5.  The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in the village of Aleksandrovka, Ukraine. 6.  On 14 June 2000 the applicant, who was 11 years old, was playing football with his friends. Two 15 year-old boys took their ball. The applicant tried to get the ball back and he and his friends started to throw chestnuts at the other boys. One of the boys, K., threw a stone in retaliation, which hit the applicant in the left eye. As a result the applicant was diagnosed with concussion. Subsequently, he became blind in his left eye. 7.  On 20 June 2000 Sverdlovsk District Hospital, which the applicant attended after the incident, informed the Sverdlovskiy police office (Свердловський МВ УМВС України в Луганській області) that the applicant had been injured by a third person. 8.  The Government submitted that on the same date the applicant’s father had complained to the police office about the injuries received by his son. However, according to the Government, on the same date the applicant’s father requested all investigations to be discontinued because he “had no complaints and refused to give any written explanations or to have a forensic medical examination”. The Government submitted a copy of a written statement allegedly signed by the applicant’s father. The applicant stated that his father had never made such a statement. 9.  On 24 June 2000 the police refused to institute criminal proceedings on account of lack of evidence of a crime. 10.  On 10 July 2000 the applicant’s father requested the police office to institute criminal proceedings against K. 11.  On 13 July 2000 the police rejected his request on account of lack of evidence of a crime. 12.  On 21 August 2000 the Sverdlovsk prosecutor (прокурор м. Свердловськ) quashed the decision of 24 June 2000 and remitted the case to the police for additional checks. 13.  On 29 August 2000 the Sverdlovsk Department of Forensic Medical Examinations (Свердловське відділення судмедекспертизи) concluded that the applicant had sustained bodily injuries of medium severity, but that it would only be possible to finally establish the seriousness of the injuries in six months’ time. 14.  On 30 October 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against K. for intentional infliction of bodily injuries of medium severity. 15.  On 31 October 2000 the applicant’s father was recognised as a victim and a civil claimant in the case since the applicant was a minor at the time. 16.  Between 9 November 2000 and 5 June 2001 the criminal proceedings were suspended “since it was impossible to identify the aggressor”. 17.  On 18 January 2001 the Lugansk Regional Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations (Луганське обласне бюро судово-медичних експертиз) reached the conclusion that the applicant had sustained bodily injuries of medium severity. 18.  On 5 June 2001 the criminal proceedings were resumed. 19.  On 20 June 2001 K.’s actions were reclassified as “unintentional infliction of grievous bodily harm”. This crime was not punishable under criminal law if the aggressor had not reached the age of majority (16 years). 20.  On 25 June 2001 the criminal proceedings against K. were terminated and the case was transferred to the court for compulsory measures of an educational nature (примусові заходи виховного характеру) to be applied to K. 21.  On 14 August 2001 the Sverdlovskiy Town Court ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant. 22.  On 13 December 2001 the Lugansk Regional Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations classified the injury as grievous bodily harm. 23.  On 27 February 2002 the Sverdlovskiy Town Court ordered a reconstruction of the events with the participation of all the persons involved, their representatives and a forensic expert. The reconstruction was carried out in March 2002. 24.  On 29 July 2002 the Sverdlovsk prosecutor informed the applicant’s father that disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against the investigating officer for protracting the investigation. 25.  On 18 November 2002 the Sverdlovskiy Town Court remitted the case for additional investigation. The applicant appealed and requested that K.’s actions be redefined as intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm. 26.  On 28 January 2003 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 18 November 2002. 27.  On 20 March 2003 K.’s actions were again qualified as unintentional infliction of grievous bodily harm and the case was remitted to the Sverdlovskiy Town Court for the ordering of compulsory measures of an educational nature in respect of K. 28.  On 30 January 2004 the court remitted the case for additional investigation since K. was no longer a minor and so the court could not order compulsory measures of an educational nature in respect of him. 29.  On 30 March 2004 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal remitted the case for fresh consideration. 30.  On 13 July 2004 the Sverdlovskiy Town Court again remitted the case for additional investigation. It noted that it was unclear whether the applicant had received injuries of medium severity or grievous bodily injuries, and whether K. had intentionally inflicted such injuries. 31.  On 21 September 2004 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal upheld that decision. 32.  On 25 October 2004 the investigating officer at the Sverdlovsk police department (слідчий Свердловського МВ УМВС України в Луганській області) refused to institute criminal proceedings against K. for intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm on the applicant. On the next day he remitted the case against K. in respect of unintentional infliction of bodily harm to the court to be closed, as the time-limit for prosecution had expired. 33.  On 3 November 2004 the Sverdlovskiy Town Court quashed the decision of 25 October 2004. 34.  On 7 December 2004 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal changed the decision of 3 November 2004 and remitted the case for additional investigation. 35.  In January 2005 the case was transferred for investigation to the Krasnodon investigation authorities (слідчий відділ Краснодонського МВ УМВС України в Луганській області). 36.  On 11 April 2005 K. was charged with intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm and the case was transferred to the Krasnodonskiy Local Court. 37.  On 14 October 2005, at K.’s request, the court ordered an additional forensic medical examination. 38.  On 19 December 2005 the Donetsk Regional Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations (Донецьке обласне бюро судово-медичної експертизи) reached the conclusion that the applicant had sustained bodily injuries of medium severity. 39.  On 3 April 2006 the court rejected the applicant father’s request for a third forensic examination to be carried out to reconcile the contradictory conclusions of the previous examinations of 2001 and 2005. 40.  On 26 May 2006 the court rejected a similar request by the prosecutor. 41.  On 3 July 2006 the court finally decided to allow the applicant’s father’s request and ordered an additional forensic medical examination to be carried out in Kyiv. 42.  On 8 August 2006 the Main Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations (Головне бюро судово-медичної експертизи) informed the court that such an examination would not be possible before 2008. 43.  On 27 November 2006 the applicant was recognised as falling into the third category of disability (the mildest). 44.  On 4 July 2008 a commission of four experts concluded that the applicant had sustained grievous bodily harm: an injury to his left eye and concussion. 45.  On 9 October 2008 the Krasnodonskiy Local Court imposed on K. a suspended sentence of three years’ imprisonment, with a one-year probation period, for infliction of grievous bodily harm. At the court hearing K. pleaded guilty. 46.  On 23 December 2008 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal terminated the proceedings in the case as the time-limit for prosecution had expired. 47.  On the same date the court adopted a special ruling informing the Lugansk Regional Council of Judges that the proceedings in the case had taken too long. 48.  In September 2009 the applicant and his father instituted civil proceedings for damages. They claimed 23,399 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in compensation for pecuniary damage, and UAH 700,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 49.  On 26 April 2011 the Sverdlovskiy Town Court of the Lugansk Region awarded the applicant UAH 15,000 (at the material time the equivalent of 1,270.65 euros (EUR)), to be paid by K., in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The court also awarded the applicant’s father UAH 15,067.16 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 50.  On 19 September and 20 October 2011 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal and the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court of Ukraine, respectively, upheld this decision.