5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Simferopol. 6.  On the night of 14 to 15 March 2001 the applicant and three co-suspects were arrested on suspicion of armed robbery. After the arrest the applicant was taken into police custody at the Simferopol District Police Station (“the Police Station”). 7.  According to the applicant, during the time he was held in the Police Station, from 15 to 18 March 2001, he was repeatedly punched and kicked by several police officers for the purpose of extracting from him a confession that he had committed the crime. 8.  On 18 March 2001 the applicant was brought before the prosecutor, to whom he complained about the ill-treatment. 9.  On the same day the applicant was taken to Simferopol City Hospital No. 6 and to the Semashko Central Hospital, where the doctors established that the applicant had suffered injuries to the soft tissue of his head and sustained bruises on his face. The same day the applicant was admitted to the Simferopol City Temporary Detention Centre. 10.  On 19 March 2001 the applicant was examined by an expert of the Crimean Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations. During the examination the applicant stated that the injuries had been inflicted on him by police officers. The expert who examined him established that the applicant had sustained bruises on the lower eyelids of both eyes and on the left ear, with abrasions on the right temple and lower lip. Those injuries cumulatively qualified as minor bodily injuries. The expert assumed that the injuries could have been caused to the applicant in the period between four and seven days before the examination; however, the abrasion of the lower lip could have been sustained two days before the examination. The expert further opined that the injuries were caused by blunt objects with limited impact surface, in this case possibly fists or booted legs. 11.  On 29 March 2001 another expert of the Crimean Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations examined the applicant and did not find any injuries on him. 12.  In letters of 29 and 31 May 2001 the Crimean Police Department, upon the request of the applicant’s mother, informed her that the internal inquiry had not revealed any wrongdoing by the police officers with respect to the applicant. Following these replies the applicant and his relatives lodged a number of other complaints with various police officials and prosecutors claiming that the applicant had been ill-treated. Their complaints were dismissed as unsubstantiated. 13.  On 5 November 2002, after the conviction of the applicant and his three co-defendants, the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Simferopol (the “Zheleznodorozhnyy Court”) issued a separate ruling, noting that during the trial proceedings it had been established that the defendants had not had any injuries when arrested and that the applicant, Mr S. and Mr Sh. had sustained injuries while in police custody. The court “brought to the attention” of the Prosecutor of the Crimea that the three defendants had sustained injuries during pre-trial proceedings and suggested that the offenders be identified and punished. 14.  On 22 November 2002 an investigator of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Crimea (“the POC”) found no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the police officers and decided not to institute criminal proceedings against them. 15.  On 25 February 2003 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopol (“the Tsentralnyy Court”), upon the applicant’s appeal, quashed the decision of 22 November 2002 as unfounded and ordered further investigation. The court stated, inter alia, that the investigator had disregarded the fact, established by the Zheleznodorozhnyy Court, that the injuries had been suffered by the applicant in the Police Station and that no attempt had been made to establish the circumstances in which those injuries had been caused. 16.  On 27 March 2003 the POC’s investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s complaints, finding, in particular, that the injuries sustained by the applicant in the Police Station could have been self-inflicted and caused by impacts against the wall. 17.  On 7 May 2003 the Tsentralnyy Court quashed the investigator’s decision of 27 March 2003, holding that the inquiry had been insufficient. The court pointed out the following discrepancies in the inquiry:
-  the investigator had failed to establish the exact place in the Police Station where the applicant had sustained the injuries; he did not clarify whether the applicant had hit the wall himself or had been made to hit the wall by others; he did not inspect the wall;
-  the investigator had closed the case against the police officers, whereas the offence as such, committed by unknown persons, was still open for investigation;
-  the investigator had failed to explain the inconsistency of his conclusion with the medical expert’s report of 19 March 2001, which described a number of injuries to the applicant’s head and which stated that the injuries had been caused by blunt objects with a limited impact surface, whereas the wall, having a flat surface, could not qualify as such an object. 18.  On 19 May 2003 the POC instituted criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s complaints and transmitted the case to the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Prosecutor’s Office for investigation. 19.  On 20 November 2003 the investigator of the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Prosecutor’s Office terminated the investigation into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment, finding that there was no evidence of any crime having been committed. The investigator stated, in particular, that the difference between the medical conclusions of 19 and 29 March 2001 could be explained by the fact that the applicant had recovered by the latter date. The investigator did not provide any explanation of how the applicant could have sustained the injuries recorded by the expert on 19 March 2001 and established by the ruling of the Zheleznodorozhnyy Court of 5 November 2002. 20.  On 3 December 2003 the applicant challenged the decision of 20 November 2003 before the court stating, in particular, that the investigator had failed to establish how the injuries had been inflicted on the applicant. 21.  On 23 March 2004 the Zheleznodorozhnyy Court upheld the decision of 20 November 2003, finding that the investigation had been sufficient. 22.  On 27 April 2004 the Court of Appeal of the Crimea (the “Court of Appeal”), following a hearing held in the absence of the applicant and his representative, upheld the Zheleznodorozhnyy Court’s decision of 23 March 2004. 23.  The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation, stating, inter alia, that neither he nor his representative had been notified of the hearing before the Court of Appeal. 24.  On 20 January 2005 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Court of Appeal and remitted the case for a new appeal hearing, finding that the applicant’s representative had not been properly served with the summons. 25.  On 26 April 2005 the Court of Appeal re-examined the applicant’s appeal in the presence of his representative and rejected it as unsubstantiated. 26.  On 17 November 2005 the applicant’s appeal in cassation was dismissed by the Supreme Court as unfounded.