5.  The applicants are a married couple. They were born in 1976 and 1988 respectively. The first applicant is serving a sentence of imprisonment in Kholodnogirska penitentiary no. 18. The second applicant lives in Kharkiv. 6.  At the time of the events the applicants lived in a two-room apartment together with Ms S., the second applicant’s mother. 7.  Ms S. had a pending judicial dispute with a certain Mr L. regarding the inheritance of a house. The applicants, being interested in improving their living conditions, provided her with various support in those proceedings. 8.  In April 2008 the first applicant visited Mr L. with a view to dissuading him from pursuing the mentioned dispute. 9.  On 27 June 2008 Mr L. was found dead in his house. His throat was cut and there were multiple stabs and cuts on his body. One of the windows was broken, and there was a hoe lying nearby on the floor. 10.  On the same day a criminal investigation was opened into the murder. 11.  At about 10 p.m. on that same day the applicants came home where several police officers were waiting for them. The applicants were taken to the Kharkiv Frunzenskyy District Police Department (Фрунзенський районний відділ Харківського міського управління Головного управління внутрішніх справ МВС України в Харківській області). According to the applicants, this was done under the pretext that they needed to be questioned in respect of the first applicant’s debt vis-à-vis some third persons. As submitted by the Government, the police apprehended the applicants on suspicion of the murder of Mr L. 12.  The applicants were questioned regarding their whereabouts and actions on 26 and 27 June 2008. They stated that they had been together shopping, going to the cinema, having meals and so on. 13.  Both applicants were held in the police station during the night on 27-28 June 2008. They stated in their submissions to the Court that they had not been subjected to any ill-treatment at that stage. 14.  On 28 June 2008 the first applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to its report, which was completed on 1 July 2008, the examination revealed multiple bruises and sores on virtually all the body of the first applicant. They included about thirty multidirectional sores on his back and about the same number of sores on his hips, buttocks and knees. The expert gave the following possible dates of the injuries: a bruise on the left shoulder and a sore on the torso – between 22 and 24 June 2008; bruises on the right part of the torso – between 25 and 27 June 2008; sores on the torso, the back and the legs – between 25 and 27 June 2008. Those sores were assessed as having possibly originated from the impact of some protruded blunt objects, such as glass fragments. 15.  According to the first applicant, he sustained the injuries discovered on 28 June 2008, having accidentally fallen a day before. 16.  The first applicant submitted the following account of the subsequent events. After the aforementioned examination, he was taken to the criminal investigation department, where one of the officers suggested that he should confess to the murder of Mr L. As the first applicant refused to do so, some officers brought in a dirty mattress and a gas mask. They put wet cloths around his wrists and handcuffed him. One of the officers punched him in the solar plexus and pushed him on the mattress. The others twisted his arms behind his back and made him split his legs while beating him to his torso and genitals. The gas mask was then put on the first applicant’s face and the vent was blocked. He fainted several times and was made regain consciousness with cold water. The gas mask was repeatedly put on his face, and he was made inhale cigarette smoke. At the same time, his genitals were being twisted. The first applicant’s ill-treatment continued as described above in several rounds. The officers threated him that they would bring his wife and do the same with her in front of him. He then signed a confession to the murder of Mr L. He had, however, to adjust it many times as dictated by the police. The first applicant was made memorise his confession. 17.  The Government maintained that the first applicant had not been subjected to any ill-treatment. 18.  According to the detention logbook of the police station, the first applicant was detained at 8.15 p.m. on 28 June 2008 as a criminal suspect. 19.  On the same date, 28 June 2008, the investigator appointed a lawyer, Mr M., for the first applicant. He maintained his initial confession during his questioning in the presence of the lawyer. According to the first applicant, he did so fearing further ill-treatment and not having the possibility to talk with the lawyer in private prior to the questioning. 20.  As regards the second applicant, in the morning on 28 June 2008 she was taken from the police station to her home, where a search was conducted. The police allegedly threatened her that if she did not testify against her husband, they would accuse her of a drug-related offence having previously planted drugs in her apartment. 21.  Thereafter the second applicant was taken back to the police station, where she made a statement, allegedly under coercion, that her husband had admitted to her having murdered Mr L. More specifically, the second applicant submitted that three police officers had hit her several times on the head and had pulled her by the hair. 22.  On 30 June 2008 a reconstruction of the crime was conducted in the presence of the first applicant’s lawyer, during which the first applicant confessed again to the incriminated crime. About forty minutes later he, however, retracted his confession as made under duress and complained of his ill-treatment by the police. According to the first applicant, he did so after his first confidential conversation with his lawyer, which had taken place only after the aforementioned event. His lawyer subsequently stated that he had had his first confidential meeting with the first applicant prior to the latter’s questioning on 28 June 2008 (see paragraph 65 below). 23.  On 1 July 2008 the investigator submitted for approval to the Frunzenskyy District Prosecutor’s Office (“the Frunzenskyy Prosecutor’s Office”) an application for the first applicant’s pre-trial detention as a preventive measure pending trial. The prosecutor decided to question the first applicant himself before taking a decision. He saw that the first applicant had multiple injuries and concluded that his confession had been extracted by force. Furthermore, the prosecutor noted a number of discrepancies between the confessions of the first applicant and the autopsy report in respect of the victim. The second applicant was questioned too. She submitted that she had incriminated her husband under duress. 24.  As a result, the prosecutor refused to approve the investigator’s application, quashed the latter’s decision on bringing the charges against the first applicant and released him. The prosecutor also directed his subordinates to question both applicants about their ill-treatment in police custody and to duly report their submissions. 25.  While the applicants were making written statements in the office of the deputy prosecutor, at about 10.30 p.m., four officers of the Frunzenskyy District Police Department, namely, the first deputy head of the department (перший заступник начальника райвідділу) Mr K. (see also paragraphs 68 and 83 below for additional information about this police officer), the head of the criminal investigation department (начальник сектору карного розшуку) Mr Pap., his deputy (заступник начальника карного розшуку) Mr Par., and the chief of the investigation unit (начальник слідчого відділу) Mr M., broke in. Disregarding the objections of the deputy prosecutor and constraining him by force, they took the applicants out. There were more police officers waiting in the corridor. 26.  The applicants were handcuffed and taken to the Frunzenskyy Police Department, located near the prosecutor’s office. On the way, one of the officers allegedly hit the first applicant in the right hip. 27.  The first applicant was taken to an office on the ground floor where he was made sit quiet with one of the police officers. The office was locked from inside, and the light was switched off. About an hour later, he was taken to another office where the bars on the window could be removed. He was made write a note that he had left the police station at 10.30 p.m. The first applicant was then taken outside through the window behind the building of the police station. The police officers placed him a car, parked that car in a nearby yard and waited there till 3 or 4 a.m. It is not known what happened thereafter. It appears that the first applicant remained detained (see, in particular, paragraph 31 below). 28.  After the police had taken the applicants from the prosecutor’s office, at 11.15 p.m. the deputy prosecutor visited the Frunzenskyy Police Department. According to the visitors’ logbook, the applicants had entered the building at 10.30 p.m. and had been remaining there. Having searched the premises, the prosecution officials found the second applicant in tears in one of the offices. The first applicant could not be found. Police officer K. submitted to the prosecutor a note on behalf of the first applicant, but without his signature, that he had left the police department at 10.30 p.m. The prosecution officers went to the applicants’ home, but the first applicant was not there. 29.  On 30 June 2008 the first applicant complained to the prosecution authorities that he had been ill-treated by the police (see also paragraph 22 above). It appears that the second applicant raised a similar complaint too. 30.  On 2 July 2008 the Frunzenskyy Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal case against the police officers K., Pap. and Par. under Article 365 § 2 of the Criminal Code (exceeding power by engaging in the violent or degrading treatment of a victim) in respect of the events of the evening of 1 July and the night from 1 to 2 July 2008. 31.  On the same date the applicants were assigned victim status and questioned. Also on that day the first applicant underwent a forensic medical examination, after which he was released. 32.  On 4 July 2008 a report of the first applicant’s examination was delivered. It documented multiple bruises on his shoulders, torso, back, chest, arms, hips, thighs and legs. Their colouring varied from yellowish to violet and purple. The first applicant also had crust-covered sores and bruises on both wrists. The expert concluded that most of the injuries had originated from the impact of blunt objects between 23 and 27 June 2008. One bruise on the first applicant’s back below the left shoulder blade was assessed as sustained between 30 June and 1 July 2008. Lastly, according to the report, some sores on the right forearm, the left elbow and the right ankle had been inflicted on the first applicant on 1 July 2008. 33.  On 2 July 2008 the second applicant underwent a medical examination too, which did not reveal any injuries. According to the second applicant, she complained to the expert that she had headaches and was advised to apply for help to a hospital. 34.  On 5 July 2008 she was examined by a neurosurgeon in the local hospital who reported that she had bruises of the head soft tissues. 35.  On 8 and 9 July 2008 the applicants were questioned in respect of their alleged ill-treatment by the police. They recognised the officers K., Pap. and Par. at the photos shown to them. 36.  On 11 and 14 July 2008 a reconstruction of the events of 28 June and 1-2 July 2008 was conducted with the applicants’ participation. 37.  On an unspecified date the Frunzenskyy Prosecutor’s Office directed the management of the police department to establish the whereabouts of the officers K., Pap. and Par., who had not complied with the prosecutor’s summonses. 38.  On 18 July 2008 the Chief of the Frunzenskyy Police Department wrote to the prosecutor that all those three officers were on sick leave and that their whereabouts were being established. 39.  On 21 August 2008 the police officers K., Pap. and Par. were questioned in respect of the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants. K. and Pap. refused making any statements. It is not known what Par. stated. 40.  On 2 September 2008 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal investigation in respect of the aforementioned police officers, having concluded that the wrongdoings imputed to them were to be qualified as interference with the activity of a law-enforcement official (the Frunzenskyy Prosecutor) rather than exceeding power by engaging in the violent or degrading treatment of a victim. Accordingly, a different criminal case was opened, with a new charge. 41.  On an unspecified date in October 2008 K., Pap. and Par. were questioned again. They denied any ill-treatment of the applicants. As to their behaviour on 1 July 2008, they submitted that they had believed that the applicants had posed a danger to the deputy prosecutor. 42.  On 21 October 2008 the prosecutor, who had been involved in the events of 1 July 2008, gave detailed statements regarding those events, when questioned as a witness in the framework of the criminal investigation against the police officers. 43.  Between 19 and 23 December 2008 the first applicant underwent a forensic medical examination with a view to establishing the origin of his injuries documented earlier. 44.  On 23 December 2008 the examination report was completed. It reiterated the findings of the first applicant’s examinations of 28 June and 2 July 2008 (see paragraphs 14, 31 and 32 above). Furthermore, it noted that the sores on the first applicant’s wrists could have been caused by his handcuffing. The report stated that the findings of the earlier examinations did not contradict the other materials in the case file. 45.  On 30 December 2008 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office terminated the criminal investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment, for the lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers. The prosecutor noted a contradiction in the first applicant’s submissions, according to which his only injury as of 28 June 2008 had been a bruise on his right hip from an accidental falling the day earlier, and the forensic medical examination report of 28 June 2008, which had established many others injuries. The expert who had examined the first applicant on 2 July and 23 December 2008, had stated during his questioning by the prosecutor that the injuries sustained by the first applicant after 28 June 2008, were located in the body parts accessible for self-infliction, apart from the bruise below the left shoulder blade. It appeared impossible to establish the origin of that bruise. The expert had also noted that no injuries on the first applicant’s genitals had been revealed. Overall, the prosecutor concluded that those few injuries which were dated later than 28 June 2008 “could have been sustained [by the first applicant] in circumstances unrelated to any use of force by the police against him”. It was also noted in the ruling that the first applicant had never raised any complaints before the medical personnel of the detention facility. Lastly, as regards the allegations of the second applicant that she had been ill-treated by the police, the prosecutor noted that her medical examination of 2 July 2008 had not revealed any injuries. In sum, the ill-treatment allegations of both applicants were found to be without basis. 46.  On 9 October 2009 the Kharkiv Chervonozavodskyy District Court (“the Chervonozavodskyy Court”) quashed the above decision and directed the prosecution authorities to carry out an additional investigation. It noted, in particular, that the contradictions between the first applicant’s submissions that he had had no injuries as of 28 June 2008 and the forensic medical examination report of that date, according to which he had had numerous injuries, had to be clarified. 47.  On 27 May 2010 a reconstruction of the events of 28 June and 1‑2 July 2008 was conducted with the participation of the first applicant. He maintained the allegations of his ill-treatment by the police. 48.  On 27 and 28 May 2010 a forensic medical expert examined the available documents in respect of the first applicant with a view to clarifying the origin of his injuries. The case file does not contain a copy of the respective report. It appears that, according to the expert’s conclusions, only some of the first applicant’s injuries could have originated in the circumstances as described by him. 49.  On 31 May 2010 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office once again terminated the investigation initiated on 2 July 2008 for the lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers concerned. The prosecutor noted that, even though the first applicant had sustained some injuries while in detention, the exact time and circumstances of their infliction remained unknown. Furthermore, the location of some of the injuries allowed to presume that they could have been self-inflicted. The prosecutor also noted that the first applicant had not “personalised” his injuries: in other words, that he had not specified who exactly of the police officers had inflicted each specific injury on him. The investigator had also questioned the forensic expert who had conducted the examination of the first applicant on 28 June 2008 who had confirmed her findings. 50.  On the same date, 31 May 2010, the Regional Prosecutor’s Office delivered two additional rulings refusing to open a criminal case following the complaints of ill-treatment by each of the applicants. 51.  On 29 November 2010 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a court of first instance in the first applicant’s trial, ordered the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office to investigate the first applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment by the police. It noted that, according to the first applicant, the presence of his fingerprint on the hoe seized at the crime scene was explained by the fact that the police officers had put that hoe in his hands by force during his ill-treatment. 52.  On 28 December 2010, 25 April and 5 May 2011 the Frunzenskyy Prosecutor’s Office, to which the investigation was re-assigned, refused to open a criminal case against the police, having mainly relied on the respective rulings of 31 May 2010 (see paragraphs 49 and 50 above). All those decisions were, however, quashed as premature. 53.  On 18 May 2012 the Frunzenskyy Prosecutor’s Office again refused to open a criminal case against the police officers allegedly involved in the applicants’ ill-treatment. 54.  On 11 June 2012 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office ordered a forensic medical examination of the first applicant by an expert panel with a view to clarifying his injuries and the possible circumstances of their infliction. The investigator noted that similar examinations, which had been carried out earlier, were inconsistent in their conclusions. 55.  On 12 July 2012 a panel of experts issued a forensic medical examination report, in which they stated, in particular, that the first applicant might have sustained all the injuries (with the exception of two bruises and one sore) at the time and under the circumstances as indicated by him during the reconstruction of the events conducted on 27 May 2010 (see paragraph 47 above). 56.  On 6 August 2012 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office, which was apparently investigating the matter in parallel, refused to open a criminal case against the police officers too. On the same day it terminated, on similar grounds as earlier, the criminal investigation initiated on 2 July 2008. On 5 September 2012 the Chervonozavodskyy Court quashed both aforementioned rulings as based on an incomplete and one-sided investigation. 57.  On 8 October 2012 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld that decision. 58.  On 22 October 2012 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office refused to open a criminal case against the police officers in respect of the second applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. On the same date it discontinued the criminal investigation against the police officers in respect of the first applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, which had been launched on 2 July 2008 (see paragraph 30 above). 59.  The first applicant unsuccessfully challenged the aforementioned decision before the domestic courts. 60.  On 11 November 2008 the first applicant was committed for trial. 61.  On 18 May 2009 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Kharkiv Court”), sitting as a court of first instance, remitted the case for additional investigation. It noted, in particular, that the first applicant’s initial confession could not be relied on because he had later retracted it as obtained under duress and given that his ill-treatment complaint had not been duly investigated. The court also indicated a number of contradictions between the first applicant’s confessions and the case-file materials. 62.  On an unspecified date the additional investigation was completed and the case was referred to the trial court again. 63.  On 26 January 2011 the Kharkiv Court found the first applicant guilty of murder for profit and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment with confiscation of all his personal property. It relied, in particular, on the first applicant’s initial confessions, which he had later retracted. Furthermore, the court referred to certain material evidence inculpating the first applicant (such as the hoe with his fingerprint found at the scene of the crime, and his shorts with a blood stain possibly originating from the victim). His allegations that he had been ill-treated and that the evidence against him had been fabricated were dismissed as unsubstantiated. 64.  On 20 September 2011 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court quashed the above judgment mainly on the ground that Article 3 of the Convention and the Court’s case-law required a proper investigation of the first applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, which had not been done. The Higher Court also remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh examination. 65.  On 4 July 2012 the Kharkiv Court once again found the first applicant guilty of murder for profit and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment with confiscation of all his personal property. The court relied, inter alia, on his confessions made on 28 June 2008 and further reiterated on 30 June 2008 in the presence of his lawyer (see paragraphs 19 and 22 above). It was noted in the judgment that the first applicant’s lawyer, who had represented him on the aforementioned dates, had been questioned and had stated that he had had a confidential conversation with the first applicant prior to the first questioning and that there had been no violations of the criminal procedure. 66.  As regards the first applicant’s allegation that he had been ill-treated on 28 June 2008, the court noted that the prosecution authorities had thoroughly investigated the matter and had decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers concerned. The Kharkiv Court referred in this connection to the prosecutor’s decision of 18 May 2012 (see paragraph 53 above). At the same time, having regard to the ill-treatment allegation on the part of the second applicant, which was still under investigation, the Kharkiv Court decided not to rely on her statements incriminating the first applicant, which she had made during the pre-trial investigation. 67.  In so far as the first applicant complained of his kidnapping by the police from the prosecutor’s office on 1 July 2008, the trial court noted that the investigation was ongoing and that it was not necessary to wait for its outcome for the pronouncement of the judgment. 68.  The first applicant challenged the judgment on points of law. He submitted, in particular, that that there was no solid evidence proving his guilt and that the trial court had wrongly relied on his self-incriminating statements obtained under duress, without any adequate investigation of his ill-treatment complaint. He referred in this connection to the Court’s judgment in the case of Savin v. Ukraine (no. 34725/08, 16 February 2012), which concerned that applicant’s torture by K., the same police officer who was involved in the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants in the present case. 69.  On 22 January 2013 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court upheld the judgment of the first-instance court and its reasoning.