5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Ialoveni. 6.  At the time of the events the applicant was serving a prison sentence in an open detention facility in Goian. During the day he worked outside the prison, returning to it at night. On 18 November 2005 he applied for home leave but his application was refused. However, in spite of the refusal he did not return to the prison that evening but spent the night at his parents’ home in the neighbouring town of Ialoveni. 7.  On 19 November 2005, at approximately 9 a.m., the applicant went to a pharmacy to buy medication for back pain. On his way home, at approximately 10 a.m., a red car stopped in front of him. According to the applicant’s statement, a police officer got out of the car, punched him in the face and then pushed him into the car, whereupon he lost consciousness. The Government did not confirm this allegation but admitted that it could be one possibility among many. 8.  Meanwhile, at approximately 9.30 a.m., two police officers arrived at the home of the applicant’s parents. They searched the house and asked the applicant’s mother about his whereabouts. While there, one of the officers received a telephone call and informed his caller that he was at the applicant’s house. Later he received another telephone call which lasted only some five seconds, from which the applicant’s mother understood that her son had allegedly been found by the police. The two police officers left immediately. The applicant’s mother followed them for a while and implored them not to beat up her son. They then came across a neighbour who knew the police officers, and who asked why they were there. The police officers replied that they were looking for criminals, and when the neighbour asked if they had found them, the police officers replied in the affirmative. 9.  On 20 November 2005, at approximately 11 a.m., two men found the applicant lying on the ground near a pond located approximately 1.5 kilometres from Ialoveni. The applicant could not speak or walk, he had facial injuries consistent with the results of a violent assault and his clothes were wet and dirty. He was carried to a security guards’ lodge located nearby where he was warmed up and his clothes dried. Some time later he began to respond to some questions put to him and to display signs of strange behaviour. In particular, he stated his own name and also from time to time shouted out a name which later transpired to be that of his brother. The applicant also began eating mud, which made the people who had found him think that he was under the influence of drugs. The applicant was given a coat and a pair of boots and then he set off, on foot, towards Ialoveni. The applicant’s mother disputed the statement that the applicant had made the journey by himself and submitted that the people who found him had thought that he was a drug addict and had sent him out of doors instead of calling an ambulance. 10.  On 21 November 2005 the same people found the applicant again, lying some thirty metres from their lodge. They called an ambulance and the applicant was taken to hospital. 11.  On 21 November 2005 at approximately 4.30 p.m. the applicant’s family received a telephone call from a hospital in Chişinău and was informed that the applicant had been admitted in a critical condition. 12.  The next day the applicant’s parents visited him at the hospital and learned from him that he had been beaten up by police officers and left lying on the bank of a lake near Ialoveni. Owing to the low temperatures he had suffered severe frostbite to his limbs, and later, on 8 December 2005, both his feet and eight of his fingers were amputated. According to medical records, the applicant had not been under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of his admission to hospital. 13.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s mother lodged a complaint with the prosecutor’s office, alleging that the applicant had been ill-treated by police officers on 19 November 2005. She stated that he was prepared to identify the police officers who had assaulted him. 14.  On 28 November 2005 the applicant’s mother went to the Ialoveni prosecutor’s office, where she met the superintendent of the Ialoveni police station. She was allegedly told by the latter that her son had been ill-treated by staff at the detention facility. In the hall of the prosecutor’s office she met one of the police officers who had previously visited her home on 19 November 2005. The officer appeared to be surprised to learn that her son was still alive. 15.  On 2 December 2005 a criminal investigator, accompanied by a police officer, attempted to question the applicant at the hospital but he refused to respond, on account of poor health. 16.  On 17 January 2006 the applicant was heard by a prosecutor and stated that on 19 November 2005 he had been walking along the street when a red car stopped and someone got out and punched him in the face. He could not remember anything after that. The applicant’s mother informed the prosecutor that following the applicant’s admission to hospital on 21 November 2005, a red car carrying police officers had come to the pond where the applicant had been found, enquiring about the applicant’s whereabouts. The applicant’s mother also gave the name of one of the police officers who had allegedly assaulted her son on 19 November 2005. It transpired from the transcript of the questioning, that the prosecutor did not put any questions to the applicant or to his mother. 17.  On 20 January 2006 criminal proceedings were formally instituted by the Ialoveni prosecutor’s office. Despite allegations by the applicant’s mother that the applicant had been assaulted by police officers driving a red car, the investigation focused on the suspicion of robbery and the allegation of police assault was not investigated. 18.  On 28 January 2006 the applicant was interviewed by a prosecutor. He confirmed that he had been assaulted on 19 November 2005. 19.  On 10 February 2006 a forensic medical report was issued, according to which, on 21 November 2005, the applicant had sustained bruises and scratches to his face and body and that, following severe frostbite, his feet and eight of his fingers had had to be amputated. It appears that the report was prepared on the basis of the applicant’s medical documents rather than personal observation. 20.  In a letter of 3 February 2006 the Prosecutor General’s Office informed the applicant that there was no reason to believe that he had been beaten up by police officers and that the investigation was directed at finding the perpetrators who had beaten the applicant up and had stolen his watch and coat. 21.  The applicant’s mother wrote several letters to the prosecutor’s office expressing her discontent with the way the investigation was being conducted and insisted that an identity parade be held of police officers from Ialoveni police station so that the applicant could identify the relevant officers. 22.  It appears that, as a result of the applicant’s letters, the investigation was reopened. However on 14 September 2007 the prosecutor’s office again dismissed the applicant’s complaint without conducting an identity parade. In its dismissal of the complaint, the prosecutor’s office relied on the fact that the applicant’s statements had been vague and that he had failed to cooperate properly with the investigators. The applicant challenged this decision. 23.  On 6 February 2009 the Prosecutor General’s Office quashed the above-mentioned decision and ordered the continuation of the investigation. It was decided that in the reopened proceedings, the applicant was to be interviewed again and this time he would be asked to identify his aggressors. It had to be determined whether he had used any medication or illegal substances on 19 November 2005 and confrontations between the applicant and witnesses were to be arranged in the event of conflicting statements. 24.  In a letter dated 12 March 2009 addressed to the prosecutor’s office the applicant’s mother continued to make accusations that police officers had beaten up her son on 19 November 2005 but also accused those persons who had allegedly, instead of calling an ambulance on 20 November 2005, turned the applicant out of doors and let him sleep rough overnight. Moreover, she also accused the same persons of stealing the applicant’s coat and giving him an old coat in its place. 25.  On 14 March 2009 the applicant was interviewed. He stated that he had been walking down the street when a red car stopped nearby and several policemen had got out and knocked him to the ground. He recognised one of them and was prepared to identify him. He had only regained consciousness in hospital. 26.  On 30 July 2009 the Ialoveni prosecutor’s office again dismissed the criminal complaint lodged by the applicant. In so doing it did not mention any of the statements made by the applicant on 14 March 2009. The applicant challenged that decision. 27.  On 3 December 2009 the Prosecutor General’s Office quashed the above-mentioned decision and ordered a fresh re-examination of the case. The Prosecutor General’s Office removed the case from the Ialoveni prosecutor’s office, finding that irregularities had taken place in its investigation and that it had not been conducted within a reasonable time. The case was sent, instead, to the military prosecutor’s office with an order to find out, amongst other things, whether the applicant was known to be a user of drugs, alcohol or other intoxicating substances before the date of the alleged events. The military prosecutor’s office was also asked to determine, from the medical documents, whether the applicant had suffered a head injury during the alleged attack of 19 November 2005 and also to arrange a confrontation between the applicant, his mother and witnesses. 28.  On 9 September 2010 a new forensic medical investigation was conducted, which produced the same results as before. The forensic experts also concluded that the injuries on the applicant’s face could have been caused by a fall. 29.  For unknown reasons, the case ended up again being examined by the Ialoveni prosecutor’s office which, on 9 March 2011 dismissed the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment by the police on similar grounds to those it had relied on previously. It does not appear that a confrontation was arranged between the applicant and the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated him. 30.  On 11 May 2011 a higher-ranking prosecutor from the Ialoveni prosecutor’s office quashed the above-mentioned decision on the grounds that it had been adopted as the result of a superficial investigation and that not all the persons involved had been questioned. 31.  The investigation is still pending.