5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and is detained in prison no. 9 in Pruncul, Republic of Moldova. 6.  On 22 September 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft and taken to the Centru police station in Chişinău. He was healthy and did not have any injuries. 7.  According to the applicant, he was beaten up at the police station to make him confess to a crime which he had not committed. He was then placed in a cell and denied medical assistance. 8.  At midnight on the same date the applicant was again beaten by a police officer and the investigator in charge of his case. He was thrown to the ground and the officers kicked and punched him all over the body, while demanding a confession. The applicant was left in the cell unconscious and bleeding from the nose, mouth and ears. 9.  The cell in which he was initially held had no furniture and there was no toilet. The applicant did not receive any food or water during his detention at the police station. 10.  According to the applicant, on 23 September 2006 the applicant was to be transferred to the General Police Headquarters (“the GPH”). However, when the GPH officers discovered the extent of the applicant’s injuries they refused to accept the transfer. Police officers from the Centru police station then escorted him to a hospital where they spoke to doctors and obtained a certificate from them. The applicant did not see the certificate and was not seen by the doctors before it was issued. 11.  According to the Government, the applicant was seen by a doctor at the emergency hospital on 23 September 2006. The doctor found bruises on the applicant’s body, as follows: contusion of tissue on his left elbow, contusion of soft tissue on the head and the cervical region and contusion of soft tissue of the thorax. The applicant underwent an X-ray examination. A traumatology doctor, a surgeon and a neurosurgeon examined the applicant, who was prescribed outpatient treatment. 12.  After being seen by the emergency doctor on 23 September 2006, the applicant was transported back to the GPH and admitted. He claims that he did not even receive a slice of bread until 24 September 2006. Also on 24 September 2006 the applicant was brought before prosecutor C. and complained to him that he had been ill-treated. According to the applicant, the investigator asked C. to request a court order for the applicant’s detention for thirty days. However, C. considered that were the applicant to be brought before an investigating judge, the latter would inquire about the applicant’s injuries and insist on the prosecution of those responsible. That is why he decided to release the applicant, in the hope that he would not complain of ill-treatment. 13.  After his release the applicant went directly to the Centru district prosecutor’s office and waited for C. to return. The applicant asked to be examined by a forensic doctor to confirm the existence and seriousness of the injuries on his body. C. refused to issue such an order until 26 September 2006. On that day the applicant visited a forensic doctor, who found injuries on the applicant’s body, as follows: two haematomas on the nose covered with a red crust measuring 0.3 x 0.1 cm and 0.5 x 0.3 cm respectively and a cyan-red haematoma measuring 1.3 x 0.4 cm; haemorrhage in the tissue of both lips with raw skin covered with a white substance; pronounced oedema of the left elbow, limited movement due to pain; cyan-violet-yellow haematomas on various parts of the left arm and elbow measuring 2.7 x 2 to 14 x 6.5 cm; two areas of raw skin covered with brown crust in the lumbar region of the back at rib level measuring 3 x 0.1 cm and 2.8 x 1.5 cm; on the right side of the spine at the level of vertebrae 6-7 a cyan-green haematoma measuring 4 x 2 cm. 14.  The doctor also noted that the applicant had had radiography. From the results obtained on 26 September 2006 the forensic doctor concluded that a bone had been broken in the applicant’s left elbow. In addition, left ribs nine and ten had been broken. The medical report was submitted to the prosecutor. 15.  On 12 June 2007 another specialised doctor (A.V.) examined the medical reports of 23 and 26 September 2006. In his opinion of 9 August 2007 A.V. concluded that the applicant had sustained his injuries on 25‑26 September 2006, judging by the absence of any signs of broken bones in the X-ray exam of 23 September 2006 and their presence in the X-ray exam of 26 September 2006 and in view of the colour of the haematomas on the applicant’s body as described in the report of 26 September 2006. 16.  According to the applicant, at his request on 13 October 2006 the prosecutor initiated a criminal investigation of his alleged ill-treatment, but then discontinued it. Following his complaints to the investigating judge, the investigation was reopened. Subsequently it was discontinued again, only to be reopened following another court order. 17.  During the investigation a number of police officers involved in apprehending and detaining the applicant on 22-24 September 2006 were interviewed. All of them denied having seen any injuries on the applicant’s body. One of them (C. V., the officer charged with the applicant’s case) declared that the applicant could not have been beaten up by unknown persons prior to his arrest since at the relevant time he had already been arrested. Moreover, he had not seen any injuries on the applicant’s body and he did not know who had taken the applicant to the hospital on 23 September 2006. Another officer (I. M.) was interviewed as a suspect, since the applicant remembered that one of his alleged torturers was called “Iurie”. I. M. stated that between the applicant’s arrest on 26 September 2006 at 9.35 p.m. and the next morning at 9 a.m. when he went home he had not seen any injuries on the applicant’s body. He found out later that on 23 September 2006 at 2.30 p.m. the applicant had been taken to a hospital. Other officers denied having seen any injuries on the applicant’s body at the time of his arrest or release. The applicant was officially declared a victim (partea vătămată) on 9 November 2006 and was heard on that day by the prosecutor. A number of the police officers were interviewed by C., the prosecutor in charge of the theft case against the applicant. 18.  On 28 June 2007 the applicant hired a lawyer to represent him. On the same day the lawyer asked the Chişinău prosecutor to send him copies of all the complaints made by the applicant to law-enforcement authorities in connection with his alleged ill-treatment, as well as copies of all the materials of the investigation initiated at his request. The lawyer informed the prosecutor that the applicant intended to lodge an application with the Court and noted that any refusal by the State authorities to make available documents concerning the applicant’s complaint could lead to a violation of Article 34 of the Convention. 19.  On 18 July 2007 the Chişinău prosecutor informed the applicant’s lawyer that his request had been rejected on 16 July 2007 in the part concerning supply of copies of the complaints made by the applicant and documents in the file. The prosecutor added that the Code of Criminal Procedure did not provide for the right of a victim (partea vătămată) to examine the materials obtained within the framework of a criminal investigation before the end of that investigation, except for reports concerning investigative acts in which the victim had participated. The investigation into the applicant’s complaint was still ongoing and no decision had been taken. The prosecutor added that his decision could be appealed against to a superior prosecutor. According to the Government, and not contradicted by the applicant, no challenge to that decision had been made before the investigating judge. 20.  On 31 July 2007 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a complaint with the Centru District Court in which he asked the court to find that the applicant had been detained in inhuman conditions of detention, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, that he had been ill-treated by police and that no effective investigation of the ill-treatment had been carried out. He also sought a finding of a violation of Article 8 because of interference with the applicant’s correspondence. He finally asked the court to order the prosecution to fully investigate the alleged ill-treatment and to suspend the police officers accused of ill-treatment pending the investigation. The applicant’s lawyer also asked for damages to be paid to his client. 21.  On 14 August 2007 the Centru District Court rejected the applicant’s lawyer’s complaint, finding that he had not challenged any specific decision of the prosecutor before the court. As for the damages claimed, these could be sought in a civil court action. Moreover, the applicant had not specifically authorised his lawyer to lodge such a court action. That decision was final. 22.  The Government submitted, without annexing any documents, that on 5 June 2008 the prosecutor had decided to stay the criminal investigation of the applicant’s complaint if ill-treatment. The applicant’s lawyer challenged that decision before the investigating judge, who revoked it on 18 November 2008. The prosecutor adopted another decision to discontinue the investigation on 21 July 2009. At the applicant’s lawyer’s request that decision was revoked by the investigating judge on 23 October 2009.
On 26 January 2010 the prosecutor again decided to stay the investigation. On 20 July 2011 the applicant’s lawyer challenged that decision before the hierarchically superior prosecutor. The latter rejected the complaint as unfounded on the same day. The applicant and his lawyer did not challenge that decision before the investigating judge. 23.  On 25 January 2007 the applicant was arrested again and was detained in Pruncul Prison no. 9 until 15 February 2007. He was then transferred to Chisinau Prison no. 13, where he was detained until 10 May 2007, before his transfer back to prison no. 9. 24.  According to the Government, in prison no. 13 the applicant was placed in cell no. 97, measuring 41.65 sq. m, and subsequently in cell no. 18, measuring 17.25 q. m. 25.  According to the applicant, cell no. 97 accommodated thirty-five to forty detainees at a time. There was a single toilet, not separated from the rest of the cell. There were only twelve bunk beds, and detainees had to take turns to sleep, even then sharing beds. The food was of very poor quality. Detainees were not issued with bed linen or hygiene products, there was no ventilation or heating, and the window was almost completely covered. The applicant was subjected to passive smoking and suffered from the presence of parasitic insects and rats. Detainees who had tuberculosis and other infectious diseases were detained together with healthy detainees. The applicant was allowed to have a shower only every ten days. 26.  In January and February 2007 the applicant sent numerous complaints to the Centru District Court concerning inefficient investigation of his ill-treatment. On 3 March 2007 the Centru District Court forwarded one of his complaints to the prosecutor and sent a reply to the applicant. He received the letter from the court opened and with a prison stamp on it. The same happened in the case of several other letters sent to the applicant by the investigating judge (letter of 15 June 2007) and the prosecutor’s office (letter of 6 April 2007). 27.  On 30 July 2007 the applicant met his lawyer in Pruncul Prison no. 9. The meeting took place in a visiting room. According to the applicant, other detainees and their visitors were present in the same room and could hear his conversation with his lawyer. At that meeting they discussed the details of the applicant’s complaints, which the lawyer formulated in a complaint to the Centru District Court submitted the next day.