5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Rīga. 6.  On 25 April 1998 the police arrested the applicant and another individual, V.J., both of whom were suspects of an aggravated assault against a victim, P.M. (“the victim”). They were then taken to Rīga Main police station (Rīgas Galvenā Policijas Pārvalde). 7.  On the same day the applicant was interviewed at the station and denied committing the offence. According to the applicant’s statement he was in the stairwell of a dwelling house when the victim attacked him, punching and hitting him in the left ear. After the fight the applicant ran downstairs and noticed a policeman chasing him. In order to escape he smashed through a window in the entrance door and as a result cut his wrists. The applicant was then surrounded by several police officers who brought him to the ground and one of the officers proceeded to kick him twice in the head near his left ear. 8.  When questioned on 27 April 1998, the victim alleged that, in the stairwell next to his apartment, two men had attacked him from behind and hit him in the head. In his statement, police officer P.K. said he had been running after the applicant and at one point they had both fallen down fighting. He said that the applicant had freed himself from the officer’s grip and, after smashing a window, cut the officer’s face with a piece of glass. He was subsequently arrested by the other police officers present. 9.  On 27 April 1998 the applicant was interviewed as a suspect and underwent repeated questioning by two officers, V.Ju., and L.K. During the interview the applicant confessed to the crime. 10.  On 28 April 1998 the applicant and V.J. (who were represented by a lawyer) were brought before a judge of the Rīga Vidzeme District Court and remanded in custody. According to the applicant, during the hearing he denied his earlier confession, informing the court that it had been obtained under duress. 11.  On 20 October 1999 a public prosecutor finalised the bill of indictment against the applicant and V.J., in which the applicant was charged with robbery and the attempted murder of the police officer P.K. 12.  On 27 September 2000 the first-instance court established that both defendants had caused bodily harm to the victim and that, at the time of his arrest, the applicant had also caused bodily harm to the police officer P.K., the charge for this offence being obstructing a police officer on duty. The applicant and co-defendant were found guilty of the charges and sentenced to twelve and nine years’ imprisonment respectively. 13.  By a final decision of 15 January 2002 the Senate of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of points of law lodged by the defendants. 14.  On 9 July 1998 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office that he had been ill-treated by several officers of the Rīga Main police station (Second Division). He alleged, in particular, that the police officers had punched him, hanged him by a scarf, and tried to suffocate him with a plastic bag and a gas mask. The police officers had reproached him for the attacks on their friend and colleague and had forced him to sign a statement of confession. A similar complaint was made by the co-defendant V.J. 15.  On 28 September 1998 the Prosecutor’s Office attached to Rīga Court Region (Rīgas tiesas apgabala prokuratūra) initiated a criminal investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment. The applicant was officially recognised as a victim for the purposes of the investigation. 16.  At the applicant’s request to inform him about the progress of the investigation, on 29 January 1999 the Prosecutor’s Office attached to Rīga Court Region replied that the Inquiry Unit of the State Police (Valsts policijas Izziņas pārvalde) was carrying out a pre-trial investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment. On 16 February 1999 the Inquiry Unit forwarded the applicant’s request to the Rīga Main police station which (as from 10 October 1998) was in charge of the investigation. 17.  It appears from the information submitted by the Government that the applicant had repeatedly complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office about the ineffectiveness of the investigation into his alleged ill-treatment. One such complaint, dated 30 July 1999, was forwarded to Rīga Centre District Prosecutor’s Office (Rīgas pilsētas Centra rajona prokuratūra). The Court has been given no information as to its outcome. 18.  In a further complaint of 12 October 1999, the applicant alleged that the investigators had deliberately failed to arrange visual identification of the alleged perpetrators, despite the applicant stating he was able to identify them. On 20 October 1999 the applicant was informed that on 15 October 1999 a prosecutor from the Rīga Centre District Prosecutor’s Office had been looking into the investigation and had issued instructions to the investigators concerning further measures to be taken. 19.  According to the Prosecutor General’s Office, in response to a complaint made by the applicant on 11 August 2000 expressing concerns about a two-year delay in receiving any progress reports about the investigation, the prosecutor responsible for the case (Ģenerālprokuratūras krimināltiesiskā departamenta Pirmstiesas izmeklēšanas uzraudzības nodaļas prokurors) had issued additional instructions to investigators and had informed the applicant of the measures taken. 20.  This was also confirmed by the Government’s Agent, who was provided with information by the Rīga Main police station suggesting that in September 2000 a prosecutor from the Rīga Centre District Prosecutor’s Office had issued additional instructions in respect of the investigation. 21.  On 19 March 2001 the inspector of the Rīga Main police station ordered termination of the investigation. The decision stated:
“...
[2.] Under questioning ... as a victim, [the applicant] stated [that] ... on 27 April 1998, he was summoned to the Rīga Main police station (Second Division).... He was escorted by two police officers who took him to office no. 408, where there were already several plain-clothed police officers. He was handcuffed to a stool with metal legs. One of the officers put a gas mask on his head and cut off the air supply to it; this happened three times, after which the police officers had tried to pressure the [applicant] into making a confession. [The applicant] refused and the officer slapped his neck five times with the palm of his hand. They then put a transparent plastic bag on [the applicant’s] head and cut off the air supply using a sling; this was repeated several times. The victim began to pass out. Then another police officer - [V.Ju.], as [the applicant] later learned - approached him and hit him with the palm of his hand on the forehead, after which the victim fell on the floor, still attached to the stool, and [V.Ju.] kicked him twice in [his] chest. The victim has a vague memory of what happened next: he said that there were other officers in the room who also punched and kicked him. He did not remember what the other officers looked like and could not identify them. He said that one of the officers had strangled him with a scarf. As a result of the torture, he signed a statement of confession which he says was made under duress. [The applicant] argued that his screams and the fact that police officers had beaten him could be confirmed by [V.G.] who was in the office next door at the time and had overheard the officers saying that they were ready to beat [the applicant] up.
[3.] Under questioning as a witness, [V.G] explained that on 27 April 1998 he was also [at the police station in question], where he met [the applicant], with whom he had been transferred to Central Prison. [V.G.] stated that he had also been summoned for questioning, but that he never heard any screams or conversations among police officers about plans to beat [the applicant] up.
[4.] ... On 2 December 1999 [the applicant] was invited to visually identify [L.K.]; [the applicant] identified him as a police officer who, together with V.Ju., had tortured him and had pressured him into making a confession.
[5.] [On 10 March 1999] under questioning as a witness, the officer [L.K.] said that on 27 April 1998, he had requested, in writing, that [the applicant] be escorted from [the pre-trial detention facility] so that he could be questioned. [The applicant] had facial injuries including scrapes and bruises. He was brought to office no. 413 where [officer V.Ju.] was. [The applicant] was filmed on camera, his fingerprints were taken and a conversation about the assault took place. V.Ju wrote down the [applicant’s] statements. No physical force was used [against the applicant].
[6.] During questioning, both [the applicant] and [L.K.] maintained their statements. (...).
[7.] [On unknown date] under questioning as a witness, the officer [V.Ju.] said that on 27 April 1998, [the applicant] was summoned to the [pre-trial detention facility], and that, together with [the officer L.K.], he had questioned the applicant in office no. 413. The witness stated that no physical force against [the applicant] had been used. He denied the allegations and said that [the applicant] had sustained the aforementioned bodily injuries upon his arrest. [V.Ju.] also denied the involvement of other police officers in the questioning of [the applicant].
[8.] During questioning, both [V.Ju.] and [the applicant] maintained their statements.
[9.] Under questioning as a witness ... the police officer [P.K.] stated that on 25 April 1998 [he had participated in the applicant’s arrest].... They started fighting and both fell on the pavement; [they] started to beat each other in the body and the face. ... [After having] broken a window pane, the applicant took a piece of glass and started to use it against [P.K.] on his head and face .... [P.K.] contended that [the applicant] must have sustained bodily injuries but he could not describe precisely where.
...
[11.] By analysing the documents, the outcome of the investigation is that the statements of [the applicant] are inconsistent and that there are several contradictions. For example, each time new facts came to light, others that had already been mentioned disappeared. For example, in the first statements’ report, [the applicant] stated that the ill-treatment had lasted four or five hours at a stretch [but] in his subsequent complaint [the applicant contended that it lasted] six hours; ... each time he referred to one episode of torture, whereas according to documents of [the detention facility] he had been summoned for questioning only for an hour and a half, on two separate occasions: before and after lunch. The number of police officers who allegedly ill-treated him also varies considerably: from "some policemen" to "fifteen ... who had frantically beaten him." In the first statements’ report [the applicant] said that he had been hanged onto a closet by a scarf, he had been strangled with a gas mask and a plastic bag; when interviewed the second time [the applicant] added that he had been given electric shock treatment, the next time [he referred to] blows to the body, head and face, but did not mention electric shock treatment. A year and a half later, [the applicant] argued that [L.K.] had tied his arms to the chair with a pair of handcuffs and fastened his feet with a scarf.
The fact that [the applicant] identified [L.K.] also raises some doubts. For example, in his statements, [the applicant] said that he had identified two policemen who had inflicted his injuries - [V.Ju.] and another, a fair-haired officer, twenty-seven or twenty-eight years’ of age - but that he could neither identify nor describe the other. Then, suddenly, among the individuals chosen for the visual identification, [the applicant] was able to identify [L.K.] as one of the officers who had participated in his ill-treatment. ... He even recalled the exact words with which [L.K.] had threatened him, whereas a year ago he was unable to even describe the policeman’s face. According to [the applicant] L.K. had ordered [V.Ju.] to read out the statements which [the applicant] was forced to sign. However, it transpires that in his complaint, [the applicant] alleged that he had not read any of his statements, whereas according to the applicant’s testimonial evidence the statements had been read out to him and he was forced to sign them.
Accordingly, there are no grounds to question the statements of [the officers] who deny the use of any force against [the applicant], whereas the criminal case material, [the applicant’s] personality..., the expert’s deliberations and medical reports, and the statements of the witnesses V.G. and P.K. raise serious doubts as concerns the validity of the [applicant’s] statements, therefore there are grounds to assume that in actual fact there has been no ill-treatment of [the applicant] by the police officers of the Second Division... the injuries in question were caused during [the applicant’s] arrest .... In view of the above, the criminal case initiated following the complaint of [the applicant] should be discontinued.
 ...”
[23.] Under questioning. the [thirteen] officers of the Rīga Main police station (Second Division) denied that they had participated in the interview of either V.J or [the applicant] and that they had ill-treated them”. 22.  By the same decision the Rīga Main police station discontinued the investigation instigated by the applicant’s co-defendant V.J. 23.  In April and May 2001 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor General that the investigation into his alleged ill-treatment had been discontinued. On 8 May 2001 a prosecutor from the Rīga Centre District Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the complaint. Following repeated appeals by the applicant, at a later date a prosecutor issued a reprimand to the chief investigator for failing to inform the applicant of his rights to inspect the police file and of the grounds for an appeal. 24.  On 3 January 2002 a prosecutor from the Prosecutor General’s Office dismissed the applicant’s allegations. 25.  On 25 April 1998, immediately following his arrest the applicant was admitted to the emergency unit of Rīga Clinic No. 1. According to a report drawn up by the clinic the applicant complained of headaches and was diagnosed by the doctor as having a cerebral contusion. The applicant also suffered from a cut and bruises to his right hand, which were treated at the time. 26.  According to the information provided by the medical unit of the short-term detention unit of Rīga Main police station, on 27 April 1998 the applicant had complained about headaches and the doctor had diagnosed him with a cerebral contusion and prescribed him with pain killers. 27.  On 29 April 1998 the applicant was transferred to the Central Prison. According to the information provided by the prison’s medical unit, on his arrival the applicant had the following injuries: a haematoma on his left thigh (measuring 0.5 cm x 10 cm) and a bruise on his back (measuring 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm). On 7 September 1998 the applicant was also examined by a general practitioner. 28.  On 14 May 1998 the forensic medical expert, after having examined the applicant’s medical records from 25 April 1998, concluded that the applicant had bruises on both hands which he could well have sustained at the time of his arrest. The expert could not draw conclusions as to how the wounds had been inflicted as they were not described in sufficient detail in the records. 29.  At the investigator’s request, on 9 February 1999 the same forensic expert examined the applicant’s medical records of 27 and 29 April 1998 and concluded that, at the time of being admitted to the Central Prison, the applicant had a bruise on his back and a haematoma on his left thigh which were considered to be light bodily injuries causing only short-term health problems of no more than six days. The expert was unable to draw conclusions about the exact time the injuries had been sustained, however, he was able to ascertain that they may have been caused by a hard blunt object.