5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Biysk, the Altay Region. 6.  On 13 October 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft and brought to the Priobskiy police station of the Department of the Interior in Biysk (Территориальное отделение милиции «Приобский» Управления внутренних дел по г. Бийску). He was put in the station’s temporary detention facility (ИВС УВД г. Бийска). 7.  On 15 October 2003 at midnight the applicant was examined by a medical auxiliary at the temporary detention facility. No injuries were found on him. 8.  On the same day the Priobskiy District Court of Biysk ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody. 9.  On 21 October 2003 the applicant was charged with theft, and on 24 October 2003 he was transferred to Biysk remand prison IZ-22/2 (учреждение ИЗ-22/2 г. Бийска УФСИН России по Алтайскому краю). It appears that no injuries were found on the applicant on his admission to the remand prison. 10.  According to the applicant, from 13 October to 24 October 2003 the policemen of the Priobskiy police station interrogated him about his suspected involvement in an organised criminal group. The applicant alleged to have been ill-treated by the policemen during the interrogations. He contended that the policemen kicked him, used a gas mask to restrict his air supply, and gave him electric shocks. 11.  As a result of the alleged intimidation the applicant made a confession statement. The exact contents of the statement were not made available to the Court. According to the Government the applicant’s defence counsel was present when the applicant made his confession statement. The applicant did not claim otherwise. 12.  On 22 October 2003 the applicant filed a complaint about ill‑treatment to the Biysk City Prosecutor’s Office. 13.  Shortly afterwards the assistant of the Biysk City Prosecutor ordered the applicant’s forensic medical examination. 14.  On 5 November 2003 the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert (report no. 4918). The following injuries were discovered on him: an abrasion in the left lumbar region (measurements illegible on the copy of the report), a deep abrasion on the right shin measuring 7 x 0.3 cm, a bruise on the internal surface of the right knee joint measuring 3 x 4 cm, and a scar on the upper lip mucous membrane measuring 2 cm. The expert concluded that the injuries could have been caused by a blunt, hard object in the period of time between 13 October and 16 October 2003, on account of the nature of the abrasions and scars and the colour of the bruise. The expert further indicated that the above injuries did not cause harm to the applicant’s health. 15.  On 13 November 2003 investigator M. of the Biysk City Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the policemen because there was no indication of a criminal offence. The investigator’s decision was based on statements by policemen Kh., Yar. and K., who submitted that the applicant had agreed to go to the police station to be questioned on suspicion of theft and that no force or intimidation had been used on him during the interview, and statements by the investigator dealing with the criminal case against the applicant who submitted that he had questioned the applicant as a suspect in the presence of the applicant’s defence counsel, that the applicant had been subsequently released, that he had had no visible injuries on his body and had not complained about any intimidation by policemen. 16.  On 11 May 2004 the Deputy Prosecutor of Biysk annulled the above decision and ordered an additional inquiry into the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment. A copy of the above decision was not made available to the Court. 17.  On 28 November 2004, following an additional inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, chief investigator B. of the Biysk City Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators. The decision was based on statements by investigators Kolp. and Gar., statements by police officers Sel., Yud., Petr., Prokh., Ser., Kh., Yar. and K., and a certificate attesting to the fact that from 15 October to 24 October 2003 the applicant was held in the temporary detention facility, that he had had no injuries upon his admission to the temporary detention facility on 15 October 2003 or later upon his admission to the remand prison on 24 October 2003. 18.  On 21 March 2005 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Altay Region upheld the above-mentioned decision. 19.  The applicant appealed against the decision of 28 November 2004 to the court. 20.  On 30 November 2005 the Vostochniy District Court of Biysk held that the decision of 28 November 2004 had been lawful and substantiated. The court noted the following:
- Policemen Sel., Yud., Petr., Prokh., Ser., Kh., Yar., K. and G. denied having used physical force or intimidation against the applicant;
- Investigators Kolp. and Gar. stated that no physical force had been applied to the applicant during the investigation of the criminal case against him and that no complaints in this respect had been made by the applicant;
- According to the certificate issued by the temporary detention facility the applicant had been held at the police station from 15 October to 24 October 2003. He had no injuries on his body when he had arrived at the police station.
- According to the certificate issued by Biysk remand prison IZ-22/2 the applicant had had no injuries when he arrived on 24 October 2003.
- According to the finding of forensic medical examination no. 4918 of 5 November 2003 the applicant had had an abrasion in the left lumbar region, a deep abrasion on the right shin, a bruise on the right knee joint and a scar on the upper lip mucous membrane. The report noted that the injuries could have been caused by a blunt, hard object in the period of time between 13 October and 16 October 2003, on account of the nature of the abrasions and scars and the colour of the bruise. The injuries were not deemed harmful to the applicant’s health.
The court held that the fact that the applicant’s injuries had been confirmed by a forensic medical examination could not serve as a sufficient ground for instituting criminal proceedings against the police officers, since “the expert examination only certified the presence of bodily injuries and did not answer the question as to who had caused those injuries to the applicant and under what circumstances”. 21.  The applicant appealed to the Altay Regional Court. He claimed that the refusal to open a criminal investigation had been based exclusively on the statements by the police officers concerned whereas no evidence had been taken from those who had been detained with him and who could have confirmed his account of events. He further insisted that his injuries were confirmed by the forensic medical examination and two videotapes recorded by the police officers in the course of gathering the evidence against him. 22.  On 19 January 2006 the Altay Regional Court upheld the decision of 30 November 2005 on appeal. The court noted that the decision of 30 November 2005 had been taken after careful examination and assessment of statements by the individuals who were in a place to know about the circumstances of the alleged beatings, the results of a forensic medical examination, and relevant documents from the temporary detention ward and the remand prison where the applicant had been detained. The court further found that the failure to question the applicant’s cellmates did not mean that the decision of the investigator had been unlawful and unjustified, since the above individuals had not witnessed the alleged beatings and could not therefore have furnished any information about the circumstances of the alleged events. The court went on to say that the fact that the applicant’s injuries were confirmed by the expert did not necessarily imply that the injuries had been caused as a result of resort to physical violence by the police officers. No alternative version, however, was put forward to explain the origin of the applicant’s injuries. 23.  On 11 November 2004 the Altay Regional Court, in a jury trial, convicted the applicant of robbery and five counts of theft, and sentenced him to thirteen years’ imprisonment. The following evidence was examined by the jury: the statements by the victims and the witnesses, the applicant’s confession statement made at the pre-trial stage and his further confession statements made at the trial, a statement by one of the applicant’s co-defendants, reports of various examinations (forensic medical examination, crime scene examination, trace examination), and records of the seizure of the victims’ belongings. 24.  While examining the issue of the admissibility of the applicant’s confession statement made at the pre-trial stage, the trial court questioned police officers Ser., Sel., Petr., Prokh. and Yud., who denied having used any unlawful methods of investigation on the applicant. It viewed the videotape of a conversation between the applicant and a police officer (date unspecified) and pictures (фототаблица) taken on 21 October 2003 in the course of an investigative procedure, in which no signs of visible injuries could be seen on the applicant. The court further questioned the attesting witnesses who had participated in various investigative procedures with the applicant between 15 October and 13 November 2003 and had not seen any visible injuries on him either. Finally, the court refused the applicant’s request to obtain attendance and question those who had been detained together with him at the temporary detention facility. 25.  The applicant appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the jury had found him guilty on the basis of his confession statement, which had been obtained under duress. 26.  On 10 February 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the conviction on appeal. 27.  On 3 August 2005 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia, by way of supervisory review, modified the qualification of the crimes committed by the applicant and reduced the sentence to twelve years’ imprisonment. 28.  After the application was communicated to the Russian Government, in June 2009 the internal security department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Altay Region (Управление собственной безопасности ГУВД по Алтайскому краю) was charged with a further inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. 29.  In the course of the inquiry information was received about the possible infliction of the injuries in question prior to the applicant’s arrest. Namely, on 28 September 2003 the Priobskiy police station registered a complaint to the effect that on that date at about 2 a.m. on Martjyanova Street in Biysk unidentified persons caused injuries to Alchagin V. During the inquiry Alchagin V. explained that on 28 September 2003, in a state of inebriation, he had fallen over several times on his way home, thereby sustaining bodily injuries. According to forensic medical examination report no. 4227 the injuries (multiple bruises to the face, head and body) were possibly sustained on 28 September 2003 as a result of a fall from his own height and did not cause harm to his health. Subsequently, Alchagin V. asked for the inquiry to be discontinued. For that reason, on 3 October 2003 a decision not to open a criminal investigation into the matter was issued.