7.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Taraclia (the Republic of Moldova). 8.  At around 11 p.m. on 6 February 2007 the applicant was arrested by police officers C. and G. and taken to the Glodeni District police station. The applicant was accused of fraud and trespassing on private property. 9.  The applicant was placed in the Glodeni police temporary detention unit (Izolatorul de detenţie provizorie al CPR Glodeni). 10.  At 3 p.m. on 7 February 2007 the on-duty medical officer, M., examined the applicant. In medical examination report no. 52, drawn up on 7 February 2007, M. stated that during the examination she had not noticed any visible traces of injury on the applicant’s body. M. assessed the general state of the applicant’s health as “satisfactory” and noted that the applicant’s only complaint was of chest pain. 11.  According to the applicant, on an unspecified date while detained in the Glodeni temporary detention unit, he was taken to the office of a police officer and ill-treated in order to extract a confession. In particular, he was struck on the head with a black, blunt object, after which he lost consciousness. He was then forced to confess to the offences attributed to him. 12.  On 21 February 2007 the applicant was examined again by a forensic medical expert, S. According to the medical report drawn up by S. on that date, he observed “a curved, whitish scar measuring 3 x 0.3 cm” in the middle of the applicant’s forehead. The expert came to the conclusion that the scar had formed as a result of the healing of a wound. He could not determine when the wound had been sustained. He noted that the applicant had said that he had been beaten up by an individual, O., on 6 February 2007 at 10.30 p.m. In particular, the applicant had been hit in the face with some rope. He also noted that the applicant had not made any complaint. 13.  In subsequent submissions to the domestic courts the applicant stated that he had made the above-mentioned statement concerning the attack by O. only because he had been taken to the medical examination by C., one of the police officers who had ill-treated him. C. had threatened him with further beatings upon his return to the detention facility if he complained. 14.  The applicant remained in the Glodeni temporary detention unit until an unspecified date in April 2007, when he was transferred to the Bălţi temporary detention centre. He made his first complaint of ill-treatment after that transfer. 15.  According to the applicant, on 10 July 2008 he was declared Category 3 disabled as a result of cranial trauma. 16.  On 17 April 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General’s Office, alleging that while in custody he had been beaten up by police officers C. and G. He made a similar complaint to the President of the Republic of Moldova, whose office received the applicant’s letter on 20 April 2007. He apparently received no reply. 17.  On 16 May 2007 he lodged another complaint with the Glodeni District Prosecutor’s Office about the same events. He submitted that he had been warned against complaining about ill-treatment and threatened with further ill-treatment if he complained. He pointed out that the alleged victim’s family were relatives of a high-ranking police officer in Glodeni. The applicant was first interviewed by a prosecutor on 20 May 2007. 18.  On 9 July 2007 the Glodeni Prosecutor’s Office issued a decision not to start criminal proceedings. On 6 September 2007 a superior prosecutor informed the applicant that he had confirmed that decision. 19.  On 14 April 2008 another superior prosecutor quashed the decision of 9 July 2007, ordering a supplementary investigation. In particular, he ordered a medical examination of the applicant to be carried out with a view to investigating the allegations of ill-treatment. 20.  On 20 June 2008 a medical board examined the applicant’s medical records, at the request of the Glodeni Prosecutor’s Office. 21.  On 16 July 2008 the medical board issued their report. The applicant was diagnosed with “a cranial contusion with pyramidal insufficiency on the right side and signs of light motor aphasia”. However, on account of the lack of any medical documents concerning the applicant’s health in the period between 6 February 2007 and 16 January 2008, the experts could not draw the conclusion that the head wound had been caused on 6-7 February 2007. The medical board considered that it was thus impossible to establish a causal link between the alleged ill-treatment and the contusion. 22.  On 4 September 2008 the Glodeni Prosecutor’s Office again decided not to open a criminal investigation. 23.  On 13 November 2008 the investigating judge of the Glodeni District Court examined the applicant’s appeal against the refusal of the Prosecutor’s Office to start criminal proceedings against the police officers. The judge found that the inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of ill‑treatment had been superficial and that there were “serious and unexplained shortcomings”. While the applicant’s representative had requested on 29 May 2008 that two witnesses, I. and B., who were the applicant’s cellmates, be heard by the prosecutor, that request had been left unexamined, thus depriving the applicant of the opportunity to submit evidence in support of his allegations. The judge also noted that the applicant had not been heard and that the prosecution authorities had made use only of his written submissions. He further found that the prosecutors had not carried out an inquiry into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by O. on the day of his arrest, mentioned in the medical report of 21 February 2007. The judge quashed the decision of 4 September 2008 and ordered a more thorough investigation. 24.  On unknown dates a prosecutor from the Glodeni prosecutor’s office interviewed I. and B. They stated that they were not sure about the exact date or month at the beginning of 2007 when the applicant had shown them injuries on his head and other parts of his body, and told them that the police had ill-treated him. According to these witnesses, both of them were detained in the same unit as the applicant at the relevant time. Having also questioned O. and his family, the investigator found that no one in that family had beaten the applicant prior to his arrest. 25.  On 15 November 2008 the applicant’s lawyer submitted to the Glodeni Prosecutor’s Office a certified copy of his client’s medical records from prison no. 11 in Bălți concerning the period of April-August 2007. He asked the prosecution to find the original records in that institution and to order a new medical board examination, given that the previous one had noted a lack of data on the applicant’s medical condition during the relevant period after the alleged attack. 26.  On 19 November 2008 the prosecutor ordered a new medical board examination of the applicant’s medical documents. According to the board’s report of 28 November 2008, the medical documents with the applicant’s name on them did not attest to any injury on the applicant’s body. It was impossible to determine the time when the applicant had sustained the injury on his forehead, but due to its characteristics, it must have been caused earlier than 6 February 2007. The board was unable to find a causal link between that injury and the applicant’s cranial trauma. 27.  On 12 December 2008 the Glodeni Prosecutor’s Office again refused to open criminal proceedings against officers C. and G., giving the same reasons as before. On 15 January 2009 the superior prosecutor upheld this decision. The applicant challenged that decision before the investigating judge. 28.  On 18 February 2009 the investigating judge of the Glodeni District Court again examined the lawfulness of the refusal to start criminal proceedings against the police officers and upheld it, finding no appearance of a violation of the applicant’s rights and that the decision had been lawful and based on a correct assessment of the facts. 29.  On 17 August 2007 the Glodeni District Tribunal convicted the applicant of trespassing and fraud and sentenced him to fourteen years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed against this judgment. 30.  On 14 November 2007 the Bălţi Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded. 31.  On 8 April 2008 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, quashed the decision of 14 November 2007, and remitted the case for fresh examination to the Bălţi Court of Appeal. 32.  On 17 December 2008 the Bălţi Court of Appeal sentenced the applicant to eight years’ imprisonment. 33.  On 2 June 2009 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as ill-founded, but reduced his sentence to six years and four months’ imprisonment. This decision was final. 34.  The relevant part of the report of the visit to Moldova carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment from 1 to 10 June 2011 read as follows (unofficial translation):
“24. During the visit, all those met by the delegation, both at the Ministry of the Interior and at the Prosecutor’s Service for Fighting Torture, have acknowledged that respect for the right of access to a doctor was fundamental for the prevention and fighting police violence. They observed that, under Article 64 § 2(15) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a suspect has the right to make requests, including requests for independent medical assistance. In its previous reports the CPT has considered that this provision was still far from answering the Committee’s already long-standing recommendation that the right of access to a doctor from the beginning of deprivation of liberty should be explicitly guaranteed. ...
The Committee calls on the Moldovan authorities to implement its long-standing recommendation aiming at amending the legal provisions so as to guarantee to any person deprived of liberty, from the beginning of the de facto deprivation of liberty, the right to be seen by a doctor. This implies that, during the period of deprivation of liberty and before placement in a provisional detention centre (IDP), any request of a detained person to see a doctor must also be immediately satisfied. Moreover, the right of access to a doctor should include the right, if the detainee requests it, to be examined by an independent doctor in addition to any examination by a medical professional working for the police.”