5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Togliatti, in the Samara Region. 6.  On 31 August 2004 the applicant was arrested in his flat on suspicion of drug-related offences after a “test purchase” of heroin, which involved his girlfriend, Ms P., acting on instructions from State agents, and which was supervised by the police. 7.  During the arrest the police officers pushed the applicant to the floor and handcuffed him. After the arrest the applicant was taken to the police station. In his submission, he stated that he had been beaten up by officers R. and K. in the presence of their superior S. and other unspecified officers throughout the evening and night until 5 a.m. the next day. During the interrogations the applicant’s hands were allegedly attached to a radiator with handcuffs while the officers beat and kicked him. The applicant also alleged that a plastic bag had been put over his head to restrict his air supply; the officers subjected the applicant to insults and threatened to kill him if he refused to confess. 8.  It remains unclear at precisely what time after his arrest the applicant was placed in the temporary detention facility of the Togliatti police department (“the IVS”). 9.  On 1 September 2004 a medical certificate was issued confirming that the applicant had a chest injury. 10.  On 2 September 2004 a judge authorised the applicant’s continued detention on suspicion of drug trafficking. 11.  On 3 September 2004 the IVS personnel arranged for the applicant to be examined by a traumatologist. On the same date the traumatologist diagnosed the applicant with a closed rib fracture. 12.  On 6 September 2004 the applicant complained to the Avtozavodskiy district prosecutor’s office of Togliatti (“the prosecutor’s office”) about his ill-treatment, first in Ms P.’s flat and then in the police station (his letters nos. 57/13-1116 and 57/13-1117). 13.  On 13 September 2004 an investigator from the prosecutor’s office instituted a preliminary criminal inquiry. It was claimed that the applicant’s complaint had been received on 13 September 2004. 14.  On 23 September 2004 the investigator from the prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of any criminal event. The decision referred to the applicant’s account of events, according to which two police officers had beaten and kicked him repeatedly in his flat; to depositions by several police officers, who all claimed that the applicant had resisted arrest and had then been handcuffed but had not been beaten at any time; to statements by four of the applicant’s fellow inmates in the IVS, who submitted that the applicant “had not looked like someone with a broken rib”; and to the testimony of Ms P., who stated that the applicant had tried to jump out of the window during the arrest but had been handcuffed. The decision further referred to a registration log maintained by the IVS – in which it was stated that the applicant had arrived at the facility in good health but with an abrasion on his knee – and to the traumatologist’s examination of 3 September 2004 confirming that the applicant had had a rib fractured. The investigator concluded that the applicant had been injured “under unknown circumstances”. 15.  On 11 December 2004 the Avtozavodskiy District Court of Togliatti (“the district court”) convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment and a fine of 10,000 Russian roubles. Despite a request from the applicant, the trial court confined its inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment after the arrest to the reading out of the investigator’s refusal to institute proceedings dated 23 September 2004. The applicant appealed against the trial judgment, seeking a reclassification of the charge and a reduction in the prison term. On 25 February 2005 the Samara Regional Court (“the regional court”) upheld the conviction. 16.  On 24 March 2005 the deputy prosecutor of the Samara Region quashed the decision of 23 September 2004 and ordered an additional preliminary inquiry to be carried out. 17.  On 16 April 2005 the same investigator from the prosecutor’s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. The decision reproduced verbatim the text of the decision of 23 September 2004 save for the results of the additional inquiry, which were as follows. A police officer who had not been present at the time of the applicant’s arrest had been questioned. Neither the applicant’s fellow inmates nor the two police officers who had formally registered the applicant’s arrival at the IVS had been questioned. The medical certificates confirming the chest injury and the rib fracture had been obtained. The applicant explained that the chest injury had been a result of his falling over in the street and the fracture had been caused by the beatings by the police officers. The medical experts had confirmed that the applicant had sustained minor bodily injuries. The investigator concluded that the applicant had “possibly sustained injuries during the period between 1 and 3 September 2004 under unknown circumstances”. 18.  On 19 December 2005 the deputy prosecutor of the Samara Region quashed the decision of 16 April 2005 and ordered an additional inquiry to be carried out. 19.  On 6 January 2006 an investigator from the prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for the third time. The decision reproduced verbatim the one of 16 April 2005 and also included statements by two officers from the IVS – who claimed that upon his arrival to the facility the applicant had not made any complaints about his health – and statements from ex-girlfriends of four of the applicant’s former fellow inmates, who submitted that they had no information as to the whereabouts of those men. The investigator concluded that the applicant had “possibly sustained injuries during the period between 1 and 3 September 2004 in unknown circumstances or had possibly self‑inflicted them in order to avoid prosecution for the crime he had committed”. 20.  On an unspecified date the decision of 6 January 2006 was quashed. 21.  On 4 April 2007 an investigator from the prosecutor’s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of any criminal event. The investigator considered – with reference to statements by officers K., R., S. and another officer M. – that the applicant had resisted lawful arrest following the “test purchase” on 31 August 2004 and that no physical force had been used except for handcuffing the applicant to prevent him resisting. The investigator also referred to statements made by the four IVS inmates questioned at the beginning of the inquiry in 2004. They affirmed that the applicant had told them about his resistance to the arrest. The investigator concluded that “the bodily injuries inflicted on the applicant had not been confirmed by anything except medical certificates and, owing to the objective impossibility of carrying out a forensic examination, it would be impossible to determine when and how the injuries had been caused”. 22.  On 11 March 2008 the district court upheld the refusal of 4 April 2007 on judicial review. On 30 May 2008 the regional court upheld the first-instance decision. 23.  On 28 August 2008 the Presidium of the Regional Court granted the applicant’s request for supervisory review of the judgment of 25 February 2005, reclassified the charge as an attempt to supply drugs, and reduced the sentence to six years and six months. 24.  On 18 September 2009 the district court again examined the applicant’s complaint – under Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure – concerning the refusal, dated 4 April 2007, to institute a criminal investigation, noted that the applicant himself had withdrawn the complaint in the course of the court hearing, and dismissed it. The decision explicitly stated that the applicant’s complaint concerning the alleged ill‑treatment had been received by the Samara regional prosecutor’s office on 6 September 2004. 25.  In 2009 the applicant was conditionally released from prison.