5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in the town of Perm, the Perm Region. 6.  On 27 February 2004 the criminal investigation unit of the Perm Leninskiy District Department of the Interior (“the criminal investigation unit”) received information about a planned robbery of a shop in Perm. 7.  The next day at least nine police officers, including the Head of the criminal investigation unit, M., senior investigator L., officer A. and a number of other officers belonging to the Perm Regional Department of the Interior’s organised crime squad set up a sting operation in the shop. 8.  On 29 February 2004 at around 1 a.m. the applicant, along with four other individuals, one of whom was carrying a sawn-off shotgun, entered the shop with a view to robbing it. They were immediately stopped by the police. A. ordered them to put down the shotgun. He fired warning shots into the air. Thereafter he shot at the applicant’s armed accomplice. 9.  The applicant was pushed down a flight of stairs by M. and hit his head. Subsequently the police officers immobilised and handcuffed all of the participants in the robbery. 10.  According to the applicant, the police officers then began beating him, with a view to obtaining a confession. The applicant eventually confessed. 11.  Shortly after his arrest the police officers made a video recording of the applicant at the place of the incident. On the recording the applicant introduced himself, explained the reasons for his arrest and fully admitted his guilt. 12.  At approximately 3 a.m. the applicant was taken to the organised crime squad’s headquarters (“the police station”). 13.  According to the applicant, the interrogating officers ordered him to confess and inflicted a number of blows to his head and body. One of the officers stepped on the applicant’s wrist with his shoes on, fracturing the applicant’s left middle finger and scraping his left wrist. As a result of the ill-treatment, the applicant made a confession about the robbery. 14.  At the police station the applicant fully admitted his guilt and gave written statements of confession which read as follows:
“On the night of 28 February I committed a [robbery in a shop] in the following circumstances ... We rang a doorbell. The door was opened and we went down the stairs. Thereafter the police arrested us. One of us had a sawn-off shotgun. I do not remember who it was. I had black gloves on my hands. The robbery was aimed at [getting hold of] a cash box with RUB 170,000 [around 4,500 euros] [in it]. The other [robbers] had scarves and black gloves to prevent their identification.
The present statements were written [by me] in the absence of physical or psychological pressure.” 15.  Thereafter at about 11 a.m. the applicant was provided with first aid. The doctor who came from the first-aid station to examine the applicant issued the following medical certificate:
“[The present document], given to [the applicant], certifies that on 29 February 2004 at 11.20 a.m. [the applicant] consulted a doctor in connection with a contused wound on his scalp, a bruise, scrapes on the third and fourth fingers of his left hand, a fracture of the third finger of the left hand and a fracture of his nose...”. 16.  On an unspecified date the applicant asked the Prosecutor for the Perm Region to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the alleged ill‑treatment by the police officers. On 17 June 2004 his request was transmitted to the Perm Sverdlovskiy District Prosecutor’s Office (“the prosecutor’s office”). 17.  In response to the applicant’s request the prosecutor’s office questioned K., one of the police officers who had taken part in the police operation of 29 February 2004. 18.  On the same date, 17 June 2004, the prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings, having found as follows:
“... The results of the investigation [performed in connection with the applicant’s request] show no evidence which would allow a finding that officer K. from the organised crime squad abused his power. K. stated that on 29 February 2004 he and his colleagues had arrested [the applicant] and other individuals involved in [the robbery]. During the arrest they had to make use of a service gun, because [the applicant] had a sawn-off shotgun. In this connection the prosecutor’s office performed a preliminary check under Articles 144-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Russia (“CCrP”). It refused to institute criminal proceedings.
After the robbery, [the investigative authorities] instituted criminal proceedings against [the applicant] on suspicion of him having committed the crime specified in Article 162 of the Criminal Code of Russia (“CC”). K. was the police officer in charge of the investigation. He had a number of exchanges with the applicant. However no psychological pressure or physical force was used by K. against him.
The above leads to the conclusion that [the applicant] misinterpreted the situation. There is no evidence which would support his accusation...” 19.  The applicant sought judicial review of that decision, stating that he had not been questioned in connection with the alleged ill-treatment. He also noted that the investigating authorities had failed to join medical documents related to his injuries to the case file and had failed to identify the police officers who had beaten him. 20.  On 29 July 2004 the Perm Sverdlovskiy District Court (“the district court”) quashed the decision of 17 June 2004 on appeal. It held that the investigation had been superficial. In particular, the district court noted that the investigative authorities had failed to question the applicant and the police officers who arrested him, or to examine medical records relating to the applicant’s injuries. 21.  On 28 August 2004, in the course of a new round of investigation, the prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. In its relevant part, that decision reads as follows:
“... The investigation, performed between 25 and 28 August 2004, did not lead to a finding that the police officers had abused their power.
Thus I., the senior police investigator in charge of the [applicant’s] case, noted that... the applicant had been arrested by the police at the scene [of the crime] while committing the robbery of a shop. During his arrest the police had used force and a service gun in respect of the [applicant] and his accomplice because [the applicant] had been carrying a sawn-off shotgun. In this connection the prosecutor’s office performed a preliminary investigation under Articles 144-5 of the CCrP. It refused to institute criminal proceedings.
The investigative authorities have added to the case file written statements of the police officers in connection with [the events of 29 February 2004]. It was not possible to examine [all of the officers involved], since several of them were stationed in the Chechen Republic.
When questioned, investigator I. noted that during the preliminary investigation the police officers had not used psychological pressure or physical force against [the applicant]. She insisted that [the applicant] had attempted to avoid criminal liability ...” 22.  On 5 October 2004 the court granted the applicant’s appeal and quashed the prosecutor’s decision. The court used the same reasoning as before (see paragraphs 19 and 20). It held that the investigation had not been through. 23.  In line with the recommendations given in the court decision, the investigative authorities carried out additional investigative actions. They questioned the applicant and M., Head of the criminal investigation unit. They also examined medical records relating to the applicant’s injuries. 24.  On 26 October 2004 the prosecutor’s office again rejected the applicant’s request that it institute criminal proceedings, resorting, in the main, to the same arguments as before. The reasons for the refusal read as follows:
“... During the additional investigation the [prosecutor’s office] questioned [the applicant,] who stated that he had not been involved in the robbery. According to him, he had had a meeting with a friend near the shop and shortly thereafter he was arbitrarily arrested by the police.
The [temporary detention facility] provided the prosecutor’s office with documents confirming [the applicant’s] injuries. However criminal case no. 2948 showed that [the applicant] had taken part in the robbery of the shop.
During the present inquiry the investigating authorities also questioned M., Head of the criminal investigation unit, who explained that [the applicant] and his acquaintances had committed [the robbery of a shop]. According to him, the police officers had had to use force against the robbers because they had had a sawn-off shotgun and had resisted arrest ...” 25.  On 17 February 2005 the court quashed the decision of 26 October 2004 and noted that the investigative authorities had failed to comply with the previous court decision. 26.  On 14 March 2005 the investigative authorities again issued a decision not to institute a criminal case against the police officers, having summarised their previous findings once more. Apparently, no additional measures were performed by the prosecutor’s office in that round of investigation. 27.  On 25 April 2005 the court again quashed the prosecutor’s office’s decision. It held that the investigation had been superficial and flawed. It required the prosecutor’s office to perform an expert examination of the applicant’s injuries and to question all eyewitnesses to the applicant’s arrest and interrogation. 28.  From the documents submitted it is apparent that on 20 May and 30 June 2005 the prosecutor’s office repeatedly held that there was no reason to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the alleged ill‑treatment. These decisions were subsequently quashed as unfounded. 29.  On 22 August 2005 the prosecutor’s office dismissed the applicant’s allegations. The decision reads as follows:
“... In the course of the additional investigation the prosecutor’s office questioned [two police officers involved in the applicant’s arrest]. They explained that they had used physical force against the applicant because he had been involved in an armed robbery of a shop.
From the conversation with forensic expert V. it was found that the [applicant’s] injuries could not have been inflicted from [a person of the applicant’s] height falling over. However, this fact was disputed. The physical force was applied in respect of [the applicant] because his criminal actions had put the lives and health of the police officers in danger.
When additionally questioned, K. stated that he had had a conversation with [the applicant] in the police station. However he had not put physical or psychological pressure on him. Two other police officers had also had conversations with [the applicant]. K. did not remember their names owing to the lapse of time of one‑and‑a‑half years. According to K., they not had put any pressure on [the applicant]. Only the police officers had had access to [the applicant] in the police station.
When additionally questioned, [the applicant] explained that two police officers, M. and A., had used force against him in the shop. They had broken his nose and middle finger. He noted that the police actions had been video recorded. He also stated that he had only had contact with police officers after his arrest. He sought the criminal prosecution of the police officers under Articles 114 [use of excessive force in self‑defence resulting in severe and moderately severe injuries], 286 [abuse of power], and 301 [unlawful detention] of the CC.
When additionally questioned, M., Head of the criminal investigation unit, noted that he had pushed [the applicant] down the stairs during the police operation. [The applicant] had lost his balance and had fallen down. Subsequently he had been provided with first aid. No one had used force against him in the police station with the aim of obtaining a confession.
The investigative authorities examined a video record of the arrest of 29 February 2004. In this video one of the police officers, apparently M., had asked [the applicant] to state his name. Thereafter [the applicant] had been asked about the reasons for his arrest. [The applicant] had replied that he had been arrested because of his involvement in the robbery of a shop. He had also explained that a mask which was nearby belonged to him. Subsequently the police officer, apparently M., had noted “he wanted to do porridge” (the record is blurred). No one had used degrading phrases. M. had not told [the applicant] “no one will beat you any more”. No one had beaten [the applicant] on camera. [The applicant] had already had injuries on his face.
Consequently, the investigative authorities could not accept that the beating had been video recorded.
When additionally questioned, Sh., Deputy Head of the criminal investigation unit, noted that force had been used in respect of [the applicant] because he had been caught at the place of the incident. No one had applied force to [the applicant] at the police station. It was [the applicant] who had asked for some paper to make a written statement in connection with the incident. No one had put pressure on him.
It was impossible to examine police officer A., involved in the arrest, as he was stationed in the Republic of Chechnya. However, during the previous investigation the prosecutor’s office examined [three of the police officers who had taken part in the applicant’s arrest]. They stated that the police had only applied force to [the applicant] during his arrest.
From a conversation with G., [Deputy Head of the forensic bureau], it was made clear that it was impossible to perform a forensic medical examination in regard to [the applicant’s] injuries without relevant X-ray images, which had not been found [by the prosecutor’s office].
Owing to the lapse of time it was impossible to examine the doctor who had provided [the applicant] with first aid.
From the above it is clear that [the applicant’s] statements were given in an attempt to avoid criminal liability for the offence committed. No one committed a criminal offence against [the applicant]. Force was applied in respect of [the applicant] because he had committed a robbery of a shop. There is no evidence that the applicant was beaten in the shop after arrest or in the police station. It should be noted that [the applicant] was convicted of the criminal offence. The sentence has not yet entered into legal force”. 30.  The applicant appealed against that decision. He claimed that the investigating authorities had failed to join medical documents to his file and to question the doctor who had provided him with medical assistance. 31.  On 12 October 2005 the court quashed the above decision. It held that the investigation had been insufficiently thorough. It was pointed out that the prosecutor’s office had not taken the necessary steps to acquire the applicant’s medical documents and to find the doctor who had provided the applicant with first aid. 32.  On 7 November 2005 the prosecutor’s office rejected the applicant’s request that it institute criminal proceedings. This decision repeated the previous one word for word, save for two additional paragraphs:
“During the investigation performed between 27 October and 7 November 2005 there was no opportunity to examine [the doctor who provided the applicant with first aid]. The medical documents of 29 February 2004 had been destroyed.
The prosecutor’s office found X-ray images of the [applicant’s] injuries. However an expert examination had not been ordered owing to the expiry of the term for additional investigation ...” 33.  The applicant contested the decision not to institute criminal proceedings in court. He stressed that the prosecutor’s office had refused to assess whether the use of force had been necessary in the circumstances of his arrest. The applicant also noted that the investigator had failed to order an expert examination of his injuries and failed to question all of the officers involved and the doctor who had examined him after the events of 29 February 2004. 34.  On 30 December 2005 the court quashed the decision of 7 November 2005. It held that the investigative authorities had failed to question the staff of the first-aid station and to check whether the documents relating to the applicant’s injuries had been destroyed. The court also emphasised that the failure to order an expert examination of the applicant’s injuries could not be justified by the expiration of the term of investigation. 35.  On 24 November 2005 in the course of a new round of investigation the prosecutor’s office issued a new decision not to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. It essentially reiterated the previous findings. In its relevant part it reads as follows:
“... On 17 June 2004 the [prosecutor’s office] received [the applicant’s] complaint transmitted from the Prosecutor’s Office for the Perm Region. In the complaint [the applicant] stated that on 29 February 2004 he had committed a robbery of a shop between 1 a.m. and 4 a.m. According to him, police officers ill-treated him during his interrogation. The alleged ill-treatment resulted in bodily injuries. During the arrest the police officers had used a service gun against one of [the applicant’s] acquaintances, who subsequently died.
On 17 June 2004 [the prosecutor’s office] refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. On 29 July 2004 [the court] quashed that decision. It held that the decision had been unlawful and unfounded. On 25 August [the prosecutor’s office] ordered an additional investigation into the applicant’s complaints.
The investigation, performed between 25 and 28 August 2004, did not lead to a finding that the police officers had abused their power.
Thus I., the senior police investigator in charge of the [applicant’s] case, noted that... the applicant had been arrested by the police at the scene [of the crime while] committing the robbery of a shop. During his arrest the police had used force and a service gun against the [applicant] and his accomplice because [the applicant] had been carrying a sawn-off shotgun. In this connection, the prosecutor’s office performed a preliminary investigation under Articles 144-5 of the CCrP. It refused to institute criminal proceedings.
The investigative authorities have added to the case file written statements of the police officers in connection with [the events of 29 February 2004]. It was impossible to examine [all of the officers involved] since several of them were stationed in the Chechen Republic.
When questioned, investigator I. stated that during the preliminary investigation the police officers had not used psychological pressure or physical force against [the applicant]. She insisted that [the applicant] had attempted to avoid criminal liability.
On 28 August 2004 [the prosecutor’s office] refused to institute criminal proceedings upon the applicant’s request. On 5 October 2004 [the court] quashed that decision. It held that the decision had been unlawful and unfounded. On 25 October [the prosecutor’s office] transmitted the case for additional investigation.
In the course of the additional investigation the [prosecutor’s office] questioned [the applicant,] who stated that he had not been involved in the robbery. According to him, he had had a meeting with a friend near the shop and shortly thereafter he was arbitrarily arrested by the police.
The [temporary detention facility] provided the prosecutor’s office with documents confirming [applicant’s] injuries. However the materials in the file concerning criminal case no. 2948 showed that [the applicant] had taken part in the robbery of the shop.
During the present inquiry the investigating authorities also questioned M., Head of the criminal investigation unit, who explained that [the applicant] and his acquaintances had committed [a robbery of a shop]. According to him, the police officers had had to use force against the robbers because they had had a sawn-off shotgun and had resisted arrest.
When additionally questioned, K. stated that he had had a conversation with [the applicant] in the police station. However he had not put physical or psychological pressure on him. Two other police officers had also had conversations with [the applicant]. K. did not remember their names owing to the lapse of time of one‑and‑a‑half years. According to K., they had not put pressure on [the applicant]. Only the police officers had had access to [the applicant] in the police station.
In the course of the additional investigation the prosecutor’s office questioned [two police officers involved in the applicant’s arrest]. They explained that they had used physical force against the applicant because he had been involved in the armed robbery of the shop.
From the conversation with expert V. it was established that the [applicant’s] injuries could not have been inflicted from [a person of the applicant’s] height falling over. However this fact was not disputed. Physical force was applied to [the applicant] because his criminal actions had put the lives and health of the police officers in danger.
When additionally questioned, [the applicant] explained that in the shop two police officers, M. and A., had used force against him. They had broken his nose and middle finger. He noted that the police actions had been video recorded. He also stated that he had only had contact with police officers after his arrest. He sought the criminal prosecution of the police officers under Articles 114 [use of excessive force in self‑defence resulting in severe and moderately severe injuries], 286 [abuse of power], and 301 [unlawful detention] of the CC.
When additionally questioned, M., Head of the criminal investigation unit, noted that he had pushed [the applicant] down the stairs during the police operation. [The applicant] had lost his balance and had fallen down. Subsequently he had been provided with first aid. No one had used force against him in the police station in order to obtain a confession.
The investigative authorities examined a video record of the arrest of 29 February 2004. In this video one of the police officers, apparently M., asked [the applicant] his name. Thereafter [the applicant] was asked about the reasons for his arrest. [The applicant] replied that he had been arrested because of his involvement in the robbery of the shop. He also explained that a mask belonged to him. Subsequently the police officer, apparently M., noted “he wanted to do porridge” (the record is blurred). No one used degrading phrases. M. did not tell [the applicant] “no one will beat you any more”. No one beat [the applicant] on camera. [Upon filming the applicant] already had injuries on his face.
Consequently the investigative authorities could not accept that the beating had been video recorded.
When additionally questioned, Sh., Deputy Head of the criminal investigation unit, observed that force had been used against the applicant because he had been caught at the place of the incident. No one had used force against [the applicant] in the police station. It was [the applicant] who had asked for some paper [on which] to give a written statement in connection with the incident. No one had put pressure on him.
It was impossible to examine police officer A., [who had been] involved in the arrest. He was [now] stationed in the Republic of Chechnya. However during the previous investigation the prosecutor’s office had examined [three of the police officers who had taken part in the applicant’s arrest]. They stated that the police had only applied force on [the applicant] during his arrest.
From a conversation with G., [Deputy Head of the Forensic Bureau], it is clear that it was not possible to perform an expert forensic examination as regards [the applicant’s] injuries without relevant X-ray images, which had not been found [by the prosecutor’s office].
Owing to the lapse of time it is not possible to examine the doctor who provided [the applicant] with first aid.
From the above it follows that [the applicant’s] statements were given in an attempt to avoid criminal liability for the offence in question. No one committed criminal offences against [the applicant]. Force was applied against [the applicant] because he had committed a robbery of a shop. There is no evidence that the applicant was beaten in the shop after his arrest or in the police station. It should be noted that [the applicant] was convicted of the criminal offence. The sentence has entered into legal force.
The expert forensic examination undertaken indicated that [the fracture of the applicant’s finger] was a tapping [fracture] caused by a sliding impact of a blunt object. These injuries are moderately serious, owing to the length of incapacitation, amounting to twenty one days, caused.
However, no one has cast doubt on the fact that the police inflicted body injuries. Force was used against [the applicant] because he was caught red handed during the robbery of the shop. The fact that the applicant had fallen down the stairs was confirmed by the expert’s report.
From the findings of the investigation it is clear that [the applicant’s] allegations were made in an attempt to avoid criminal liability for the offence committed. No one committed criminal offences against [the applicant]. Force was used on [the applicant] because he took part in the robbery of the shop. There is no evidence that [the applicant] was beaten in the shop after his arrest or in the police station. It should be noted that [the applicant] was convicted of the criminal offence. The sentence has entered into legal force ...
On these grounds the [prosecutor’s office] decides not to institute a criminal case against police officers K., Sh., M., A. and [others] on suspicion of having committed the crimes specified in Articles 114 [use of excessive force in self-defence resulting in severe and moderately severe injuries], 286 [abuse of power], and 302 [forcing a confession] ...” 36.  In his subsequent appeal against the above decision the applicant claimed that the prosecutor’s office had not followed the court’s indications. He pointed out that the investigator had refused to assess the need for the use of force against him and had not ordered an expert examination of the injuries to his nose. 37.  On 23 January 2006 the court quashed the decision of 24 November 2005. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“The analysis of the investigation file shows ... that despite the binding force of [this] court’s decisions, the court’s indications have been disregarded by the prosecutor’s office.
The court observes that there is an insufficient amount of evidence in the case file to conclude that the police officers did not ill-treat [the applicant].
The doctor who provided [the applicant] with first aid was not examined. From the investigator’s report it is clear that [the doctor] had been called on to give a statement but [that] she failed to appear without any valid reasons. It is also evident that [another doctor] was not examined owing to him being on annual leave. No information about the period of leave was given. The prosecutor’s office did not check whether he had left Perm or not.
In the case file there is a certificate issued by the first aid station which stated that the medical documents should be kept for one year and then destroyed. However there is no information about destruction of the medical documents [concerning the events] of 29 February 2004.
In the impugned decision the [prosecutor’s office] stated that it had not been possible to examine police officer A. because he was stationed in the Chechen Republic. However the report drafted by the investigator in that regard does not contain information about the period of his deployment there. There is no evidence that A. was ever called upon to give evidence in November 2005.
In addition, in the decision in question ... there is reference to the expert forensic examination regarding the fracture of [the applicant’s finger]. The expert noted that the injury [was a] tapping [fracture which] had been caused by a sliding impact of a blunt object. This injury was moderately serious owing to the length of the incapacitation [it caused], which amounted to twenty-one days. At the same time the aforementioned expert examination had been carried out on 5 December and signed by the expert on 7 December 2005. Thus it was issued later than the impugned decision.
Hence the decision in question is unlawful and unfounded. It was issued prematurely and should be quashed. In the expert examination there is no assessment of the fracture of [the applicant’s] nose.
Taking into account the above findings and Article 125 of the CCrP, the court grants the [applicant’s] claim and quashes the decision of 24 November 2005 given by the [prosecutor’s office] ...” 38.  On 5 December 2006 the prosecutor’s office issued a tenth refusal to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. According to the applicant, he was not provided with a copy of that decision and therefore had no opportunity to challenge it in court. 39.  On 8 February 2005 the Perm Regional Court, referring, among other pieces of evidence, to the applicant’s self-incriminating statements of 29 February 2004 (see paragraph 14 above), convicted the applicant of organised aggravated robbery and an unrelated count of theft. The applicant received a sentence of seven years and a half of imprisonment. 40.  The applicant appealed. He submitted, in particular, that he had given his confession under duress. He referred to the medical certificate which had established the bodily injuries allegedly inflicted on him during his ill-treatment in the police station. 41.  On 2 August 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the applicant’s conviction for theft and upheld his conviction of organised aggravated robbery.