5.  The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Sofia. 6.  On 28 June 2008 a Gay Pride parade took place, for the first time in Bulgaria. The parade started at about 4.15 p.m. in the centre of Sofia, not far from the National Palace of Culture, and drew about two hundred and fifty to three hundred participants. It was covered by about hundred and forty journalists. It was conducted under heavy police protection, engaging almost one hundred and fifty officers, twenty of which wearing anti-riot gear, who were put in place to protect the parade from several extreme right and nationalist groups which had threatened to disrupt it. The parade was nevertheless accompanied by several violent incidents, and the police made more than eighty arrests. 7.  At about 4.30 p.m. that day, the applicant and six friends of his were crossing a public park behind the National Palace of Culture. They were carrying bottles of beer and were allegedly headed to meet friends of theirs. According to the applicant, they were not aggressive and had no intention of attacking participants in the parade or anyone else. According to operative police information submitted by the Government, the applicant was part of a group of about fifty to seventy persons bent on attacking participants in the parade. 8.  The group was intercepted by two police vans. The police came out of the vehicles and shouted at the group to “put down their bottles”, “fall to the ground”, put their “hands behind their heads”, and “disperse”. According to the applicant, the police forced everyone to lie down on the ground and hit them with truncheons and kicked them. The applicant was likewise forced to lie down on the ground, handcuffed, and kicked and hit with truncheons and fists on the back, shoulders and legs. He alleges that one police officer pressed his head against the ground with his boot, suffocating him, only reducing the pressure in response to the applicant’s protests. According to a written statement by the police officer who arrested the applicant, drawn up on 14 November 2014 for the purposes of the proceedings before this Court and submitted by the Government (the officer had before that remained unidentified), the applicant was among a group of visibly inebriated persons who were trying aggressively to attack the parade. The officer did not recall using force or a truncheon against the applicant, solely handcuffs, in view of the applicant’s unruly conduct. 9.  The applicant and the other members of the group remained pinned down to the ground for about half an hour, in front of many passers-by. A number of the journalists who were at the scene took pictures and videos. According to the applicant, on one photograph that he later found on the Internet one could see a police officer pressing his back against the ground with his boot. Pictures were apparently also taken by a service photographer of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. 10.  The applicant, together with about twenty-five to thirty other persons, was then put in a police bus and taken to a nearby police station. According to a detention log submitted by the Government, the applicant was brought to the station at 7.30 p.m. According to a record submitted by the Government, he was searched, but the search did not reveal any weapons or dangerous objects on him. The applicant alleged that together with some of the other arrestees he was at first left in the corridor of the station and made to face a wall with his hands up and his legs apart. He remained in that position for about two hours. During that time, police officers who passed behind him in the corridor occasionally kicked him in the ankles so that he would keep his legs apart. When he protested, he was hit with a truncheon on the back of his legs, behind the knees, allegedly because the police knew that blows in that spot did not leave lasting marks. He was then put, together with thirty-two other persons, in a very hot and stuffy cell measuring about nine or ten square metres. He was not given any food or drink, or allowed to go to the toilet. He was later questioned for about twenty minutes, and was allegedly not allowed to get in touch with a lawyer, a medical doctor or his family, although he had expressed the wish to do so in an official form that he filled in at 7.30 p.m. 11.  In the course of his stay in the police station, the applicant was served with a police order for his detention and a notice of an administrative offence, charging him with refusing to obey the police order to disperse. According to a note made on the police detention order, he was released at 3.25 a.m. on 29 June 2008. 12.  In support of his allegations in relation to the circumstances of his arrest and detention, the applicant submitted an affidavit drawn up by him on 14 September 2011 and three affidavits drawn up on 13 September 2011 by persons arrested and detained with him. 13.  At 1.30 p.m. on the day of his release, 29 June 2008, the applicant was examined by a medical doctor at the forensic medicine department of Sofia Medical University, who noted, in a certificate, the following injuries on him: (a) a double stripe-shaped intensely blueish-purple bruise measuring five by one and a half centimetres on the upper right shoulder; (b) several spotted intensely blueish-purple bruises measuring five by seven centimetres on the sides of the stripe-shaped one; (c) a double horizontal stripe-shaped purple bruise measuring twenty by two and a half centimetres in the middle of the back; (d) a spotted blueish bruise measuring six by five and a half centimetres on the left shoulder; (e) spotted blueish-purple bruises measuring nine by eight centimetres on the inside of the right arm, below the armpit, with three lighter zones inside them, measuring one centimetre in diameter; (f) a similar purple bruise measuring five by four centimetres on the upper third of the inner right forearm; (g) four similar bruises measuring one and a half by two centimetres on the inner left arm; and (h) a blueish bruise measuring six by eight centimetres on the outer right shank. The doctor was of the view that the bruises on the applicant’s right shoulder and back had been caused by blows with a hard blunt elongated and narrow object, those on the arms and the right forearm by a strong finger-grip, and those on the left shoulder and the right shank by blows by or against hard blunt objects or blows with fists and kicks. He went on to say that all bruises could have been inflicted in the manner alleged by the applicant, and had caused him pain and suffering. 14.  On 14 July 2008 the head of the police department gave the applicant an administrative fine for not obeying the police order to disperse. The applicant sought judicial review of this decision. On 30 September 2009 the Sofia District Court quashed the decision, finding that the facts set out in it were contradicted by the witness evidence given by the police officers and others in the course of the judicial review proceedings. It noted that this evidence showed that the police had ordered the members of the group intercepted by them to put down the objects that they were holding in their hands and lie down on the ground, which was incompatible with the order to disperse mentioned in the decision. It was not therefore established that the applicant had indeed refused to obey the police order to disperse. 15.  In the meantime, on 10 July 2008 the applicant complained to the Sofia Military Prosecutor’s Office of his alleged ill-treatment by the police at the time of his arrest. He asked it to inquire into the matter and open criminal proceedings against the officers concerned. He enclosed with his complaint the medical certificate that he had obtained on 29 June 2008 (see paragraph 13 above), photographs of his injuries, and photographs of the events that he had obtained from the Internet. 16.  On 14 July 2008 the Sofia Military Prosecutor’s Office found that the information supplied by the applicant was not sufficient to warrant the immediate institution of criminal proceedings, but called for a preliminary inquiry (see paragraph 35 below). It instructed a military investigator to look into the applicant’s allegations by gathering all available materials and taking statements by those concerned. 17.  The military investigator obtained written statements from some of the police officers who had taken part in the operation, the applicant, and witnesses suggested by the applicant. In his report to the prosecuting authorities, submitted on 22 August 2008, he said that, according to the officers’ statements, none of them had subjected civilians to “police violence”, and that neither the applicant nor his witnesses were able to identify the officers who had allegedly hit or kicked the applicant. 18.  On 12 September 2008 the Sofia Military Prosecutor’s Office, finding that the inquiry had not elucidated all relevant facts, instructed the complaints division of the Sofia Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to take written statements from all police officers involved in the operation, the applicant, and a witness suggested by the applicant. 19.  In its report on the additional inquiry, submitted to the Sofia Military Prosecutor’s Office on 17 October 2008, the Sofia Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs said, based on written statements taken by a number of police officers, that none of these officers had used force against arrestees or seen colleagues of theirs do so. It added that the applicant and the witness had stated that they were not able to identify the officer who had allegedly ill-treated the applicant because all officers had been clad in identical uniforms and helmets. 20.  In a decision of 1 November 2008, the Sofia Military Prosecutor’s Office refused to open criminal proceedings pursuant to the applicant’s complaint. It noted that on the day of the incident considerable police forces had been mobilised to ensure the safety of the participants in the Sofia Gay Pride parade, in view of the risk of attacks by extreme right-wing groups. Two police patrols had arrived at the site of the incident after receiving information that a group of fifty to seventy persons was moving behind the National Palace of Culture, armed with knuckledusters, empty bottles and torches, and bent on carrying out acts of aggression against those taking part in the parade. The police had intercepted this group and ordered its members to drop the objects that they were holding and lie down on the ground. This order had been complied with without any need for the police to resort to the use of force. None of the witnesses had been able to identify the police officer who had allegedly hit the applicant. Moreover, the applicant’s account of the facts was not duly corroborated by the material in the file and more specifically the medical certificate submitted by him. The applicant alleged that he had been handcuffed, whereas none of the photographs of the scene showed handcuffs, and his wrists bore no traces of handcuffing. His neck and head, where he alleged to have received blows, bore no traces of injury either. 21.  The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Sofia Appellate Prosecutor’s Office on 29 January 2009 on the basis that the materials in the file did not equivocally suggest that the applicant had been subjected to “police violence”. However, following a further appeal by the applicant, on 6 April 2009 the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office quashed this decision on the basis that the Sofia Appellate Prosecutor’s Office was not competent to deal with the case, which had to be sent to the Military Appellate Prosecutor’s Office. 22.  On 28 April 2009 the Military Appellate Prosecutor’s Office quashed the refusal to open criminal proceedings and referred the case to the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office. It said that the refusal did not make it clear whether it was based on a finding that the police had not used any force against the applicant or on a finding that any force that had been used had been lawful. If no force had been used, an explanation needed to be given for the injuries noted on the applicant on 29 June 2008; the refusal did not say anything about that. If force had on the contrary been used, it was necessary to determine whether this had been rendered necessary by the applicant’s conduct. There was however almost no evidence on this point in the file. The available material only showed that the police had lawfully used force against a group of persons trying to disrupt the Sofia Gay Pride parade, but there was no evidence on whether the police had in error and unjustifiably also used force against the applicant and his friends. 23.  On 28 May 2009 the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office ordered additional inquiries with a view to elucidating the points noted by the Military Appellate Prosecutor’s Office. It instructed the Sofia Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to ascertain the identity of all police officers who had come into physical contact with the applicant and the origin of all of the injuries noted on him on 29 June 2008 (see paragraph 13 above). 24.  In its report on the additional inquiry, submitted to the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office on 22 July 2009, the Sofia Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs said it had taken a further statement from the applicant, who had not been able to provide more information. It had also taken statements from two police officers who had taken part in the operation on 28 June 2008. In the course of the operation the police had used force and “auxiliary means” in line with the requirements of section 72(1) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Act 2006 (see paragraphs 30 and 31 below). The applicant had been asked to invite the witnesses suggested by him to get in touch with the inquiry, but none of them had done so. 25.  In a decision of 14 September 2009 the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office also refused to open criminal proceedings pursuant to the applicant’s complaint. It repeated, verbatim, the reasons given by the Sofia Military Prosecutor’s Office in its decision of 1 November 2008 (see paragraph 20 above), only adding that all actions of the police in the course of the events of 28 June 2008 had been duly recorded in written statements by the officers concerned, police detention orders and reports. 26.  The applicant appealed against this decision, arguing that the general risk of violence during the course of the parade could not justify the use of force in the absence of concrete evidence in relation to his and his friends’ conduct. He said that neither he nor his friends had had any weapons or dangerous objects on them. He also complained of the ineffectiveness of the investigation, pointing out, inter alia, that the investigators had not interviewed the police officers who had been at the scene about the conduct of those of their colleagues who had been involved in the incident and had not attempted to explain the origin of his injuries. 27.  On 1 March 2010 the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the appeal. It said that the verbatim repetition by the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office of the reasons given by the Sofia Military Prosecutor’s Office did not pose a problem. Since they had made identical findings of fact, they had given identical reasons. All arguments relating to the question whether force had been used and, if so, which officer had hit the applicant, were irrelevant. The lower prosecutor’s office had correctly found that the applicant had not been subjected to excessive police violence. It was true that he had suffered injuries, but the medical certificate submitted by him did not prove that these injuries had been caused by police officers. Even if officers had used force against the applicant, that force had not gone beyond what had been necessary to preserve public order and had not had a negative effect on the applicant’s health. 28.  The applicant appealed further, reiterating his arguments. On 20 September 2010 the Sofia Appellate Prosecutor’s Office likewise upheld the refusal to open criminal proceedings, fully agreeing with the reasons given by the lower prosecutor’s offices. 29.  The applicant then appealed to the Chief Prosecutor. In a final decision of 22 March 2011 the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office upheld the decision of the Sofia Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, saying that section 72(1)(5) of the 2006 Act (see paragraph 30 below) allowed the police to use force to prevent attacks against civilians, and that the lower prosecutor’s offices had fully elucidated the facts of the case.