5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in a penal establishment in Irkutsk. 6.  On 28 November 2002 at 7.30 a.m. the police arrived at the applicant’s flat, arrested him and took him to the Pervorechenskiy District police station of Vladivostok (Первореченский РУВД г. Владивостока) to question him about his suspected involvement in the murder of a certain P. on 26 November 2002. 7.  According to the applicant, the questioning continued for twenty-four hours at a stretch and was accompanied by severe beatings. The police officers allegedly handcuffed the applicant to a chair, put a cloth bag with a stranglehold on his head and started suffocating him and beating him at the same time on his head with heavy folders, after which he fainted. When he regained consciousness the beatings continued. The police officers slapped him on his ears and shouted in his ears. After that they put a plastic bag on top of the cloth bag and continued suffocating him and beating him. Following another loss of consciousness the police officer tortured the applicant with an electric current, during which he again fainted several times. Each time the applicant fainted, the police officers poured water over him to make him come to his senses. The applicant also alleged that a certain T. and K. had participated in the beatings. 8.  According to the applicant, at 7 a.m. on 29 November 2002 the investigator took him to an administrative arrest cell (камера административно задержанных). However, the officer on duty allegedly refused to admit the applicant in view of his injuries. 9.  At about 12 noon on 29 November 2002 the applicant was taken for forensic medical examination. 10.  Having examined the applicant, the forensic medical expert found numerous injuries on his body (forensic expert report no. 5663): bruises on the superior and inferior eyelids of both eyes measuring 7 by 6 cm and 6 by 5 cm respectively, on the right cheekbone measuring 6 by 4 cm; on the forehead measuring 4 by 3 cm, on the left auricle measuring 4 by 3 cm, in the right parotid area measuring 3 by 4 cm, on the neck measuring 5 by 4 cm, on the applicant’s right shoulder blade measuring 5 by 4 cm, in the infrascapular and lumbar regions measuring 4 by 3 cm and 3 by 2 cm respectively, on the left shoulder joint measuring 8 by 7 cm, in his right underarm area measuring 8 by 6 cm and 6 by 4 cm and on his stomach measuring 6 by 4 cm. The expert also recorded two abrasions on the left side of the applicant’s forehead measuring 2 by 0.2 cm and 1.7 by 0.2 cm, and multiple abrasions on the applicant’s left forearm and hand measuring from 0.9 by 0.7 cm to 0.5 by 0.3 cm. The expert concluded that the injuries were approximately one day old, and that the bruises could have been caused by a blow from a hard, blunt object and the abrasions by a hard object with a rough surface or with a sharp edge. The report went on to say that the injuries in question had not caused any harm to the applicant’s health. 11.  The applicant was subsequently taken to the temporary detention ward, from where he was released on 3 December 2002 under a written undertaking not to leave his place of residence. 12.  From 5 December to 23 December 2002 the applicant underwent in-patient hospital treatment for brain concussion, thoracic spine contusion and multiple soft-tissue bruises. 13.  On 17 December 2002 the applicant complained about the alleged beatings to the Primorye Regional Prosecutor’s Office. His complaint contained a detailed account of the alleged ill-treatment. 14.  On 20 December 2002 the applicant was questioned about the circumstances of the alleged beatings. 15.  On 30 January 2003 the chief investigator of the Pervorechenskiy District Prosecutor’s Office of Vladivostok refused to initiate criminal proceedings in the absence of an indication that a crime had been committed. The decision was based on statements by police officers B., V., P. and Yel. and investigator P., who denied having applied any physical force against the applicant or having seen anybody else using violence against him. Police officers B. and V. further submitted that they had seen abrasions on the applicant’s face and hands and that the applicant had explained that he had received them on 26 November 2002 in a brawl with four unknown teenagers. Police officer Yel. further submitted that on 28 November 2002, at the police station, the applicant had threatened to have criminal proceedings instituted against the police officers, after which he had intentionally hit the right side of his head against the door frame. 16.  On 30 April 2003 the supervising prosecutor quashed the above‑mentioned decision and ordered an additional inquiry, which would require, inter alia, the questioning of a certain T. who, according to the applicant, had also participated in the beatings, the questioning of the officer on duty who had refused to admit the applicant to an administrative arrest cell and the assessment of the relevant medical evidence. 17.  On 20 May 2003 the chief investigator of the Pervorechenskiy District Prosecutor’s Office of Vladivostok again refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers. The decision relied on statements by police officers, forensic expert report no. 5663 and statements by the applicant’s partner and the latter’s family to the effect that they had seen abrasions on the applicant’s forehead and hands when he returned home in the evening of 26 November 2002. 18.  On 17 June 2003 the supervising prosecutor quashed the above-mentioned decision on appeal, with an order, among other things, to question a certain T., whom the applicant alleged to have participated in the beatings. 19.  On 27 June 2003 the chief investigator of the Pervorechenskiy District Prosecutor’s Office of Vladivostok refused for the third time to initiate criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators. The decision was made on the basis of the evidence relied upon in the previous refusals. 20.  In the meantime, on 28 July 2003 the forensic medical expert finalised an additional forensic medical report. The report stated that the abrasions discovered on the applicant’s face, forearm and hand during the initial forensic medical examination were approximately one to three days old, which did not exclude the possibility that they had been inflicted on him on 26 November 2002. The bruises could have been caused by the impact of blows by or collision with a hard, blunt object. The abrasions had caused mild damage to the applicant’s health, whereas the remaining injuries had not caused any such harm. The diagnosis of “brain concussion” had not been confirmed since the degenerative changes in the applicant’s brain cortex, as revealed during the CT scan performed on 19 December 2002, confirmed a long-lasting process which had not had any connection with the events alleged by the applicant. 21.  On 20 September 2003 the supervising prosecutor quashed the decision of 27 June 2003 and ordered that the applicant be questioned with the aim of identifying T., following which the latter would be questioned on the circumstances alleged by the applicant. 22.  On 23 September 2003 the chief investigator of the Pervorechenskiy District Prosecutor’s Office once again took a decision to refuse the institution of criminal proceedings. Further to the evidence relied on previously, the above decision indicated that, besides the police officers, no unauthorised persons had been present at the applicant’s arrest and subsequent questioning. 23.  On 6 November 2003 the supervising prosecutor quashed the above‑mentioned decision, finding that it was necessary to question K., who, as alleged by the applicant, had also participated in the beatings. 24.  On 17 November 2003 the chief investigator of the Pervorechenskiy District Prosecutor’s Office took the decision for the fifth time to refuse the institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers. In the course of the additional inquiry which led to the refusal, K. was identified and questioned, yet he denied his alleged participation in the investigation and the applicant’s beatings. 25.  On 24 June 2004 the supervising prosecutor quashed that decision and entrusted an additional investigation to another chief investigator of the Pervorechenskiy District Prosecutor’s Office. 26.  On 27 June 2004 it was decided, yet another time, to refuse the institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers. The decision summarised the history of the previous decisions, endorsed the same arguments and contained no new evidence. 27.  On 12 October 2004 the supervising prosecutor quashed that decision and ordered an additional inquiry. The decision in question indicated, among other things, that the version of events according to which the applicant had allegedly sustained the injuries in question as a result of a brawl with unidentified teenagers had been disproved by the conclusion of the (initial) forensic medical expert to the effect that the injuries discovered on the applicant’s body were approximately one day old and by the statements of the applicant’s partner. The decision further indicated the need to question police officer Yel. and other police officers about the circumstances of the applicant’s alleged self-harm, and to adduce evidence as to the time of the applicant’s arrest, his being brought to the police station and to the administrative arrest cell, and the time of his release. 28.  On 18 October 2004 the chief investigator refused to initiate criminal proceedings for the seventh time. No attempt was made to explain the discrepancy between the (initial) conclusions of the medical expert as to the assessment of the applicant’s injuries and the version of events advanced to the effect that the injuries had been inflicted on the applicant on 26 November 2002 by unknown young people. 29.  On an unspecified date the above-mentioned decision was quashed by the supervising prosecutor and an additional inquiry was ordered. The inquiry was entrusted to the Sovetskiy District Prosecutor’s Office of Vladivostok. 30.  On 19 May 2006 the chief investigator of the Sovetskiy District Prosecutor’s Office also refused to initiate criminal proceedings for lack of evidence of a crime in the actions of the police officers. The decision relied on statements by police officers who had denied using violence against the applicant, statements by the applicant’s partner and the latter’s relatives who had confirmed having seen the applicant returning home on 26 November 2002 with bleeding abrasions on his face and hands, and the results of both forensic medical examinations. It was noted in the decision that the injuries found on the applicant’s body had not caused any harm to his health and that, as had been confirmed by the forensic medical expert (see paragraph 20 above), they could have been inflicted on 26 November 2002, that is, prior to the applicant’s having been taken to the police station. 31.  In June 2009 the applicant applied to the Sovetskiy District Court of Vladivostok, seeking to challenge the refusal of 19 May 2006. However, on 17 June 2009 the Sovetskiy District Court returned the applicant’s claim without examination, citing an out-of-time appeal as the reason for such a decision. The decision in question, open to appeal, was not appealed against by the applicant. 32.  The applicant alleged that while he was undergoing hospital treatment for his injuries, a certain K. had stolen a TV set and a VCR from his flat. 33.  The applicant sought to have criminal proceedings initiated against the alleged perpetrator. However, on 19 May 2006 the chief investigator of the Sovetskiy District Prosecutor’s Office in Vladivostok refused his request, finding no indication that a crime had been committed. 34.  On 12 April 2004 the Primorye Regional Court convicted the applicant of aggravated murder, robbery and stealing an official document and sentenced him to nineteen years’ imprisonment. 35.  On 8 December 2004 the Supreme Court of Russia excluded the stealing of an official document from the qualification of the applicant’s offence, in view of the time-bar in respect of this charge, and reduced the sentence to eighteen years’ imprisonment.