7.  The applicant was born in 1948 and is currently detained in Tbilisi no. 1 Prison. 8.  On 23 May 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having raped a fourteen year old girl. 9.  According to the applicant, several police officers ill-treated him while he was in custody at a Rustavi police station on 23-25 May 2001, in order to obtain a confession. The police officers allegedly handcuffed him, put a gas mask on his face to make his cries inaudible, and severely battered him, breaking his jaw and the index finger of his left hand. The beatings were allegedly attended and encouraged by a senior officer of the Rustavi police station, Mr G., as well as by two investigators of the Rustavi district prosecutor’s office (“the RDPO”), Mr. M. and Mr. A. 10.  An expert opinion of 24 May 2001 and other pieces of evidence suggested that the applicant had had sexual intercourse with the victim. On 25 May 2001 he was charged with the rape of a minor (“the rape case”). 11.  As disclosed by the case file, on 26 May 2001 the applicant was assigned a lawyer, Mr S. On the same day, the Rustavi District Court remanded him in custody. Subsequently, he was transferred to the Tbilisi no. 5 Prison, where his state of health was examined by a physician. According to the applicant, that physician, whilst noting the signs of ill‑treatment on his body, refused to record them in the medical log. 12.  On 11 July 2001 the applicant complained that there were various procedural shortcomings in the investigation and requested that Mr M. be withdrawn from his case and another investigator assigned. He accused investigator Mr M. of a lack of impartiality, but did not raise any complaint of ill-treatment on the part of the latter or any other law-enforcement agents. 13.  The fact that sexual intercourse had taken place between the applicant and the victim was later confirmed by another, comprehensive expert opinion, as well as by various material pieces of evidence and witness statements. The Tbilisi Regional Court convicted the applicant on 12 December 2001 of the offence with which he had been charged and sentenced him to 13 years in prison. As disclosed by the case file, the applicant did not complain of alleged ill-treatment during the trial. 14.  In a decision of 16 April 2002, the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicant as unsubstantiated. The cassation hearing, which lasted several days, was attended by the applicant. No complaint of ill-treatment was raised before the cassation court either. Afterwards, the applicant was transferred to the Tbilisi no. 1 Prison to serve his sentence. 15.  In support of his allegations of ill-treatment (see paragraph 9 above), the applicant submitted an excerpt from the medical log of the Tbilisi no. 1 Prison, dated 16 July 2003 (“the prison medical opinion of 16 July 2003”), which confirmed that the index fingers on both his hands were deformed due to fractures. The origin of those fractures could not however be identified. No traces of any old fracture of the applicant’s jaw were reported. 2. Proceedings related to the applicant’s complaints of ill‑treatment and an abuse of power by the investigative authorities
(a) Prior to the communication of the application to the Government 16.  On 23 May 2002 the applicant lodged with the General Prosecutor’s Office (“the GPO”) a complaint that various procedural violations had allegedly been committed in the course of the rape case, including the cassation proceedings before the Supreme Court on 16 April 2002. He requested a re-trial. He raised, inter alia, issues of the fabrication of expert reports and other pieces of evidence, an absence of proper legal assistance during the trial, and an inability to confront witnesses. No complaint of ill‑treatment was made. As disclosed by the case file, the procedural complaint went unanswered. 17.  In May 2004, the applicant again requested the GPO to reopen the rape case in view of newly discovered circumstances. He referred to the alleged ill-treatment at the Rustavi police station and the extortion of money allegedly committed by the RDPO investigator, Mr M. On 24 May 2004 the GPO dismissed this request as unsubstantiated. Following the applicant’s appeal, the Mtatsminda‑Krtsanisi District Court in Tbilisi upheld, on 28 July 2004, the GPO’s decision of 24 May 2004. 18.  On 5 November 2004 the Supreme Court of Georgia quashed the above-mentioned decisions of 24 May and 28 July 2004, reasoning that the refusal to reopen the rape case had not been preceded by a preliminary enquiry into the applicant’s allegations. It ordered the prosecution to undertake a number of specific investigative measures, including the examination of the applicant and the witness on his behalf, Mr B., the latter being arguably able to confirm the allegation of ill-treatment. 19.  As a follow-up to the Supreme Court’s decision, the RDPO examined and dismissed, on 4 February 2005, the applicant’s request for the rape case to be reopened. However, on 4 April 2005 the Kvemo Kartli Regional Prosecutor’s Office (“the KKRPO”) quashed the decision of 4 February 2005, reasoning that the RDPO, contrary to the Supreme Court’s instructions of 5 November 2004, had not interviewed the applicant. The KKRPO remitted the case to the RDPO for an additional enquiry. 20.  On 27 April 2005 the RDPO approached the applicant for an examination. The latter however refused to cooperate because one of the alleged perpetrators of his ill-treatment, investigator M., was himself a member of the RDPO at that time. On the same day the prosecution authority decided to dismiss the applicant’s reopening request as unsubstantiated. 21.  As disclosed by the case file, the applicant lodged, on an unspecified date, an appeal against the RDPO decision of 27 April 2005 in court. On 19 December 2005 the Rustavi City Court dismissed his appeal as being introduced out of time. 22.  According to the case file, on 28 December 2004 the applicant also requested the GPO to launch criminal proceedings in respect of ill‑treatment, extortion and the falsification of expert opinions allegedly committed by investigator M. On 31 December 2004 the GPO rejected that request as unsubstantiated. The GPO conducted a verification and gave reasons with respect to the applicant’s allegations of extortion and falsification of medical opinions. However, no enquiry was made and, consequently, no reply was given, with respect to the complaint of ill‑treatment. 23.  On 5 December 2005 the Tbilisi Regional Court dismissed, at first instance, an appeal by the applicant against the GPO decision of 31 December 2004 as unsubstantiated. The court reasoned that the GPO had made sufficient enquiries into all of the applicant’s complaints before arriving at the decision not to initiate a criminal case. It also reproached the applicant for not having made a complaint about investigator M. before the termination of the rape case. Reiterating that the GPO decision of 31 December 2004 had reflected the results of a comprehensive enquiry into the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s grievances, the Tbilisi Appeal Court dismissed on 21 February 2006, at final instance, the applicant’s request for a criminal case to be opened against investigator M.
(b) After communication of the application to the Government on 5 December 2005 24.  On 24 January 2006 the KKRPO opened a criminal case (no. 042068005) on the basis of the applicant’s complaint of 28 December 2004 about abuses of power allegedly committed against him on 23-25 May 2001 (see paragraph 22 above). 25.  On 27 January 2006 the GPO withdrew the above‑mentioned criminal case from the KKRPO and assigned it to the Tbilisi City prosecutor’s office (“the TCPO”) for investigation. 26.  In a letter of 20 August 2006, the applicant informed the Court that he had been interviewed in respect of that case. 27.  In a decision of 15 March 2007, the TCPO decided to close the case due to the absence of objective evidence warranting the prosecution, despite the exhaustion of all possible investigative measures. As disclosed by this decision, on unspecified dates, the TCPO had separately interviewed the applicant, the impugned RDPO investigators, Mr M. and Mr A., the senior officer of the Rustavi police station, Mr G., and ten other police officers who were directly or indirectly implicated in the events which took place while the applicant was in custody at the Rustavi police station on 23‑25 May 2001. Whilst the applicant reiterated his allegations of ill‑treatment (see paragraph 9 above), the law-enforcement agents denied them. 28.  The decision of 15 March 2007 further disclosed that the TCPO had ordered and the relevant expert agency examined, on 13 March 2007, the medical log of the Tbilisi no. 1 Prison containing information on the applicant’s state of health. Thus, the expert report of 13 March 2007, by almost literally reiterating the text of the prison medical opinion of 16 July 2003 (see paragraph 15 above), confirmed the existence of fractures of the index fingers, as well as several other traumas to the applicant’s body in general and to his left arm in particular. It was however impossible, according to that report, to identify the exact date or source of the finger fractures. 29.  The investigation conducted by the TCPO also showed that the applicant had participated, in 1990-1994, in armed conflicts in two breakaway regions of Georgia. The applicant made clear to the TCPO that he had injured his left arm during that conflict. 30.  The decision of 15 March 2007 concluded that the investigation had not disclosed any proof that the applicant had been ill-treated by the RDPO officers on 23-25 May 2001. It further reasoned that, since the applicant had first raised this issue only after his conviction of 12 December 2001 had become final, it could be assumed that his allegations were untrue and solely aimed at the reopening of the rape case. 31.  The applicant appealed against the TCPO decision of 15 March 2007 in court, requesting its annulment and the continuation of the investigation. He expressly requested that his appeal be examined at an oral hearing so that he, as a victim, could plead the factual circumstances of the case in person. The appeal was dismissed as unsubstantiated by the Tbilisi City and Appeal Courts on 12 June and 6 September 2007 respectively, the latter decision being final. Both instances examined the case in camera, without oral hearings. As disclosed by the court decision of 6 September 2007, there had not been an exchange of written submissions between the parties. 32.  According to the applicant, as well as lodging his application with the Court he sent a complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee. He did not specify the content of this complaint or the date it was lodged and/or received by the UN Human Rights Committee, nor any details of any subsequent proceedings.