5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Cahul. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  The applicant is a school teacher with twenty-five years of teaching experience and is a person with a third-degree disability as a result of spinal cord and leg injuries. 8.  According to the applicant, on 9 May 2004, the 59th anniversary of the end of World War II as celebrated in Moldova, he was in a bar with a friend. At approximately 8.30 p.m. he went home but was stopped by two persons wearing police uniforms. Without identifying themselves or giving any explanation, the persons took him by the hands and forced him to follow them. The applicant protested, identifying himself and asking who they were and where he was being taken. He was told that he would find out all the reasons on arrival at the local police station. 9.  The applicant alleges that during the arrest and while being taken to the police station he received blows from the police officers. Two women intervened in his defence, but he was taken to the police station. At the police station he received more blows and was then placed in a detention cell together with four other men, most of them sleeping on the bare floor. When he made a complaint about the conditions of detention he was transferred to a solitary cell with even worse conditions. No information was given to him about the reasons for his arrest and he was not allowed to call his twelve-year-old son, who remained alone at home, nor to call a lawyer. 10.  The next morning at approximately 8 a.m. he was given the record of his arrest to sign, but was not allowed to read it. He was also told the reasons for his arrest, following which he signed the documents but noted his disagreement with the charges against him. The record was dated 9 May 2004 and indicated the applicant's full name and home address. It described his behaviour as contrary to Article 164/1 and 174/6 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”). According to the Government, the applicant signed the reports on 9 May 2004. 11.  The two police officers wrote reports to the head of the police station, stating that on 9 May 2004 at approximately 8.30 p.m. the applicant had disturbed the public order by insulting certain public figures, including the deputy mayor of Cahul. Their request to follow them to the police station went unheeded, following which they had to use force to take him to the police station, since he was “playing to the public”. On the way to the police station he tried to escape but was tripped by one of the officers and fell down, hitting his face on the pavement. He was arrested again and taken to the police station. 12.  Witness statements by O. N. and N. N. were annexed to the file, in which they described having seen the applicant being escorted by two police officers. When he attempted to escape, one of the officers tripped him and the applicant fell to the ground, hitting it with his face. 13.  On 10 May 2004 at approximately 10 a.m. the applicant was brought before a judge, who examined his administrative case. The applicant alleges that his request for assistance by a lawyer was left unanswered. The Government submit that no such request was made. The judge found the applicant guilty of minor hooliganism and refusal to comply with lawful requests from the police, contrary to Articles 164/1 and 174/6 of the CAO. The court found, in particular, that the applicant had breached public order by insulting members of the public and the police. The applicant was fined 36 Moldovan lei (approximately 2.6 euros (EUR)) and released immediately. 14.  Between 10 and 26 May 2004 the applicant was excused from work, his doctor noting “head trauma” as his preliminary diagnosis and later confirming it as the final diagnosis. 15.  On 17 May 2004 the applicant underwent an examination by a forensic doctor, at a prosecutor's request of the same date (see paragraph 18 below). The doctor found a bruise under the applicant's right eye and diagnosed him with cranial trauma caused by a hard object on approximately the date mentioned by the applicant (9 May 2004). In reaching his conclusions he also referred to the findings made by the applicant's doctor on 10 May 2004 and by a neuropathology doctor on 17 May 2004. 16.  On 18 May 2004 the applicant appealed against the decision of 10 May 2004. He complained of ill-treatment by the police, that he had not been allowed to be represented by a lawyer and that his arrest had not been recorded on the evening he was arrested, contrary to legal requirements. He also referred to the sleepless night he had gone through and that as a result he had been unable to present his case properly to the judge. He noted that no secretary or lawyer was present at the hearing, and that the officer who had ill-treated him threatened him with further ill-treatment if he complained. 17.  On 1 June 2004 the Cahul Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal as unfounded. The court noted the statements made by O. N. and N. N., referred to above, as conclusive evidence that the applicant had insulted the police. Since the applicant himself confirmed that he was in normal relations with both witnesses, this excluded any bad faith on their part. Moreover, the applicant confirmed having consumed 100 ml of vodka and a bottle of beer on 9 May 2004. The reports written by the arresting officers were evidence that the applicant was guilty of insulting members of the public. 18.  On 15 May 2004 the applicant asked a prosecutor to initiate criminal proceedings against the two officers in order to investigate his alleged ill-treatment. On 17 May 2004 the prosecutor requested a forensic doctor to examine the applicant. On 30 June 2004 the prosecutor refused to initiate criminal proceedings. Referring to the statements made by the police officers and by O. and N. and eight other witnesses, as well as the applicant's statements and the materials in the file, the prosecutor considered the applicant's complaint ill-founded. The content of the statements by the eight witnesses was not mentioned. The prosecutor added that the applicant's detention overnight was in accordance with Article 249 of the CAO. 19.  At the applicant's request, on 22 July 2004 the Cahul District Court annulled the prosecutor's decision of 30 June 2004. The court found that a thorough verification of the applicant's complaints had not been made; in particular two witnesses who had allegedly intervened in his defence when he was being taken to the police station had not been identified or interviewed and there was no evidence in the file that any attempt had been made to find them. Moreover, the prosecution had not heard N.O and had failed to establish how the injuries to the applicant had been caused, whether as a result of a fall or blows. 20.  On 29 October 2004 the prosecutor refused to open a criminal investigation against the two officers. The decision mostly repeated the reasons of the decision dated 30 June 2004. The new element included testimony from three witnesses, according to whom the applicant fell to the ground and then received a punch to the face and a blow to the leg with a police truncheon. However, “they were not present at the moment of [the applicant's] arrest itself”. These new witnesses also confirmed that the applicant had resisted the police. It appears that the statements made by these three witnesses were not annexed to the file and were only mentioned in the prosecutor's decision. 21.  The applicant appealed against that decision, stating that it was an almost identical copy of the decision dated 30 June 2004, except for the additional statements of three witnesses. He referred to the court decision of 22 July 2004, which had annulled the previous identical refusal to open a criminal investigation. He claimed that he had identified the three new witnesses and not the prosecutor, who had not made any attempt to find the witnesses. According to him, these witnesses confirmed that he had been thrown to the ground by the police officers and hit, and that this had happened near the square where he had been arrested, and not near a bar as stated by the officers and witnesses O. N. and N. N. This undermined the credibility of those two witnesses. Moreover, O. N. had not been interviewed by the prosecutor. The applicant further pointed to the prosecutor's failure to order any new medical examinations or other measures to establish the source of his injuries, despite the court's order to do so. 22.  On 19 November 2004 the Cahul District Court dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law. The court found that the applicant had been found guilty of two administrative offences, as established by a final court decision. This confirmed that he had committed acts of hooliganism and insulted the police, which in turn allowed the police to use all necessary means to secure his arrest. Moreover, witnesses had confirmed that the applicant had resisted the police and there was nothing in the file to support his allegations of unlawful acts by the police. 23.  The applicant requested the Prosecutor General's Office to lodge an extraordinary appeal, but this was rejected as unfounded.