5.  The applicant was born in 1960. It appears that the applicant is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Stavropol Region, Russia. 6.  On an unspecified date and in unspecified circumstances, the applicant acquired 13.4 g of heroin and divided it into two parcels. 7.  On 20 August 2003 a Mr S. came to Obruchevskiy police station in Moscow and made a written statement indicating that he had met a Mr T., who had told him that a person of “Georgian origin” named Levan, around 40 years old, was a heroin supplier. S. expressed his readiness to assist the police in collecting evidence of Levan’s alleged criminal activities (see also paragraph 17 below). 8.  On the same date, referring to S.’s statement, Police Officer K. issued an order authorising a “test purchase” of drugs:
“... [S.] stated that he had become acquainted with a person of Georgian origin; this man had offered him heroin for 600 roubles per gram. Their meeting is expected to take place today, when this man will hand over heroin to [S.] ... I order a “test purchase” of drugs in order to document the criminal activities of an unidentified person called “Levan” and arrest him in flagrante delicto.”
This order bears the approval note and signature of the chief officer of the police station. 9.  As is stated in the police records, S. was subjected to a body search in the presence of two attesting witnesses. The search disclosed that he had no drugs or other prohibited items on him. The police then provided S. with 100 US dollars (USD) and 3,000 Russian roubles (RUB). Before that, the banknotes had been photocopied and a record was drawn up to document this. 10.  The applicant was arrested after he had handed over one of the two parcels of heroin (weighing 6.9 g) to S. This parcel was seized from S. in the police station. The money (the above-mentioned banknotes) and the other parcel (weighing 6.5 g) were seized from the applicant in the police station. 11.  In July and August 2003 the applicant was undergoing outpatient treatment at a psychiatric hospital for cyclothymic disorder. 12.  According to the applicant, on 20 August 2003 T. called him and asked for two anti-anxiety pills for his insomnia. The applicant’s friend drove him to T.’s place, where the applicant handed over the pills to T. T. gave the applicant USD 100 and RUB 3,000 as repayment of a debt. T. also introduced him to S., who asked for help with his drug addiction. The applicant refused to get involved and recommended inpatient treatment in a specialised hospital. The applicant left the house and was soon stopped by two men, who introduced themselves as police officers. The applicant complied with the officers’ request and presented his passport. Immediately thereafter, they attempted to handcuff him. While he did not resist his handcuffing with one hand, he resisted when the officer(s) started to twist his other arm behind his back. His resistance consisted of pressing his arm against his body and was a natural reaction to the pain caused by the arm twisting. Immediately thereafter, the officer(s) twice used a “suffocating” technique on him and beat him up. One of the officers hit him several times with a gun handle/barrel. The applicant sustained a concussion, a closed fracture of the jaw and numerous bruises. 13.  The applicant submitted to the Court that he had been taken to a police station, through the back door and without any formal recording of his arrival. The officers had threatened him and had punched and kicked him. 14.  In the applicant’s submission, he had been suffering from severe pain and had remained under the influence of medication he had received in the hospital before his arrest. The officers had insisted that he confess to supplying drugs and “surrender” the drugs he had on him. The officers told him that after this they would allow the provision of medical assistance to him and would allow him to call his family. According to the applicant, he had not had any drugs on him and thus had not been able to comply with the officers’ order. However, he had managed to talk to his wife using a mobile phone. 15.  It appears that on 21 August 2003 Ms A., acting head of the Investigations Unit at Obruchevskiy police station, interviewed the applicant in the presence of lawyer To., who advised him to admit to the charges. The applicant made self-incriminating statements. The record of this interrogation was subsequently invalidated by the trial court because the applicant had not been properly informed that any self-incriminating statements he made could subsequently be used to convict him. 16.  The applicant claimed before the Court that he had complained to the investigator of the use of force during his arrest. In view of his psychiatric illness, for which he was receiving medication, the stress he had felt following his arrest and his physical suffering from the fracture of his jaw, he had not insisted on his complaint being recorded in the written record. It appears that by a decision of 12 August 2004 the Moscow Bar Association decided that To. should be disbarred. The Bar Association established that, being told by the applicant of his psychiatric condition and his jaw injury, counsel had not sought any forensic examination or lodged any motions before the courts or submissions before the public authorities involved. 17.  Also on 21 August 2003, investigator F. of the Investigations Unit at Obruchevskiy police station interviewed S., who made the following statement:
“Some time ago I met T. and learnt that he consumed drugs. He told me that he had been buying them from Levan, who supplied large quantities and always had drugs on him ... T. dismissed my request to meet Levan ... I was waiting for an occasion to see Levan when I happened to meet with T. It happened on the same day, 20 August 2003, when I went to T.’s place. He told me that Levan would arrive soon. T. did not tell me that Levan would bring heroin but I guessed that he would ... When I again asked to be introduced to Levan, T. told me that Levan would call again and that we would meet him. I did not specify why I wanted to meet Levan ... When we met (for the first time), I took him aside and asked him to sell me some heroin. He accepted. I gave him 100 dollars and 3,000 roubles and he gave me a black parcel ...” 18.  S. died in October 2003. 19.  The applicant was charged with unlawful procurement, possession and supply of heroin. On an unspecified date, the applicant retracted his earlier statement alleging that the drugs had been planted on him in the police station. He asked for a confrontation to be held with the attesting witnesses who had been present during his body search on 20 August 2003. 20.  The criminal case against the applicant was set for trial before the Gagarinskiy District Court in Moscow. A number of trial hearings were held between November 2003 and April 2004. 21.  It appears that in or around November 2003 new counsel was assigned or retained to defend the applicant. Counsel complained before the trial court about the issues relating to the use of excessive force against the applicant during his arrest. 22.  At the trial the applicant stated that he had agreed to supply two anti-anxiety pills to T. According to the applicant, the drugs had been planted on him at the police station. The trial judge examined the applicant’s version of events, heard a number of witnesses on his behalf and dismissed the applicant’s arguments as unfounded. 23.  The court heard Mr Ma., who had allegedly taken the applicant in his car to T.’s place. Ma. affirmed that he had seen two men approach the applicant, who had presented some documents. As soon as a third man had arrived, they had started to twist the applicant’s arms and use “wrestling techniques”. Being afraid, Ma. had left in his car. 24.  The trial court also heard Ms Ko., who stated that she had attended the same school as S. and that S. had introduced her to drugs. She had last seen him in 1996. According to Ko., S. had been a police informant. The trial court noted that this statement was unsubstantiated and based on conjecture. The court concluded that it could not cast doubt on S.’s voluntary decision to assist the police in uncovering criminal activities relating to drug trafficking. 25.  The trial judge declared admissible most pieces of physical and other evidence collected during the test purchase and thereafter. Despite the applicant’s objections, the trial judge declared S.’s pre-trial deposition admissible. Upon the applicant’s request, the court heard a handwriting expert who testified that he had “serious doubts” that the statement made on 20 August 2003 and the subsequent deposition had been signed by the same person. 26.  Although the money and the parcel of heroin were not presented at the trial, the judge based her assessment on the relevant written record. 27.  The court heard T., who had introduced S. to the applicant. T. submitted that he had known the applicant for four years and that S. had been aware that the applicant had “healed” his drug addiction. T. had dismissed S.’s requests to meet the applicant because T. had owed USD 1,000 to the applicant and had not wanted to see him. After S. had offered to advance up to USD 300 to T. if he arranged a meeting, T. had called the applicant and had asked him for some medication he could not buy himself. After some hesitation, the applicant had agreed to meet T. Later on, S. had returned to T.’s place and had handed over USD 100 and RUB 3,000 to T. When the applicant had arrived, T. had handed over the money to him. At that point, the applicant was first told of S. and introduced to him. The applicant had told S. that he could not help him with his drug addiction. 28.  The court also examined T.’s pre-trial statement in which he had stated that S. had asked him where he had acquired drugs. T. had replied vaguely that he knew someone called Levan who could supply a substantial quantity of drugs and normally had drugs on him. T. had told S. that he did not buy drugs from him. Without specifying the purpose, S. had asked to meet Levan. When S. had arrived at T.’s place on 20 August 2003, the applicant had been about to arrive too. They had all met in front of the house. S. had talked to the applicant about something. 29.  At the trial the applicant maintained that the officers, in particular Officer M., had beaten him up during his arrest and that one of them had hit him on the face with a gun; he, however, admitted that he had resisted handcuffing. 30.  Officer K. was questioned at the trial as a witness, having been warned that he could face criminal liability for false testimony or a refusal to testify. The officer agreed to testify and was interviewed in the presence of the applicant. The officer stated that he had had to use a combat fighting/wrestling technique and to handcuff the applicant with one hand because he had been swinging his hands and had tried to escape; that he and the applicant had fallen to the ground on several occasions; that he had sustained a cut lip but had not sought medical assistance; and that there had been no visible injuries on the applicant after the arrest and that he had not had any difficulty talking. 31.  Officers Su. and M. were also questioned at the trial and confirmed K.’s testimony. Investigator F. affirmed that she had not been alerted to any physical or psychological duress against the applicant, and that counsel had been present during the interviews. 32.  In the meantime, on 15 April 2004 the Gagarinskiy district prosecutor refused to bring criminal proceedings against the officers (see paragraph 43 below). 33.  By a judgment of 30 April 2004 the District Court convicted the applicant of the procurement, possession and supply of heroin. It sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. 34.  The applicant appealed. He argued that the statements of the police officers and S. were contradictory and should not have served as a basis for convicting him; and that there were discrepancies between the timing of various events and the compiling of related procedural documents. 35.  On 17 August 2004 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment. 36.  On 13 March 2009 the Presidium of the City Court considered that since the drugs had been seized during a test purchase from the applicant, he should be convicted of an attempted offence relating to the supply of drugs. The Presidium Court “excluded” his conviction of procurement and possession of drugs. As a result of this supervisory review, the applicant was sentenced to seven years and six months’ imprisonment. 37.  From 20 or 21 to 24 August 2003 the applicant was held in a temporary detention centre. On 24 August 2003 Moscow remand centre no. 77/2 refused to admit him in view of his apparent injuries. Before or after this, the applicant was taken to the trauma unit in hospital no. 1. In the afternoon, he was taken to hospital no. 36, where a doctor confirmed that he had suffered a fracture of the jaw. The applicant was then detained in the medical unit of remand centre no. 77/1 from 24 August to 8 September 2003 and was provided with medical assistance in relation to the fracture of the jaw. Thereafter, the applicant was kept in remand centre no. 77/2. 38.  According to the applicant, he complained about his state of health in the temporary detention centre and remand centre no. 77/2. There was no inquiry about the use of force against him during the arrest, neither in these detention facilities nor after his admission to remand centre no. 77/1. 39.  The applicant submitted that on an unspecified date he had written to the Prosecutor General’s Office complaining of ill-treatment during and after his arrest on 20 August 2003. He received no reply. 40.  In October 2003 the applicant gave his wife written authority to act on his behalf and represent him before various public authorities. 41.  While the applicant’s trial was pending (see above), on 19 March 2004 his wife complained to various public authorities, including the prosecutor’s office, alleging that the case against the applicant had been “fabricated”, that the evidence had been manipulated and that the applicant had been ill-treated during his arrest. 42.  On an unspecified date, an initial inquiry (доследственная проверка) was opened. 43.  Officer M. stated that they had had to restrain the applicant using a wrestling technique because he had resisted arrest. Officers K. and Su. submitted that the applicant had actively resisted arrest. Officer R. stated that in the police station the applicant had been “in good health”, without any bodily injuries and had provided clear answers to various questions. On 15 April 2004 the Gagarinskiy district prosecutor refused to bring criminal proceedings against the officers for abuse of power (Article 286 of the Criminal Code). The prosecutor relied on the depositions made by the officers and referred to the applicant’s statements made during his trial. 44.  The applicant’s wife sought judicial review of the above refusal. She argued that the initial inquiry had not been thorough, and asked the court to order a forensic report in order to clarify whether the applicant’s injuries had been sustained (i) during his and K.’s falling down to the ground following the use of a combat fighting or wrestling technique by this officer, or (ii) because K. had hit him with a gun handle/barrel. 45.  On 18 June 2004 the Gagarinskiy District Court examined the above refusal on judicial review. Having heard the applicant’s wife and a lawyer, the court upheld the refusal, noting that the prosecutor’s decision had relied on the depositions made by the officers and “other witnesses who had testified at the trial”. Lastly, the court stated that it had no jurisdiction to order a forensic medical examination of the applicant’s injuries. 46.  On 7 July 2004 the Moscow City Court upheld the first-instance judgment. It held as follows:
“The [lower] court confirmed the conclusions of the inquiry to the effect that [the applicant] had sustained a fracture of the jaw during his arrest when he displayed resistance to the police”. 47.  However, on 24 September 2004 the higher prosecutor annulled the refusal of 15 April 2004. He indicated that the inquiry had been insufficiently thorough because some of the allegations made by the applicant’s wife had not been properly assessed; and several persons had not been interviewed, including investigator F., who had dealt with the applicant’s criminal case, and the attesting witnesses who had been present on 20 August 2003. 48.  In the resumed inquiry, Mr Ro. stated that he had been an attesting witness and that “all measures relating to the applicant taken in his presence had been lawful”. Investigator F. made no statement relating to the alleged ill-treatment. Instead, she refuted the allegation concerning the alleged seizure of money from the applicant. 49.  On 21 October 2004 another prosecutor in the Gagarinskiy District Prosecutor’s Office refused to prosecute the officers under Article 286 of the Criminal Code. The refusal referred to various testimonies given at the trial and the factual and legal findings made in respect of the applicant in the trial judgment. 50.  The higher prosecutor confirmed this decision on 25 October 2004. However, on 27 December 2004 the District Court annulled the refusal of 21 October 2004. It indicated in substance that the complaint concerned allegations of ill-treatment and abusive use of force, rather than abuse of power. 51.  A further inquiry was entrusted to the same district prosecutor. On 11 March 2005 he issued a decision refusing to prosecute the officers for abuse of power, forced testimony and falsification of evidence (Articles 286, 301-303, 306-307 of the Criminal Code). It appears that that decision was later annulled for unspecified reasons. 52.  On 14 September 2005 the district prosecutor re-examined the above matters and again refused to prosecute the officers. The prosecutor referred to a medical forensic report of an unspecified date which had concluded that the applicant had suffered a haematoma in his left scapular area. This haematoma did not amount to health damage by national standards. In view of the absence of any description of the haematoma (colour, form, size, etc.), it was not possible to determine the timing of this injury. 53.  On 7 November 2005 the Moscow deputy prosecutor annulled the above decision and held that the lower prosecutor should have collected more medical evidence and should have commissioned a forensic report in order to determine the origin and the exact nature of the injuries. 54.  During the resumed inquiry, the applicant’s medical file compiled in the remand centre had been seized. The State forensic expert office refused to carry out a forensic examination in the absence of the X-ray images taken in the hospital in August 2003. However, the prosecutor had had access to the applicant’s medical file compiled in prison, including recent X-ray images. On 22 February 2006 an expert issued a report indicating that in addition to the hematoma the applicant had sustained bruises on his right shoulder-blade, hips, his left iliac region and both sides of the groin. Those bruises had been inflicted by blows with a solid item or items. However, the expert was unable to determine the date when they had been sustained due to the “incompleteness of the initial information”. According to the information in the applicant’s remand file, the applicant had suffered a closed fracture of the jaw. However, the expert was again unable to confirm that it had been sustained in August 2003. 55.  The prosecutor also heard Ms A., the investigator who had interviewed the applicant on 21 August 2003 (see paragraph 15 above). She stated that she could not remember the circumstances of that interview well, but stated that she had not been aware that the applicant had been suffering from a psychiatric condition. 56.  On 17 March 2006 the district prosecutor decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the officers. 57.  On 5 July 2006 the Moscow deputy prosecutor annulled the above decision and ordered the district prosecutor to take measures to obtain the applicant’s medical file compiled in hospital no. 36. It appeared that the file was, at the time, in the possession of an Officer P. The Moscow deputy prosecutor also required that the lower prosecutor ask for official confirmation that the remand centre had not been (or no longer was) in possession of the applicant’s 2003 X-ray images; and that an expert be provided with a copy of the officers’ statements on the use of force. 58.  On 11 January 2007 the expert confirmed the findings made in the report of 22 February 2006. 59.  On 25 January 2007 the district prosecutor re-examined the matter and refused to prosecute the officers. In addition to his previous findings, he added that he had received the applicant’s hospital file and had ordered a new forensic report. 60.  On 3 April 2007 that decision was annulled, because the prosecutor had not properly examined the complaint relating to the test purchase and the alleged falsification of procedural documents. 61.  On 9 June 2007 the district prosecutor issued a new refusal to initiate criminal proceedings, upholding the findings made in the decision of 25 January 2007 in relation to the alleged ill-treatment. 62.  The applicant sought judicial review of the above refusal. On 4 December 2007 the District Court annulled the decision of 9 June 2007 because the district prosecutor had not properly addressed the ill-treatment complaint. On 23 January 2008 the City Court set aside this judgment. 63.  Having re-examined the case, on 8 February 2008 another District Court judge upheld the decision of 9 June 2007. On 12 March 2008 the City Court upheld that judgment.