5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Kherson. 6.  In 1980 the applicant sustained a craniocerebral injury and underwent surgery for a brain hematoma. 7.  In 1993 the applicant sustained another craniocerebral injury, following which he started to suffer from epileptic attacks. According to the applicant, since that time the attacks usually occur twice a week. 8.  The applicant was designated as Category 2 (medium-level) disabled on account of his poor health. 9.  At about 9.30 a.m. on 24 March 2006 the applicant was standing at a trolleybus station when T. allegedly clipped him slightly while attempting to park his car. A conflict arose between them, with T. punching the applicant in the face and then throwing some further punches at him. 10.  On the same day the applicant complained to the Suvorivskyy District Police Department of Kherson (“the Police Department”) about T. The police registered the complaint and directed the applicant to a forensic medical expert for assessment. 11.  On 27 March 2006 the forensic medical expert issued a report noting that the applicant had sustained a bruise measuring 3 cm by 1.5 cm on the right side of his lower jaw. The report specified that the injury was minor, could have been caused on 24 March 2006, and had been inflicted by a blunt object. 12.  On 15 May 2006 the Police Department refused to open a criminal investigation against T., noting that the applicant’s injury was minor and that he could institute private prosecution proceedings against T. 13.  On 19 May 2006 the Suvorivskyy District Prosecutor’s Office of Kherson (“the District Prosecutor’s Office”) quashed that decision and instituted criminal proceedings against T. under Article 296 § 1 of the Criminal Code (“disorderly conduct”). The case was referred to the Police Department for pre-trial investigation. 14.  On 9 June 2006 a forensic medical expert issued a report stating that the applicant had suffered bruising on his face, which had been caused by a blunt object. The expert considered that the injury was minor and that it could have been inflicted on 24 May 2006 as described by the applicant. 15.  On 22 July 2006 another forensic medical expert report was issued. It stated that there had been no exacerbation of the applicant’s chronic illnesses after the incident of 24 March 2006. 16.   Following his complaints that his epileptic attacks had increased, the applicant underwent neurological treatment in the local hospital between 24 July and 3 August 2006. During that period the applicant had one epileptic attack. Between 25 January and 3 February 2007 the applicant underwent another course of neurological treatment. During that time he had two epileptic attacks. Between 19 and 31 December 2007 the applicant was admitted to hospital again for neurological treatment and in that period he had no epileptic attacks. 17.  On 24 July and 19 August 2006, 22 January and 11 April 2007 the Police Department closed the criminal investigation for lack of evidence that T. had committed the crime provided for under Article 296 § 1 of the Criminal Code. All those decisions were quashed by the supervising prosecutors as unfounded and further criminal investigations were ordered. 18.  On 9 July 2007 the Police Department closed the investigation once again for essentially the same reasons. 19.  On 14 November 2007 the Kherson Regional Prosecutor’s Office quashed that decision and ordered a further investigation. On the same date it opened a criminal investigation under Article 125 § 1 of the Criminal Code for infliction of minor bodily injuries to the applicant. 20.  On 6 December 2007 the Police Department terminated the investigation under Article 296 § 1 of the Criminal Code, noting that T.’s actions had not amounted to the crime of disorderly conduct. 21.  On 17 March 2008 the investigation in respect of the crime provided for under Article 125 § 1 of the Criminal Code was completed and the case was referred to the Suvorivskyy District Court of Kherson (“the District Court”) for trial. 22.  On 3 April 2008 the District Court terminated the proceedings against T. as time-barred. The applicant appealed, claiming in particular that T. should have been charged with a more serious crime. 23.  On 27 May 2008 the Kherson Region Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 3 April 2008. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. 24.  On 1 December 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded. 25.  On 12 February 2009 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against T., seeking damages in connection with the incident of 24 March 2006. 26.  The District Court ordered a forensic medical examination in the case. 27.  On 14 September 2009 the forensic medical expert concluded that the facial bruise identified on the applicant on 24 March 2006 had not caused any deterioration in his health and that the applicant’s brain had not been affected by that injury. 28.  On 16 October 2009 the District Court awarded the applicant 2,000 Ukrainian hryvnias in respect of non-pecuniary damage on account of T.’s unlawful behaviour on 24 March 2006. The decision became final but has not been fully enforced. 29.  At about 11.30 a.m. on 18 April 2008 the applicant was walking in a street near his home. Allegedly, he was attacked suddenly by a man wielding a knife; the applicant tried to defend himself but received a hard blow to the head and his head was cut, probably with the knife. 30.  On the same day the applicant complained to the Police Department. When questioned by a police officer, the applicant replied that the assailant had hit him in the head with an object. 31.  Again on the same day the applicant was medically examined and diagnosed with concussion and soft-tissue bruising of the head. He was admitted to hospital and received inpatient treatment between 18 and 29 April 2008. 32.  On 25 April 2008 the Police Department refused to institute criminal proceedings because, despite the measures taken by the police, the assailant could not be identified. Furthermore, the gravity of the applicant’s injuries could not be established as no report had been issued following his medical examination. 33.  On 8 May 2008 the applicant lodged another complaint with the Police Department, claiming that the assailant had been wielding a small knife. 34.  On 28 August 2008 the Kherson Regional Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 25 April 2008 and ordered further pre-investigating enquiries. The supervising prosecutor specified that it was necessary to question the applicant in more detail, to carry out his medical examination, and to identify and question possible witnesses of the incident and the doctors who had treated him. 35.  On 13 September 2008 the applicant was questioned by the police again. He stated that the assailant had been wielding a metallic object. On the same day the Police Department decided not to institute criminal proceedings because, despite the measures undertaken, there was no information leading to identification of the assailant; furthermore, the gravity of the applicant’s injuries could not be established, as no report had been issued following his medical examination. 36.  On 29 September 2008 a forensic medical expert completed the examination of the applicant and concluded that the concussion and the bruise on his head had been caused by blunt objects; those injuries were minor and might have been sustained on 18 April 2008. 37.  On 8 October 2008 the District Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 13 September 2008 and ordered further enquiries to be carried out by the Police Department. 38.  On 10 October 2008 the Police Department refused to institute criminal proceedings, noting that the assailant had not been identified and that the applicant’s injuries were minor. 39.  On 13 October 2008 the District Prosecutor’s Office quashed that decision and ordered that the applicant’s doctor and the forensic medical expert be further questioned, and that information on the applicant’s mental state be obtained. 40.  On 21 October 2008 the Police Department, having taken further measures, again refused to institute criminal proceedings on the grounds that the assailant had not been identified and the applicant had sustained only minor injuries. The decision also referred to the doctor’s statement that the bruise on the applicant’s head measured 6 cm by 7 cm. 41.  On 13 November 2008 the Kherson Regional Prosecutor’s Office quashed that decision, considering that it had not been properly reasoned and substantiated. 42.  Following that decision, the police identified individuals who had been selling sunglasses and citrus fruits near the scene of the incident on 18 April 2008. When questioned, the stall-holders stated that they had not noticed any incidents near their place of work on that day. 43.  On 1 December 2008 the Police Department, relying on the collected material, decided not to institute criminal proceedings, once again stating that, despite the measures undertaken, the assailant could not be identified and the injuries were minor. 44.  In the morning of 20 September 2010 the applicant entered the premises of the District Court to get a copy of a court decision in his case. When it was his turn in the queue, the applicant produced his pension certificate and demanded a copy of the decision. The officer of the court’s registry refused to give him the document and started to argue with the applicant in the presence of the other visitors. As the argument continued, the officer asked two court security guards for help. The security guards approached the applicant and demanded that he leave the court premises. The applicant refused. The security guards then twisted his hands behind his back, handcuffed him and dragged him out of the hall, punching him in the head and kicking him in the legs. The applicant lost consciousness. When he came to, police officers were also present. People observing the incident called an ambulance. About twenty minutes later, the ambulance arrived and the handcuffs were removed. One of the visitors, Ms G., approached the applicant and gave him her contact details in case he needed her witness statement. 45.  Outside the court, the applicant was placed in the ambulance. The doctors and the police officers discussed for a while whether the applicant should go to hospital or to the police station. When the applicant attempted to interfere in the discussion the police officers pushed him to the ground, and stepped on his arms in order to prevent him from getting up. Eventually, the applicant was taken to hospital. 46.  In the morning of 20 September 2010 the applicant entered the premises of the District Court to get a copy of a court decision in his case. A conflict between him and the officer of the court’s registry arose, since the applicant refused to show his ID document at the desk. The applicant behaved inappropriately, uttering obscenities and ignoring the officer’s remarks. The officer therefore asked two court security guards (belonging to the special police department ensuring legal order on the court premises) for help. They approached the applicant, introduced themselves and asked him not to breach public order. The applicant continued to utter obscenities, however. In a while two police officers arrived. They introduced themselves, demanded that the applicant stop his unlawful behaviour and warned him about the possible use of force and special means of restraint. The applicant disregarded the police officers’ lawful demands and was therefore handcuffed. When he was forcefully dragged towards the exit of the court premises, the applicant lost consciousness and fell on the floor. The handcuffs were then removed and he was provided with first aid; an ambulance was called. 47.  When the ambulance arrived, the applicant was taken outside the court premises and provided with further first aid. No force was used against the applicant at that time. However, each time the police officers approached the applicant, he fell down on the ground and hit his body against the ambulance in an attempt to injure himself. The applicant was therefore given a sedative injection and taken by ambulance to hospital. 48.  On the same day the applicant was admitted to hospital for inpatient medical treatment. He was released from hospital on 28 September 2009. 49.  On 20 October 2010 a forensic medical expert issued a report stating that the applicant had sustained a bruise measuring 9.8 cm by 3.8 cm on his right arm; a bruise measuring 5.8 cm by 3.9 cm on his left forearm; and a bruise measuring 6.2 cm by 4.3 cm on his right forearm. There was a swelling measuring 2.4 cm in diameter in the parietal and occipital regions of the head, and the applicant had suffered from concussion and cerebral haemorrhage. The expert opined that those injuries had been caused by blunt objects; as to the date, they had probably been inflicted on 20 September 2010. The injuries were classified as minor. 50.  On 11 October 2010 the police drew up a report stating that on 20 September 2010 the applicant had breached public order on the court premises, which amounted to an administrative offence. 51.  On 25 October 2010 the applicant complained to the District Prosecutor’s Office of ill-treatment by the court security guards and police officers. 52.  On 14 November 2010 the Kherson Regional Police completed their internal inquiry and found that the applicant had sustained injuries in the course of the incident; however, as the evidence collected was contradictory any further decisions concerning the incident would have to be taken by the District Prosecutor’s Office. The internal inquiry report stressed that the statements of the applicant and Ms G. contradicted those of the officers of the court’s registry, the court security guards and the police officers. 53.  On 12 January 2011 the District Court closed as time-barred the administrative case against the applicant for the alleged violation of public order on the court premises. 54.  On 7 April 2011 a forensic medical expert reported that the injuries identified on the applicant could have been sustained in the manner described by the applicant in his account of the incident. 55.  On 14 November 2011 the investigator questioned the forensic medical expert who noted that the concussion and the injuries to the applicant’s head could also have been sustained when the applicant, allegedly, hit his head against the ambulance. 56.  In the meantime, on 6 December 2010, 11 April, 3 October and 14 November 2011 the District Prosecutor’s Office, basing its decisions on the pre-investigating enquiries conducted in the relevant periods, refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment for lack of corpus delicti in the behaviour of the court security guards and the police officers. The District Prosecutor’s Office concluded that during the incident the applicant had failed to obey the lawful orders of the police officers and that he had been lawfully handcuffed; as to the injuries, the applicant could have sustained them when he fell on the floor on the court premises and later when he was hitting his head against the ambulance. 57.  The above decisions were reversed by the supervising prosecutors as unsubstantiated and further pre-investigating enquiries were ordered. In particular, on 28 November 2011 the General Prosecutor’s Office reversed the decision of 14 November 2011, noting that neither the applicant’s version of the incident nor the police officers’ version had been thoroughly scrutinised. The General Prosecutor’s Office emphasised that the events on the premises of the court had been observed by a number of visitors. However, despite their importance, the investigator had failed to take sufficient steps to identify possible witnesses. Furthermore, even the identified witness, Ms G., had not been questioned by the prosecutor’s office investigator. As to the events that occurred outside the court, the version that the applicant had intentionally hit his head against the ambulance had not been properly substantiated. 58.  On 13 December 2011 the Kherson Regional Prosecutor’s Office telephoned Ms G. to invite her for questioning. Ms G. declined, stating that she did not wish to communicate with the officer of the Kherson Regional Prosecutor’s Office concerned; she then said that she was outside Kherson and would be back on 17 December 2011. 59.  On the same day, 13 December 2011, the Kherson Regional Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment for lack of corpus delicti. The decision was based on the medical evidence, and on the statements of the court registry officers, the court security guards, the police officers, the ambulance driver, the ambulance doctor and his medical assistant, as well as the forensic medical expert. As regards Ms G., she could not be questioned as she had been unavailable. According to that decision, the applicant had behaved inappropriately on the premises of the court. He had breached public order and failed to obey the lawful orders of police officers. The court security guards had therefore handcuffed him and tried to escort him out of the court. When the applicant had lost consciousness (or pretended to have lost consciousness) and had fallen on the floor, the handcuffs had been removed and he had been provided with first aid. The decision further referred to the statements of the ambulance team and one of the police officers, specifying that outside the court premises the applicant had been in an agitated state, falling on the ground and hitting his head against the ambulance. The decision also referred to the forensic medical expert’s report describing the applicant’s injuries; it cited the expert’s opinion that the applicant’s head injuries could have been caused when he had allegedly been hitting his head against the ambulance. 60.  On 19 December 2011 an officer of the Kherson Regional Prosecutor’s Office questioned Ms G. The latter stated that during the conflict the officer of the court registry had behaved defiantly, while the applicant had remained calm; the security guards had handcuffed the applicant and dragged him towards the exit kicking him in the legs and, when the applicant had fallen on the floor they had continued to kick him in other parts of the body. Ms G. had continued to observe the scene outside the court premises and noted that the police officers had been kicking the applicant while he had been lying on the ground. She emphasised that she had not noticed the applicant hitting his head against the ambulance or a police car. 61.  On 4 January 2012 the Kherson Region Prosecutor’s Office considered another complaint from the applicant and confirmed that its earlier decision of 13 December 2011 concerning the incident had been lawful and substantiated. It specified that Ms G.’s statements were not supported by the materials of the enquiries.