4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Kharkiv. 5.  On 5 May 2004 the applicant was arrested by four police officers on suspicion of bribe-taking. The police officers took him to the Kharkiv Dzerzhynskyy District Police Station, where he was held overnight. According to the applicant, the police officers beat him for several hours, forcing him to confess. 6.  On 6 May 2004 the applicant was taken to the Kharkiv City Prosecutor’s Office. He complained of ill-treatment to a senior prosecutor from the above office. The prosecutor referred the applicant for a forensic medical examination. 7.  On 7 May 2004 the applicant was diagnosed with concussion and admitted to hospital. 8.  On 8 May 2004 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination, which established that he had numerous bruises on his face, chest, legs and arms, as well as a damaged tooth. 9.  On 11 May 2004 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on charges of bribe-taking. They were eventually terminated on 27 April 2007 for lack of corpus delicti. 10.  On 2 June 2004 the applicant lodged another complaint of ill-treatment with the Kharkiv City Prosecutor’s Office. 11.  On 23 June 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office about the failure to examine his complaint of 2 June 2004. 12.  On 12 August 2004 the Kharkiv Dzerzhynskyy District Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. That decision was quashed by the higher prosecutor on 7 October 2004 and an additional inquiry was ordered. 13.  On 28 October 2004 the Kharkiv Dzerzhynskyy District Prosecutor’s Office ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant, which was conducted between 28 December 2004 and 13 January 2005. The experts’ opinion confirmed the previous medical findings (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above) and concluded that the injuries had been the result of blows with blunt objects and had been inflicted during the period indicated by the applicant. The experts further opined that it could not be excluded that the injuries had originated in the circumstances indicated by the applicant, as they could all have been inflicted by fists. 14.  On 23 September 2005 the Kharkiv Frunzenskyy District Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. That refusal was quashed by the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office on 31 May 2006. 15.  On 15 June 2006 the Kharkiv Frunzenskyy District Prosecutor’s Office again refused to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. In a letter dated 10 August 2008, the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that the decision of 15 June 2006 had been quashed and that the prosecutor who had conducted the inquiry would be subjected to disciplinary sanctions for the improper performance of his duties. 16.  On 29 March 2007 the Kharkiv City Prosecutor’s Office issued a decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s allegations. That decision was subsequently quashed. 17.  On 8 January 2008 the Kharkiv City Prosecutor’s Office again refused to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. That decision was quashed by the Kharkiv Kyivskyy District Court on 17 October 2011 and the case was remitted for further inquiries. 18.  On 17 February 2012 the Kharkiv City Prosecutor’s Office once again refused to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. 19.  On 19 June 2012 the above decision was quashed by the Kharkiv Kyivskyy District Court, which sent the case file back to the prosecutor for further inquiries. The court noted, inter alia, that it had previously remitted the case for further inquiries, but that its instructions had not been followed. Furthermore, the applicant had not been questioned and the medical evidence had not been assessed. The first-instance court’s decision was upheld on appeal by the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal on 9 July 2012. 20.  On 31 August 2012 the Kharkiv City Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. The applicant challenged that decision in the Kharkiv Kyivskyy District Court on 20 September 2012. 21.  On 19 November 2012 a new Code of Criminal Procedure came into force. On 12 December 2012, in accordance with the provisions of the new Code, the Kharkiv Dzerzhynskyy District Prosecutor’s Office entered the relevant information in the newly established “Integrated Register of pre-trial investigations” and started criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. 22.  On 6 February 2013 the prosecutor issued a decision to terminate the above-mentioned criminal proceedings. 23.  On 4 March 2013 the Kharkiv Dzerzhynskyy District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 6 February 2013. 24.  On 4 April 2013 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the prosecutor’s decision of 6 February 2013. 25.  On 7 June 2013 the applicant asked the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office to supervise the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment. 26.  On 14 July 2013 the Kharkiv Dzerzhynskyy District Prosecutor’s Office issued a decision to terminate the criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers. 27.  On 30 September 2013 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant about the decision of 14 July 2013. 28.  On 8 October and 3 December 2013 the applicant asked the Kharkiv Dzerzhynskyy District Prosecutor’s Office to send him a copy of the decision of 14 July 2013. 29.  On 12 February 2014 the prosecutor sent the applicant a copy of the decision of 14 July 2013. 30.  On 21 February 2014 the applicant challenged the decision of 14 July 2013 before the investigating judge of the Kharkiv Dzerzhynskyy District Court. 31.  On 15 April 2014 the Kharkiv Dzerzhynskyy District Court quashed the decision of 14 July 2013 and remitted the case to the prosecutor for further investigation. The court concluded that the investigator had not followed the instructions of the appellate court indicated in its decision of 4 April 2013 on remittal of the case for further investigation, and had terminated the criminal proceedings without conducting the necessary inquiries or carrying out a comprehensive examination of the circumstances of the case.