4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and is serving a prison term in colony no. 6 in the Kirov Region. 5.  The applicant and several others were suspected of kidnapping a Mr K. for ransom in the Dagestan Republic. The case was investigated by Mr A., an investigator in the Khasavyurt town prosecutor’s office, Dagestan Republic. 6.  On 23 April 2006 the applicant was arrested, apparently by officers D. and Z., while he was driving a car in the town of Khasavyurt. As noted in the arrest record, the arrest was recorded on video. According to the applicant, a bag was placed on his head, he was put into a police car and allegedly received several blows to the head and stomach. He was then taken to the local Organised Crime Unit (OCU). He was severely beaten up by several individuals, including the above-mentioned officer Z. (the head of the OCU), and subsequently remained at the OCU (see also paragraphs 11 and 20 below). Despite beatings, he refused to admit to the kidnapping or any other offences. 7.  On the same day, the applicant was interviewed in the OCU by investigator A. The arrest record, which was signed by two attesting witnesses, indicates that the applicant was suspected of kidnapping and that his son had been notified of his arrest. The applicant made the following statement in the record:
“I am not acquainted with the kidnapping victim...I would like to see a lawyer and ask that all subsequent investigative measures be carried out in his presence.”
The applicant was provided with legal assistance at some point between 23 and 25 April 2006 (see also paragraph 9 below). 8.  Also, on 23 April 2006 a search of his mother’s house, where the applicant was living at the time, was carried out. Another search was carried out some two weeks later. 9.  On 25 April 2006 the Khasavyurt Town Court remanded the applicant in custody. The text of the court decision indicates that the applicant and his counsel were present at the hearing. According to the Government, during this hearing the defence made no allegations of ill-treatment and no health-related complaints. According to the applicant, he was not brought to this hearing from the OCU. 10.  According to the Government, on the day of his arrest the applicant was admitted to the Khasavyurt temporary detention centre at the police station, where he was examined by a medical assistant, who did not record any health complaints and did not detect any visible injuries. 11.  According to the applicant, he was kept until 9 May 2006 at the OCU premises, except for two or three days in solitary confinement in the temporary detention centre (apparently on 7 or 8 and 9 May 2006). The police station, the OCU and the temporary detention centre were, at the time, located in the immediate vicinity. According to the applicant, the beatings continued in the OCU until 9 May 2006. He remained handcuffed all the time; for extended periods of time he was attached to a radiator by the handcuffs. He sustained fractures of his right arm and one of his legs (see also paragraph 46 below). He was not given any food or drink and was not allowed to sleep. The applicant was forced to sit on a bottle on at least three occasions, which provoked acute bleeding from the anus. He was also forced to stand in a position of doing the splits, while his arms remained handcuffed behind his back. The applicant was sexually assaulted at night from 8 to 9 May 2006. OCU head officer Z. and investigator A. brought in three relatives of the kidnapping victim, who had been told that the applicant had kidnapped their relative. The applicant was beaten on the kidneys and head with a plastic bottle filled with water; he was hit on the legs with a shovel handle. His co-accused, Mr Ib., was told to have sexual intercourse with him. Acts of torture were photographed by one of the kidnap victim’s relatives. The applicant was told that if he refused to confess, the photographs would be distributed among his neighbours and other detainees. The photographs were subsequently distributed in the remand centre and were later examined at the trial (see below). 12.  According to the applicant, officers of the temporary detention centre saw the officers beating him up but took no action to put a stop to the beatings or to alert the authorities. The applicant was not provided with any medical assistance in the temporary detention centre, in particular after 9 May 2006. 13.  The Government submitted written statements, apparently made in 2010, by three officers of the temporary detention centre, on duty at the time. They affirmed that no force had been used against the applicant in that detention facility; and that the logbooks recording detainees’ admission to or departure from the detention centre and the police station had been destroyed during an explosion in the police station in 2009. According to the Government, the applicant had been taken from the detention centre for measures connected with the investigation but had not had any contact with OCU officers. According to the Government, emergency services were called to examine the applicant when he complained of stomach and kidney pains on 30 April and 9 and 10 May 2006; no fractures were recorded. According to the applicant, he was examined by paramedics in the presence of OCU officers, who attempted to put pressure on them. 14.  According to the applicant, his adolescent son was also arrested and detained for three days. He saw the applicant in bad condition. He stated that his wife was also kept in detention, with their young daughter. 15.  On 11 May (15 or 16 May according to the applicant) 2006 the applicant was transported from the temporary detention centre to Khasavyurt remand centre no. 3/5. He was then brought back to the temporary detention centre because of his medical condition. However, the applicant was admitted to the remand centre soon afterwards. 16.  According to the applicant, in the remand centre he was kept in solitary confinement. Due to his state of health after the alleged torture, he was unable to walk or use the toilet. He was not provided with any medical assistance. He also alleged that numerous injuries had been recorded in the register of the remand centre, including fractures of the right arm and right leg. 17.  The applicant’s medical file in the remand centre indicates that on 11 May 2006 he complained of pain in the chest, arms, legs and head; he had bruises on his body, showed sensitive palpation in his cheekbone and hips; had bruises and scratches on his hips; severe pain in the chest, especially in the area of the costal margins; and soft tissue and bone bruising. It does not appear from the record that the applicant was given any medication. In the applicant’s submission, on several occasions the investigator prevented emergency paramedics from providing the applicant with medical assistance and refused to allow him to be transferred to a hospital. 18.  In the meantime, on 9 May 2006 Mr I. was arrested in connection with the kidnapping case and was interviewed by investigator A. After this interview, Mr I.’s relatives complained that he had been ill-treated. On 18 May 2006 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Dagestan Republic (“the regional prosecutor’s office”) instituted criminal proceedings (file no. 668130) on charges of insult and abuse of power. 19.  According to the applicant, he also complained to the regional prosecutor’s office, the regional ombudsman and the regional office of the Federal Security Service that he had been tortured. He did not specify the details of the sexual assault he complained of, while naming among his assailants chief officer Z. and investigator A., and asking the authorities to carry out an investigation. He asked them to examine photographs which had allegedly been taken during the ill-treatment (see also paragraph 25 below). 20.  Unlike Mr I., the applicant was not granted victim status in case no. 668130. However, on 19 May 2006 the applicant, who was not assisted by counsel, was interviewed as a witness and made the following written statement concerning the events between 23 April and 11 May 2006:
“I was taken out of my car by force and brought to the Khasavyurt OCU. I was taken up to a room on the second floor and beaten up there. Four officers punched and kicked me. I was then taken to the OCU Chief officer’s office, where I was forced to put on a gas mask; I lost consciousness on several occasions. Later on, I was taken to another room for questioning. After this, I remained handcuffed to a radiator until the next morning, when I was questioned by investigator A. Another man, K., who was apparently the son of the kidnap victim, was also present. Mr A. put a gas mask on my head and blocked the air flow; I lost consciousness on several occasions while being beaten up by K.... the next day I was beaten up by OCU officers, who used their hands, feet and a plastic bottle...I can identify at least one of the officers...Later, I was again beaten up by two OCU officers who had just arrived from Makhachkala...During the night of 8 to 9 May 2006 I was beaten up again. I also heard another person, Mr Ib., being tortured in another office...Mr A. told me to sign some documents but I refused. I was taken into the room where Mr Ib. was. There, I was told to kneel; A. hit me on the back and told Ib. to have sexual intercourse with me. Ib. was told to take off my and his trousers and to approach me from behind and bend over me. I resisted and received a blow to the head from a bottle. K. took photographs...” 21.  On 19 May 2006 the investigator dealing with case no. 668130 ordered that the applicant be examined by medical experts of the regional Forensic Expert Office (see below). 22.  On 23 May 2006, for unspecified reasons, the regional prosecutor’s office reassigned K.’s kidnapping case from investigator A. to an investigator in the Investigations Department of the regional prosecutor’s office under case no. 668493. 23.  On 25 May 2006 senior officer Z. was interviewed by an investigator of the regional prosecutor’s office and denied torturing Mr I. 24.  As can be seen from a report dated 30 May 2006, the applicant had been examined by a medical expert in the Forensic Expert Office on 22 May 2006, when he had complained of pain in the chest and hip. The expert identified two bruises measuring 8 x 6 cm and 5 x 4 cm on the left side of the applicant’s chest. According to the applicant, no check-up had been carried out on 22 May 2006 and the report was false. 25.  An expert report was commissioned on the photographs submitted in I.’s torture case. The following descriptions were given in the report, no. 4161 dated 8 June 2006. Photograph no. 1 depicted a man lying on the floor, with his arms held behind him by another person. Photograph no. 2 depicted a man lying on the floor with another person’s genitals near his face. Photograph no. 3 depicted a man lying on the floor with his arms handcuffed behind him, his buttocks half exposed and a stick near his anus. Photograph no. 4 depicted two men: one man lying on the floor with his pants slightly down so that his genitals are partly visible, and the other man bending over him. The report describes the photographs as reproductions/computer screen captures, photos 2 and 4 showing “indications of editing”. The expert was not able to determine whether the photographs had been taken in the police station or the OCU. Another report, issued by another expert institution on 14 October 2006, concluded that the photographs had not been edited. 26. On 9 June 2006 the Internal Control Office of the Ministry of the Interior carried out an inquiry in reply to a request from a Member of Parliament. The inquiry concluded that senior officer Z. and two officers had been interviewed and had denied torturing Mr I. 27.  According to the Government, senior officer Z. and officer D., who had arrested the applicant on 23 April 2006, could not be interviewed during the inquiry because they had been killed on 20 June and 23 July 2006 respectively. 28.  In July 2006 the applicant wrote to the regional prosecutor’s office about ill-treatment. Receiving no reply, on 21 November 2006 he submitted another complaint. 29.  On 22 November 2006 the torture case (concerning Mr I.) was reassigned from the regional prosecutor’s office to the town prosecutor’s office. The criminal investigation was suspended on 18 December 2006 for lack of a suspect. However, on 22 December 2006 the regional prosecutor’s office instructed the district prosecutor to continue the inquiry. 30.  By a letter of 22 December 2006, the regional prosecutor’s office notified the applicant that his complaint against investigator A. and unlawful methods of investigation had been forwarded for examination by the Khasavyurt prosecutor’s office. 31.  On 30 December 2006 the Khasavyurt prosecutor’s office suspended the inquiry in I.’s case because no suspect had been identified. According to the applicant, he first learnt about this decision at the trial (see below). 32.  Having received no information about the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment, the applicant complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office. On 10 January 2007 the latter forwarded this complaint for examination by the Khasavyurt prosecutor’s office. 33.  On 14 September 2007 the applicant complained to the regional prosecutor’s office that there had been no meaningful investigation of torture, that the authorities had failed to examine his earlier complaints, the presumption of innocence had been violated and the jurors had been influenced by the mass media (see paragraph 40 below). On 24 September 2007 the regional prosecutor’s office forwarded this complaint to the Khasavyurt prosecutor’s office. It appears that no reply was received. 34.  However, by a letter of 10 July 2008 the Khasavyurt prosecutor’s office notified the applicant that his complaints of ill-treatment were unfounded and that they had already been examined at the trial and on appeal against the jury verdict. The applicant received this letter on 1 October 2008. 35.  No proceedings were pending until 7 December 2009, when the Khasavyurt town prosecutor issued an order to resume the preliminary investigation in Mr I.’s torture case, and to investigate the applicant’s allegations made before the European Court. 36.  As it appeared that no investigative measures had been taken, the applicant complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office. He submitted a handwritten copy of their letter dated 23 June 2010, which reads as follows:
“Indeed, during the stage of preliminary investigation [the applicant] and another convict in the same criminal case were subjected to violence at the hands of police officers and relatives of the crime victim. This fact gave rise to criminal proceedings initiated on 18 May 2006. The relevant case file was examined by the trial court in the [applicant’s] criminal case.
This notwithstanding, [the applicant] and I. stated at their trial that violence applied to them had not resulted in false testimony or admissions.” 37.  On 11 August 2010 Mr A., acting head of the Khasavyurt inter-district investigations unit of the Investigations Department of the regional prosecutor’s office (the investigator A. mentioned above), considered that the Khasavyurt prosecutor’s request was justified, in part because no face-to-face confrontation had been carried out between the applicant and Ib.; the medical doctor who had provided emergency assistance to the applicant in the OCU, had not been interviewed; and officers of the temporary detention centre had not been interviewed in relation to injuries mentioned in the forensic expert report. In view of the above, Mr A. quashed the decision of 18 December 2006 (see paragraph 29 above) and ordered an investigator in the Khasavyurt inter-district investigations unit to resume the preliminary investigation. According to the applicant, the newly-designated official was subordinate in rank to Mr A., who had been implicated in the allegations of torture made by the applicant and his co-accused. 38.  On 11 September 2010 the preliminary investigation was suspended for unspecified reasons. On 8 October 2010 it was resumed but then again suspended on 8 November 2010. By a letter of 14 December 2010 the Prosecutor General’s Office informed the applicant that his allegations had been previously examined in I.’s torture case and that further inquiries should be addressed to the Khasavyurt prosecutor’s office, also noting that the applicant’s application was pending before the European Court. 39.  On 25 April 2006 the Khasavyurt Town Court of the Dagestan Republic remanded the applicant in custody as a suspect in the kidnapping case. Separate preliminary investigations concerning kidnapping, extortion, murder and unlawful handling of firearms were joined in one case. In May 2006 the applicant was charged with kidnapping (Article 126 of the Criminal Code). 40.  After the arrest of the applicant and his accomplices their case received some press coverage. The applicant submitted an article entitled “Who was the contract murder client?”, which had been published in a regional newspaper, Dagestan Argumenty i Facty, on 24 May 2006. Another article in similar terms was published at the same period of time in Dagestanskaya Pravda, another local newspaper. These publications relied on statements allegedly made by a public official. The applicant was treated in these publications as a “bandit” and a “recidivist” convicted of murders and kidnapping. 41.  The applicant and his counsel studied the materials of the criminal case (twelve volumes), allegedly, for two hours on 23 December 2006. On 27 or 28 December 2006 the applicant had a heart attack. On 6 January 2007 he was provided with a copy of the bill of indictment. 42.  Thereafter, the criminal case against the applicant and his accomplices, including Mr I. and Mr Ib., was listed for trial before the Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic. The applicant requested to be tried by a lay jury. On 12 January 2007 the presiding judge held a preliminary hearing, extended the defendants’ detention and granted the applicant’s request for a trial by a lay jury. A jury panel was formed. Apparently, at the time the applicant was not aware of the publications in the press (see paragraph 40 above). 43.  The transcript of the hearing indicates that the presiding judge made a general direction requesting the jury not to follow any media coverage of the trial; if they had already seen any press coverage of the case they were instructed not to take account of the conclusions drawn by the mass media. 44.  The trial judge admonished the public prosecutor for mentioning the applicant’s criminal record. The judge instructed the jury not to take that information into account. The applicant was also admonished for subsequently mentioning his own criminal record. 45.  In the course of the trial the applicant admitted that that he had unlawfully deprived the victim of his liberty, but pleaded not guilty to the remaining charges. 46.  The presiding judge ordered the prosecution to submit the criminal investigation file in relation to I.’s allegation of torture. Instead, the prosecution read out a procedural summary note concerning this file. The applicant stated that he had been subjected to similar humiliating ill-treatment, which had been photographed. The presiding judge also admitted to the file a letter from the remand centre, apparently containing information concerning the applicant’s injuries. The judge granted the defence’s request and ordered a medical expert examination of the applicant, to investigate his allegation that fractures had been inflicted on him by torture. According to the applicant, a report compiled by the expert indicated that the applicant had sustained arm and leg fractures. No copy of this report was submitted to the Court. 47.  The applicant made a written statement accusing investigator A. of torture. The presiding judge accepted the statement, and ordered it to be forwarded to the appropriate authority after the trial. In reply to the judge’s questions, the applicant stated on several occasions that despite torture he had not made any “false” admissions during the preliminary investigation. 48.  The court examined four photographs. The applicant affirmed that he was shown in one of them, depicting two men. His co-accused Mr Ib. (the other man in this photo) confirmed it. Ib. also affirmed that A. had made him watch video recordings showing the applicant and I. being ill-treated. 49.  During the hearing on 5 June 2007 the applicant was removed from the courtroom because of repeated misbehaviour. He was then brought back after counsel’s concluding remarks and was allowed to conclude his pleading. 50.  On 21 June 2007 the jury found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. 51.  It appears that the car, which the applicant had used with the permission of its owner, was seized during the investigation. At the closure of the trial, the car was handed over to the victims in settlement of their civil claims. It appears that the owner of the car then sought compensation from the applicant and his next of kin. The latter paid the owner a sum equal to the value of the car. 52.  The applicant appealed against the verdict, seeking a retrial in another region of Russia because, he submitted, it was impossible to ensure a fair trial in Dagestan, particularly on account of the press coverage of the first trial. 53.  On 15 May 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the verdict of 21 June 2007. According to the applicant, the appeal hearing, which was carried out by video link, took no more than fifteen minutes. 54.  On 6 June 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s request for supervisory review. The Supreme Court considered that it was not shown that the jury had been aware of the publications in 2006 and that it was not established that they had been unduly influenced by these publications. The Supreme Court also considered that these publications were not capable of prejudicing the impartiality of the jury. 55.  A medical certificate issued in 2003 indicates that the applicant has a Category 2 disability and was recognised as unfit for work (without any period of limitation). He also has ischaemic heart disease, hemiplegia (paralysis of part of the body) and some other conditions. 56.  From 25 April to 9 or 11 May 2006 the applicant was kept in a police station or a temporary detention centre. From 9 or 11 May to 8 December 2006 he was detained in Khasavyurt remand centre no. 3. From 8 December 2006 to an unspecified date in March 2008 he was detained in Makhachkala remand centre no. 1, allegedly in overcrowded cells. From March to 5 June 2008 the applicant was detained in Moscow remand centre no. 77/3. 57.  On 5 June 2008 the applicant was sent back to Makhachkala remand centre no. 1. On his way back he was temporarily admitted to the medical unit of a Volgograd remand centre. In Astrakhan colony no. 6 he was, however, placed in an ordinary transit cell, which was, allegedly, overcrowded. It appears that the applicant’s complaint to the administration of the colony was not examined. Thereafter, the applicant was transported for twelve hours in a “container” measuring 1.7 m x 2 m, together with many other detainees. Upon his arrival in Makhachkala remand centre no. 1 he was sent to a colony in the Kirov Region, while his medical file containing the recommendations for his treatment was, allegedly, replaced by a blank one. 58.  On an unspecified date, the applicant was transferred to colony no. 6 in the Kirov Region. He was admitted to a hospital on several occasions in 2008 and 2009 and prescribed various types of medication. 59.  By a letter of 14 October 2008, the European Court acknowledged receipt of the applicant’s first letter to the Court. By a letter of 19 August 2009 the Court informed the applicant that his recent request under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court had been rejected. According to the applicant, the above letters were opened and inspected before being handed over to him in unsealed envelopes. 60.  Allegedly, in March 2009 the colony administration refused the applicant access to his medical file and refused to issue any documents relating to this file in the absence of an official request from a national public authority or the European Court of Human Rights. 61.  On 10 March 2009 the applicant handed over the completed application form to be dispatched from the detention facility to the Registry of the Court. The application form was received by the Registry of the Court on 15 May 2009. Allegedly, in 2010 the detention facility staff refused to dispatch one letter to the Court.