5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lived until his arrest in the town of Ishim in the Tyumen Region. He is now serving a life sentence in the Vladimir OD-1/T-2 detention facility, known as Vladimirskiy Tsentral. 6.  On 17 June 2003 the applicant was transferred to Vladimirskiy Tsentral to serve the first ten years of his sentence of life imprisonment. It appears that he was among 150 new inmates who had arrived at Vladimirskiy Tsentral in the summer of 2003 and one of five detainees sentenced to life imprisonment. On admission to the prison the applicant was examined by a prison doctor who found no injuries on his body. 7.  In July 2003, at the request of the acting head of Vladimirskiy Tsentral, a group of officers of a special-purpose unit of the Vladimir Regional Directorate for the Execution of Sentences arrived at the prison for the purpose of “accompanying inmates in outdoor exercise, to shower rooms, and so on”. 8.  On 11 July 2003, at approximately 10.30 a.m., an officer of the special-purpose unit, Mr L., ordered the applicant and two other inmates to leave their cell. The applicant provided the following description of the subsequent events. 9.  According to the applicant, he complied with Mr L.’s order, stepped out into a corridor, stood with his face to the wall and put his hands above his head on the wall as required by internal prison regulations. Six other warders were in the corridor at the time. Mr L. started kicking the applicant and hitting him with a rubber truncheon. The applicant submitted that he had asked for an explanation but in response he had received an additional three blows to the neck with the rubber truncheon. The applicant fell to the floor and Mr L. continued hitting him with the rubber truncheon on the head, back, stomach and legs. The applicant crawled to the wall in an attempt to dodge the blows. He sat near the wall and tried to cover his head with his hands. Mr L. kicked him a number of times, ordering him to get up and go outside for exercise. When the applicant refused Mr L. shoved him into the cell and took the applicant’s inmate, Mr Li., outside for exercise. The applicant asked for medical assistance. Twenty minutes later Mr L. again entered the cell and began hitting the applicant in the face and head using his fists and the rubber truncheon. Mr L. knocked out the applicant’s front tooth when he cut a finger on his left hand. Trying to escape, the applicant jumped on to a bunk, where Mr L. continued hitting him on the legs. Mr L. grabbed the applicant by his clothes, dragged him to a punishment cell and locked him up. 10.  The applicant felt dizzy and called for a doctor. A nurse came to the punishment cell and the applicant complained to her that Mr L. had beaten him up. He showed the nurse his injuries and complained that he was not feeling well. Half an hour later Mr L. took the applicant out of the punishment cell and dragged him back to his own cell, continuing to hit and kick him. 11.  The Government, relying on written statements by prison warders, including Mr L., submitted that on 11 July 2003 the applicant and two fellow inmates had resisted the warders’ attempt to take them outside for exercise. In particular, the applicant had grabbed Mr L. by his uniform, had threatened him with violence, and had tried to hit the other warders. Considering the applicant’s conduct as an offence, the warders hit him a number of times with rubber truncheons to put a stop to his unlawful behaviour. The Government stressed that truncheons had been used in strict compliance with requirements of the Penitentiary Institutions Act (see paragraph 29 below). The blows were only administered to the applicant’s hips and buttocks. The force was used for a very short period of time (ten to twelve seconds) with the intention of causing the least possible damage to the applicant’s health. 12.  Immediately after the incident an entry was made in the prison log recording the confrontation between the warders and inmates and the use of special measures (rubber truncheons) in response to inmates’ violence. The applicant was also examined by a prison nurse who recorded an elongated bruise on the right side of his lumbar region. The nurse concluded that the bruise measuring fifteen to five centimetres “did not present any danger to life or health”. The nurse treated the applicant’s injury with iodine and applied a cold compress. 13.  In the aftermath of the events on 11 July 2003 Mr L. made a report which read as follows:
“[I] inform [you] that on 11 July 2003 at 10.50 a.m., when inmates sentenced to life imprisonment were being taken for outdoor exercise, I, officer... L., used a rubber truncheon... on a detainee, [the applicant], in compliance with Article 30 of the [Penitentiary Institutions Act]. The rubber truncheon was used because [the applicant] refused to comply with lawful orders of the administration and attempted to use physical resistance by grabbing my uniform. The rubber truncheon was not applied to vital body parts.”
Two warders who had witnessed the incident wrote an identical report, adding that the applicant did not need medical assistance. 14.  In the evening of 11 July 2003 the applicant experienced severe pain in the stomach and asked for a doctor. On hearing the applicant’s complaints of severe headache, stomach pain, dizziness and vomiting, a medical assistant, Mr M., examined the applicant and gave him an injection of aminasin, suspecting that the applicant could have concussion. He also gave the applicant a painkiller. Mr M. noted that the applicant had numerous abrasions and bruises on the stomach, waist and chest and recommended an examination by a surgeon. 15.  On 14 July 2003 the applicant again applied for medical assistance, complaining of headache, dizziness, vomiting, loss of appetite and pain during urination. Ms B., a prison doctor, specialist in dermatology and venereology, examined him on the same day and discovered numerous bruises, each measuring approximately ten centimetres in diameter, “on the [applicant’s] torso, upper part of the back, [and] upper and middle parts of the right thigh”, and a swelling of the left cheek and of the left hip and knee. Ms B. noted that the applicant’s left hip and knee had a hyperaemic appearance and that the applicant was walking differently, favouring his left leg. The doctor also discovered that the applicant was missing a part of the upper corner tooth on the left side. She was unable to establish however when the tooth had been broken, as there were no injuries to the mucous membrane of the applicant’s lips and cheeks. Two days later an analysis of the applicant’s urine sample established no pathology, thus eliminating the possibility of a kidney injury. 16.  In the meantime, on 14 July 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint with a prosecutor’s office, providing a detailed account of the events of 11 July 2003. The applicant also asked for an expert medical examination. 17.  On 30 October 2003 a deputy of the Vladimir Town Prosecutor issued a one-page decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings against Mr L. The entire decision read as follows:
“[The applicant] is serving his sentence in Vladimir OD 1/T-2 detention facility. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on condition that he serve the first ten years of the sentence in prison.
On 11 July 2003, a convict, [the applicant], was taken for outdoor exercise: he defied the orders of the detention facility staff, tried to resist physically, and grabbed [warders] by their clothing. In these circumstances a special measure – a rubber truncheon – was used against [the applicant]. No traumatic injuries leading to health damage were caused. [The warders] drew up the required reports concerning the application of the special measure to [the applicant].
The special measure – a rubber truncheon – was applied to [the applicant] in accordance with Article 30 of the Federal Law “On facilities and bodies executing criminal sentences of imprisonment”.
On the basis of the above stated and applying Article 25 § 1.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, [the deputy prosecutor] finds that [the request] for institution of criminal proceedings as a result of injuries being received by [the applicant] should be dismissed because [there is no indication] of a criminal offence.”
The deputy prosecutor’s decision was based on statements by six warders, Mr K., Mr Ku., Mr A., Mr P., Mr Ko. and Mr B., collected on 30 October 2003. In particular, two warders submitted that during an attempt to take inmates for outdoor exercise on 11 July 2003, a rubber truncheon had been used against a number of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment, including the applicant, because they had refused to comply with lawful orders. Two warders explained that the applicant had attempted to resist physically by “taking up a position as if ready to throw a punch”. The remaining warders stated that the applicant had refused to submit to a body search, had “diverged from the route” and had intended to throw a punch. 18.  On 24 December 2003 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladimir quashed the decision of 30 October 2003 and authorised an additional inquiry. The District Court noted that the applicant had asked the prosecutor’s office to interview his fellow inmate, Mr Li., who had witnessed the beatings on 11 July 2003, the medical assistant, Mr M., who had examined the applicant in the evening of 11 July 2003 and had recorded his injuries, and the warder, Mr L., who had beaten the applicant up. However, the prosecutor’s office had not complied with the applicant’s request. The District Court also held that the decision of 30 October 2003 was only based on statements by the warders, that the prosecutor’s inquiry was “incomplete and subjective” and that the prosecutor had unlawfully refused to institute criminal proceedings applying Article 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, although that Article only provided for such a refusal in the event of a friendly settlement. 19.  On 2 March 2004 the deputy prosecutor of the Vladimir Town Prosecutor’s office once again refused to institute criminal proceedings against Mr L. In addition to the statements previously taken from the six warders, the deputy prosecutor based his three-page decision on statements by Mr L. and the medical assistant, Mr M.
In particular, Mr L. informed the deputy prosecutor that on 11 July 2003 he and several other warders had attempted to take the applicant outside for daily exercise. The applicant had refused, had threatened the warders, including Mr L., and had taken up a boxing stance, trying to hit Mr L. In response Mr L. had used a rubber truncheon. He had hit the applicant on the buttocks and the middle part of the thighs. Mr L. insisted that he had only used the rubber truncheon; he had not kicked the applicant and had not hit him in the head or stomach.
The medical assistant, Mr M., stated that he had been called to the applicant on 11 July 2003 at approximately 8.00 p.m. The latter had complained of headache, stomach pain, nausea and vomiting blood. Mr M. had not seen any blood. He had examined the applicant and recorded numerous abrasions and bruises. The applicant had been provided with medical assistance and had been prescribed a consultation with a surgeon. Mr M. noted that he had not diagnosed concussion. He had not noticed a broken tooth.
The deputy prosecutor also interviewed the applicant’s fellow inmate, Mr Li., who corroborated the applicant’s version of events. However, the deputy prosecutor was not convinced by Mr Li.’s testimony because “it was only corroborated by the applicant’s statements and was rebutted by the materials of the inquiry”. 20.  The applicant appealed to a court against the decision of 2 March 2004. 21.  On 1 April 2004 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladimir quashed the deputy prosecutor’s decision and ordered an additional investigation. The District Court noted that the deputy prosecutor had not interviewed the applicant or the nurse who had examined him after the beatings and had not analysed the statements given by Mr L. and Mr M., although those two persons had given contradictory statements as to “the localisation and character of the injuries” sustained by the applicant. 22.  On 19 April 2004 a deputy prosecutor of the Vladimir Town Prosecutor’s office dismissed the applicant’s complaint, finding that Mr L.’s actions had been lawful. In addition to the statements by Mr L., the warders and medical assistant, Mr M., included in the decision of 2 March 2004, the deputy prosecutor based its decision on the medical record issued on 11 July 2003 by the nurse and on statements by the doctor, Ms B., who had examined the applicant on 14 July 2003. Ms B. confirmed her conclusions made in the medical report on 14 July 2003.
Relying on the medical record and the statements by Ms B., the deputy prosecutor found that the applicant could have sustained those injuries before or after the events on 11 July 2003. Furthermore, the deputy prosecutor held that the applicant’s statements regarding the broken tooth were false because “a part of the upper incisor (резец), and not a part of a tooth (зуб) was missing from his mouth” and his lips and cheeks had not been injured. 23.  The applicant appealed to a court against the decision of 19 April 2004. 24.  On 13 May 2004 the Frunsenskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint, finding that the rubber truncheon had been used lawfully in response to the applicant’s behaviour and that there had been no indication of a criminal offence in Mr L.’s actions. 25.  The applicant did not agree with that decision and appealed to the Vladimir Regional Court. 26.  On 17 September 2004 the Vladimir Regional Court, endorsing the reasons given by the District Court, held that the prosecutor’s office had completed its inquiry following the applicant’s ill-treatment complaint and had made lawful conclusions. The Regional Court upheld the decision of 13 May 2004.