took RUB 126,000 from him. 33.  On 16 November 2007 the Town Court found the applicant guilty of manslaughter and aggravated robbery and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. The Town Court based the conviction on statements by a number of witnesses, the instigator of the offence and one of the applicant’s co-defendants given in court, statements made during the pre-trial investigation by witnesses Kyu., Pe. and Ma., and extensive material evidence. Kyu., Pe. and Ma. had confessed to committing the manslaughter together with the applicant. Kyu. had died during the pre-trial investigation. Pe. and Ma. had absconded and, despite the authorities’ attempts, which included a nationwide search, were never found. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer objected to the reading out of Kyu.’s, Pe.’s and Ma.’s statements. 34.  On 28 November 2007 a local newspaper published an article reporting on the criminal proceedings against the applicant and his co‑defendants and naming the applicant among the perpetrators of the manslaughter and robbery. 35.  On 21 January 2008 the Supreme Court of the Kareliya Republic upheld the judgment on appeal. 36.  Following the applicant’s arrest and placement in custody pending investigation and trial on the charges of causing a grievous bodily harm to an employee of a tyre shop and assault on the police officer, the applicant was found guilty as charged on 20 December 2004 as upheld on 21 February 2005 on appeal. Following the supervisory review of the appeal judgment, on 27 March 2006 the appeal court quashed the verdict and remitted the matter for a new trial (see paragraphs 23-29 above). The appeal court further ordered that the applicant should remain in custody pending trial. 37.  On 31 March 2006 the Town Court received the case file. 38.  On 10 May 2006 the Town Court reviewed the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The applicant argued that he should be released. Relying on the gravity of the charges, the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 August 2006. His argument regarding the alleged unlawfulness of his detention was dismissed as unsubstantiated. On 22 May 2006 the Supreme Court of the Kareliya Republic upheld the decision of 10 May 2006 on appeal.