4.  The applicants were born in 1955 and 1991 respectively and live in Molodyozhnoye. 5.  On 17 January 2001 at 9 p.m. police officer S. accompanied by another police officer, Z. and, a private person, P. entered the first applicant’s house and claimed that he was to appear before a civil court. According to the first applicant, he asked officer S. to present his authority to act on the court’s behalf, to stop disturbing his family and to leave his home. In reply officer S. several times punched the first applicant in the face and chest. 6.  The same day the first applicant called an ambulance. The doctor diagnosed the first applicant as having high blood pressure. According to the first applicant they also recorded concussion and bruises on his face. According to the case-file materials, in particular the decisions of the domestic courts, the doctor of ambulance could not recollect seeing any injuries on the applicant’s face during that visit. 7.  On 18 January 2001 the first applicant’s wife wrote a complaint to the Simferopol District Prosecutor’s Office (the SDPO) requesting them to investigate the allegedly unlawful actions of officer S. 8.  On 19 January 2001 the first applicant underwent a forensic medical examination which found two bruises, one on his right shoulder and another near his left eye. These injuries were classified as minor bodily injuries. 9.  On 2 February 2001 the SDPO refused to institute criminal proceedings against officer S. The first applicant complained to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (the Crimea Prosecutor’s Office), which quashed the above decision on 7 March 2001 for incompleteness of the investigation. 10.  On 20 March 2001 the SDPO again refused to institute criminal proceedings against officer S. This decision was quashed by the Simferopol Central District Court (the District Court) on 25 February 2002 for failure to explain the origin of the injuries of the first applicant. 11.  Between April 2002 and August 2005 the prosecutor eleven times refused to institute criminal proceedings against officer S. and all these decisions were quashed by the higher prosecutors or the court for failure to conduct all necessary investigative actions. 12.  On 13 January 2003 the first applicant lodged a civil claim in the Simferopol Zaliznychnyy District Court against the Simferopol District Police Department seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the unlawful actions of officer S. According to the applicant the claim was not examined. 13.  On 20 December 2003 police officer S. died in a traffic accident. 14.  On 8 September 2005 the SDPO refused again to institute criminal proceedings against officer S. for lack of corpus delicti in his actions. 15.  On 22 March 2006 the District Court quashed the decision of the SDPO for incompleteness of the investigation. 16.  On 27 April 2006 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (the Crimea Court of Appeal) overruled the decision of the first-instance court and rejected the first applicant’s complaint. It noted that the investigator had conducted all necessary activities and the first applicant’s complaints were unsubstantiated. The court noted that it had not been established that officer S. inflicted any bodily harm on the first applicant. It also noted that the doctor, who had seen the first applicant on 17 April 2001, could not confirm any bodily injuries and that bruises on the soft tissue of the applicant’s face had been recorded only on 19 April 2001. The court noted that police officer S. had been invited to the house by the first applicant’s mother who wanted the first applicant to be summoned in civil proceedings concerning the division of property after the death of the first applicant’s father. The first applicant’s mother also denied any violence by officer S. towards the applicant. Furthermore, officer S. had died and therefore it was impossible to question him further. There were no independent witnesses who could confirm that the first applicant had been injured. 17.  On 26 June 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court. 18.  On 25 October 2005 Mrs V, who was the wife of the first applicant and the mother of the second applicant, was hit by a car driven by Mr B. and died as a result. Mr B. called the ambulance and waited for the authorities to arrive. The police examined the car and the scene of accident with a forensic expert and in the presence of the first applicant. The police further questioned Mr B. and his passenger, Mr S. Police investigator Sl. asked Mr B. to take a alcohol test which showed that Mr B. was sober. 19.  On 26 October 2005 the forensic medical examination of Ms V. began. 20.  On 31 October and 22 November 2005 police investigator Sk. further examined the scene of accident. 21.  On 17 November the police ordered a forensic examination of the scene of the traffic accident. 22.  On 29 November 2005, in the light of that inquiry, the police refused to institute criminal proceedings into the road traffic accident which had caused the death of Ms V. This decision of the police was cancelled by the Simferopol Prosecutor’s Office on the same day. The prosecutor instructed the police investigator to complement the case-file with a forensic medical expert report, to establish and question eyewitnesses to the accident, and to conduct technical expert examination to establish how the accident happened. 23.  Between December 2005 and February 2006 the police conducted a number of investigative actions, including forensic examinations and questioning. 24.  On 25 February 2006 a criminal investigation was instituted into the accident. The applicants maintained an investigation was begun only on 16 March 2006. 25.  According to the first applicant, in April 2006 the second applicant was admitted to a psychiatric hospital as a result of the accident. 26.  In March and April 2006 the police made further investigative steps, including additional technical forensic examination. 27.  On 25 April 2006 police investigator Gr. decided to terminate the criminal proceedings, having found no corpus delicti in the actions of Mr B. during the accident. 28.  On 11 May 2006 the decision of 25 April 2006 was quashed by the Simferopol Prosecutor’s Office and the criminal case was remitted for further investigation. The prosecutor ordered additional technical examinations, which were carried out in June 2006. 29.  On 8 June 2006 the police investigator closed the criminal case. This decision was quashed by the Simferopol Prosecutor’s Office on 22 June 2006. 30.  On September 2006 the investigator ordered another technical examination which was conducted in December 2006. 31.  On 28 December 2006 the investigator closed the case again. That decision was quashed on 11 January 2007 by the Simferopol Prosecutor’s Office. 32.  In July 2007 the investigator further questioned additionally Mr B. and ordered another technical expert examination which was ready on 27 September 2007. 33.  On 17 November 2007 the police investigator closed the criminal case. That decision was quashed by the Simferopol Prosecutor’s Office on 23 November 2007. 34.  Between December 2007 and January 2009 investigator Gr., later replaced by investigator Mk., further questioned a number of witnesses and ordered two more technical expert examinations. 35.  On 20 January 2009 the investigator terminated the criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of Mr B. 36.  On 26 January 2009 the first applicant challenged the decision of 20 January 2009 to the Simferopol Kyivskiy District Court 37.  On 29 April 2009 the Simferopol Kyivskiy District Court quashed the decision of the Crimea Police Department to close the criminal case concerning the death of Ms V. and indicated that the investigators had failed to follow the instructions previously given to them when the case had been returned for further investigation. 38.  On 1 June 2009 the investigation was resumed. 39.  Between June 2009 and November 2011 police investigator Mg., later replaced by police investigator Kr. and then by police investigator Gr., questioned a number of witnesses, ordered several technical and medical expert examinations and conducted a further reconstruction of the events at the scene of accident. 40.  On 10 January 2010 the first applicant lodged a civil claim with the Simferopol Zaliznychnyy District Court against the Simferopol District Police Department and the State Treasury seeking moral damages for the ineffective investigation of the death of his wife Ms V. 41.  On 20 August 2010 the Simferopol Zaliznychnyy District Court rejected the civil claim as unsubstantiated. This decision was upheld by the Crimea Court of Appeal and the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court respectively on 8 November and 30 December 2010. 42.  On 12 October 2010 the applicants were recognised as aggrieved parties in the case and, on 13 October, as civil claimants. 43.  On 17 November 2011 the investigator instituted criminal proceedings against Mr B. for a violation of road traffic rules which caused death. 44.  On 28 November 2011 the criminal case against Mr B. was transferred to the Simferopolsky District Court. 45.  On 23 December 2011 the district court held a preparatory hearing, during which the applicants lodged civil claims which the defendant did not oppose. It was established that Mr B. had driven a car with a technical fault to the left brake, of which Mr B. must have been aware. Driving in the dark he saw Ms V., who was crossing the road and tried to stop the car, but due to the above technical deficiency, the car turned right, left the road and hit Ms V. who, by that time, was no longer on the road. The defendant Mr B. admitted his guilt and asked to benefit from an amnesty as he had three minor children. The court allowed Mr B.’s request and amnestied him on the ground that he had three minor children, that the crime had been committed unintentionally, that he had been sober at the time of the accident and had not left the scene of the accident. The court did not examine the civil claims of the applicants. 46.  On 14 February and 6 November 2012 respectively the Crimea Court of Appeal and the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court upheld the decision of the first instance court. 47.  There is no information as to whether the applicants resubmitted their civil claims within separate proceedings.