4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Kharkiv. 5.  In the evening of 1 May 2005 following a family quarrel the applicant’s wife apparently called the police. At 5 p.m. the applicant was taken to the Ordzhonikidzevskyy District Police Department (Орджонікідзевський районний відділ Харківського міського управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ України в Харківській області). After having searched the applicant, the police officers found some brown grass (according to different documents its amount varied from 2 to 7 grams) which the applicant said was tobacco in his pocket. The applicant was detained under Article 263 of the Code of Administrative Offences, which permits detention for up to three days in order for a seized substance to be examined. 6.  On 3 May 2005 the investigating officer questioned the applicant about a robbery which had taken place in the middle of April 2005, and the applicant allegedly confessed to committing it. 7.  On 4 May 2005 an expert concluded that the brown grass found on the applicant was not a narcotic and it was decided not to institute criminal proceedings in that connection. According to the Government, the applicant was released. The decision of 1 May 2005 to detain the applicant bears a note that the applicant was released on 4 May 2005 at 8:00 p.m. 8.  On the same date criminal proceedings for robbery were instituted against the applicant and a number of other individuals. The applicant was arrested by an investigator on suspicion of committing robbery. The time of the applicant’s arrest was noted as 8:00 p.m. 9.  At 6 p.m. on 6 May 2005 the applicant was brought before a court, which authorised his pre-trial detention. No copy of this decision was submitted by the parties. On the same date the applicant was charged with robbery. 10.  Following a complaint by the applicant’s lawyer, on 13 May 2005 the court found that the applicant’s arrest on 4 May 2005 had been unlawful. During the court hearing a prosecutor submitted that on 4 May 2005 the applicant had been released at around 8 p.m. and immediately arrested again on suspicion of having committed a crime. An investigation officer testified that at around 8:10 p.m. on 4 May 2005 the applicant had had his rights explained to him, including his right to have a lawyer, and he had later been questioned as a suspect. The court established that the applicant had not been released on 4 May 2005 and that his arrest on that date had been unlawful, as there had been no indication that the applicant had wanted to escape. 11.  On 12 July 2005 the criminal case was sent to the court for consideration on the merits. 12.  On 2 August 2005 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 13 May 2005. It found that the decisions of 6 and 13 May 2005 had been taken by the same judge but had contained contradictory findings. It noted that by the decision of 6 May 2005 the court had ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention because “it appeared from the criminal case file materials that if at large the applicant could hinder the investigation, attempt to influence the victim, commit other crimes and escape”. However, in the decision of 13 May 2005 the same judge had referred to the absence of such evidence. The court found such an approach to be flawed. It further held that the applicant should have appealed against the decision of 6 May 2005 and that the lawfulness of the applicant’s continued detention would be examined by the court that was considering the case on the merits. 13.  The applicant stated that during his detention between 1 and 3 May2005 he had been subjected to psychological pressure and physical ill-treatment. In particular, he alleged that the police officers had put a plastic bag on his head and had beaten him. On one occasion he had been kicked in the left eye. He claimed that because of a previous head injury sustained at the age of 15 and the police beatings, his eyesight worsened. 14.  On 6 May 2005 the applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist from Kharkiv City Clinic no. 18, who established that the applicant was suffering from a cataract and acute glaucoma of the left eye. He needed follow-up treatment and surgery for his cataract. It was not noted that the surgery was urgent. 15.  The Government submitted that on 6 May 2005 the applicant had been examined by a panel of doctors from Kharkiv City Ophthalmology Clinic no. 14. The applicant had been diagnosed with post-traumatic secondary glaucoma, a cataract of the left eye and other conditions. He had been advised to take eye drops to lower his intraocular pressure. Surgery had not been recommended, as the applicant had lost the sight in his left eye and there was no prospect of it being restored through surgery. 16.  By letter of 17 May 2005 the Kharkiv City Clinic no. 18 informed the applicant’s lawyer that the applicant had been examined there on 6 May 2005. He needed follow-up treatment and surgery. 17.  On 27 May 2005 the applicant was again examined by an ophthalmologist. He was diagnosed with retinal detachment of the left eye and elective surgery was recommended. 18.  On 14 June 2005 the applicant’s mother made an inquiry to the head of Kharkiv Temporary Detention Centre no. 27 (“the SIZO”), where the applicant was detained, about the state of the applicant’s health. On 29 June 2005 she received a reply informing her that the applicant had been examined by an ophthalmologist on 27 May 2005 and diagnosed with retinal detachment of the left eye, but that the medical service of the SIZO did not have an ophthalmologist or sufficient funds to arrange for treatment. Therefore, the applicant’s mother was advised to arrange for him to undergo surgery in a specialised ophthalmological clinic. 19.  On 4 July 2005 the applicant was examined by a panel of doctors from Kharkiv City Ophthalmology Clinic no. 14. It was concluded that there was no need for surgery on his left eye, since the sight in this eye had been completely lost. 20.  By letter of 20 July 2005 the applicant’s mother was informed by the SIZO about the examination of 4 July 2005. 21.  By letter of 11 August 2005 the SIZO informed the applicant’s lawyer that on 4 July 2005 the applicant had been examined by a panel of doctors from Kharkiv City Ophthalmology Clinic no. 14. He had been diagnosed with a traumatic cataract of the left eye and other conditions affecting his eyes. There was no need for surgery on his left eye. Eye drops had been prescribed. 22.  By letter of 12 August 2005 Kharkiv City Ophthalmology Clinic no. 14 submitted similar information about the applicant’s examination on 4 July 2005 to his lawyer. 23.  Between 4 and 18 October 2005 the applicant was admitted to a prison hospital. He was recognised as category 3 disabled (the least severe category). He was again examined by an ophthalmologist on 25 November 2005. 24.  By letter of November 2005 the Ordzhonikidzevskyy District Court asked the Head of the SIZO to provide the applicant with specialised treatment, as there was a risk of him losing his eyesight. 25.  Between 3 and 5 April 2006 the applicant was admitted to hospital. He underwent surgery on his left eye. 26.  Between 14 and 19 June 2006 the applicant was again hospitalised and underwent another operation. His left eye was removed to avoid inflammation of the right eye. 27.  Following a request of 4 August 2010, on the same date the Head of Kharkiv City Ophthalmology Clinic no. 14 confirmed to the Kharkiv Regional Police Department (Головне управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ України в Харківській області) that the applicant had been examined on 6 May 2005. No surgery had been recommended. He had been admitted to the Clinic between 3 and 5 April 2006 and between 14 and 19 June 2006. 28.  Following a request by the applicant’s lawyer, on 26 November 2010 the Head of Kharkiv City Ophthalmology Clinic no. 14 replied that the applicant had been examined by Clinic doctors on 4 July 2005. It was impossible to submit information about other examinations of the applicant because the relevant medical documents “had been destroyed after [the] three-year storage time-limit” had been reached. 29.  In the applicant’s medical file, a hard-to-read copy of which was submitted by the Government, there are two entries on unidentifiable dates in May 2005 stating that the applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist on two occasions. Another entry dated 4 July 2005 mentions that the applicant had been transferred to Clinic no. 14 for examination. 30.  On 13 April 2007 the Ordzhonikidzevskyy District Court convicted the applicant of burglary and theft of personal documents and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment and confiscation of half of his property. The term of the applicant’s imprisonment was calculated starting on 1 May 2005. 31.  On 12 February 2009 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. There is no evidence that this decision was appealed against in cassation.