5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Shakhty, Rostov Region. 6.  The applicant was suspected of the organisation of a criminal gang and of S.’s robbery and murder. 7.  On 16 May 2003 a group of six police officers were keeping the applicant under surveillance. When the applicant at some point drove to a bus stop, stopped his car and O. got into it, the policemen blocked the applicant’s car and ordered him and O. to get out. O. did so. 8.  According to the applicant, the police officers dragged him out of the car, punching and hitting him with their guns, and threw him to the ground. They continued punching and kicking him although he offered no resistance to the arrest. 9.  Both O. and the applicant were taken to police station no. 2 in the town of Shakhty. The police verified O.’s ID and let him go. 10.  The police officers proceeded with questioning the applicant as regards S.’s murder. According to the applicant, seven to eight police officers took part in the questioning and they beat him to make him confess to the murder. At some point the beatings stopped. The applicant was taken to the cell where Sh. was detained. The police officers repeatedly took the applicant out of the cell for questioning. The beatings continued. 11.  On 17 May 2003, at 1 a.m., the applicant’s girlfriend, Saak,. was brought to the police station. According to the log, she was suspected of having committed a criminal offence. The officers continued beating the applicant in her presence. In order to put an end to the police brutality, the applicant confessed. At 3 a.m. Saak. was released. 12.  It appears that at some point Saak.’s brother was also taken to the police station, where he witnessed the police officers beating the applicant. He was eventually released. 13.  On 19 May 2003 the Shakhty Town Court authorised the applicant’s remand in custody pending the investigation. The applicant complained about the beatings by the police officers and showed his bruises and injuries to the judge. The Town Court asked the prosecutor’s office to conduct an inquiry into the applicant’s allegations. 14.  On 20 May 2003 a forensic medical expert examined the applicant and issued a report recording the following injuries: abrasions and bruises on the back of the head, on the right side of the temporal region of the head, the right cheekbone, the nasal arch, the mucous membrane of the upper lip, the left arm, the left shoulder blade, the left shoulder, the right wrist joint, the left leg, and the inguinal region. The expert concluded that those injuries had resulted from the impact of blunt objects no later than four days before the examination. 15.  On 23 May 2003 the assistant town prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment in police custody as unsubstantiated. In particular, the assistant prosecutor stated as follows:
“The materials of the preliminary inquiry indicate that [on 16 May 200] [the applicant], on seeing the police officers, ignored their orders to get out of the car. He actively resisted their attempts to pull him out of the car and tried to flee. As a result, [the police officers] had to use physical force and special means against him, causing him injuries. [The police officers] acted in accordance [with law]. [They] suspected that [the applicant] had committed a criminal offence and that a risk existed that the perpetrator could, in order to evade criminal responsibility, use a gun. The use of force was necessary and proportionate to the nature and gravity of the offences committed by [the applicant].” 16.  The assistant prosecutor based his findings on the identical statements made by the six police officers, who submitted that the applicant, being an ex commando, was dangerous and that their use of force had been lawful in the circumstances of the case. They alleged that the applicant had resisted arrest. They had pulled him out of the car, pinned him to the ground and handcuffed him. They further denied having beaten the applicant during his questioning at the police station. The assistant prosecutor also questioned the applicant and disputed his version of the events as an attempt to exculpate himself. The applicant did not receive a copy of the relevant decision. 17.  On 30 July 2003 the town prosecutor’s office dismissed another complaint lodged by the applicant about the alleged ill-treatment in police custody, restating the reasoning of the decision of 23 May 2003. 18.  On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with S.’s murder, several counts of robbery, the unlawful manufacturing and possession of firearms, and the organisation of and participation in a criminal gang. 19.  The applicant was committed to stand trial before the Rostov Regional Court. Before the trial court, the applicant alleged that the police officers had severely beaten him during and after his arrest. 20.  On 15 April 2004 the Rostov Regional Court acquitted the applicant of one count of attempted robbery and of the manufacturing of firearms, and found him guilty on the remaining charges. It sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment. The Regional Court based the conviction on, inter alia, statements by a number of witnesses heard in open court, expert reports and material evidence. The Regional Court also quoted from statements by a witness, Ms Se., given during the pre-trial investigation. According to the records of the court hearings, neither the applicant nor his lawyer objected to the reading out of Ms Se.’s statements. 21.  As regards the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, the Regional Court, referring to the inquiries conducted by the prosecutor’s office, dismissed them as unsubstantiated. Furthermore, it noted that at the trial hearings it had heard the police officers and the prosecution investigator, Mr Sa., who had denied that force had been used against the applicant. The Regional Court found that in making accusations against the police officers the applicant had been attempting to pervert the course of justice. 22.  The applicant and his lawyer appealed, maintaining their complaints about, among other things, the ill-treatment in police custody. 23.  On 8 September 2004 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment of 15 April 2004, endorsing the reasons given by the Regional Court. 24.  On 16 November 2005, in response to a further complaint by the applicant, the regional prosecutor’s office ordered the town prosecutor to conduct an inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. 25.  On 25 November 2005 the senior investigator at the town prosecutor’s office dismissed the applicant’s complaint, stating that the actions of the police during the applicant’s arrest and ensuing detention in police custody had been in compliance with the law. 26.  On 7 December 2005 the applicant lodged another complaint, which prompted the quashing of the decision of 25 November 2005 and a further inquiry into his allegations on 8 December 2005. 27.  On 18 December 2005 the town prosecutor’s office again dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The applicant appealed. 28.  On 17 April 2006 the town prosecutor’s office quashed its own decision of 18 December 2005 and conducted a further inquiry. On 27 April 2006 the applicant’s allegations were dismissed. 29.  On 23 May 2006 the deputy town prosecutor quashed the decision of 27 April 2006 and ordered a further inquiry. 30.  On 24 May 2006 the Town Court dismissed the applicant’s compliant against the decision of 27 April 2006, noting that the latter had already been quashed by the superior prosecutor. On 25 July 2006 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 24 May 2006 on appeal. 31.  In the course of the further inquiry, the senior investigator at the town prosecutor’s office questioned the applicant’s father, police officers B., G., L., M., R. and Ts., and the applicant. The applicant’s father corroborated the applicant’s versions of the events and the police officers denied his allegations. 32.  On 23 June 2006 the senior investigator dismissed the applicant’s complaint, finding no case to answer against the police officers. The applicant appealed. 33.  On 31 July 2006 the Shakhty Town Court disallowed the applicant’s appeal, noting that his allegations of ill-treatment had been thoroughly examined by the domestic courts in the criminal proceedings against him and had been found to be unsubstantiated. The Town Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to re-examine the final and enforceable judgments of the Rostov Regional Court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation given in the criminal case against the applicant. 34.  In 2007 the Regional Department of the Interior conducted an inquiry in response to complaints lodged by the applicant’s family. According to the relevant report, dated 11 December 2007, Sh., Saak. and her brother were questioned in the course of that inquiry. Sh., who had been detained with the applicant in the same cell from 16-17 May 2003, submitted that he had heard the applicant screaming during his questioning and that after that questioning the applicant had been covered with blood and had other signs of beatings on his face and body. Saak. and her brother also stated that the police officers had beaten the applicant in their presence. As regards the applicant’s injuries, the report referred to the earlier findings of the prosecutor’s inquiry that the applicant had sustained them as a result of the use of force against him during his arrest. The parties did not inform the court if there was any follow-up to the inquiry. 35.  Following the communication of the application to the respondent Government in April 2009, the internal affairs division of the Regional Department of the Interior conducted another inquiry into the applicant’s allegations. 36.  On 16 June 2009 the inquiry was completed. According to the findings of the report, it had been impossible for the authorities to question Sh., Saak. and her brother because their whereabouts were unknown. 37.  The internal affairs officers questioned the police officer who had arrested and questioned the applicant in 2003. B., M., R. and Ts. reiterated, in substance, their previous statements. G. and L. refused to make any submissions on the matter. All the police officers refused to take a polygraph test. 38.  In their report they summarised their findings as follows:
“... , in view of the contradictions in the statements made by the persons involved, a further inquiry, which is within the competence of the [prosecutor’s] office, into the [applicant’s] allegations that on 16-17 May 2003 [the police officers] beat him up to make him confess to V.’s murder is necessary.
Furthermore, the materials acquired in the course of the present inquiry show that on 16 and 17 May 2003 [the applicant] was detained for over three hours at [the police station] in the absence of any legal basis. The relevant actions of the unidentified police officers might give rise to their criminal liability in accordance with Article 286 § 3 (abuse of power) and Article 301 § 2 (unlawful detention) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
However, due to the expiration of the time-limits set forth in [applicable regulations on police service] in respect of the disciplinary liability, ... it is impossible to subject [the police officers] who detained [the applicant] at [the police station] for over three hours in contravention of [the rules of criminal procedure] ... to disciplinary liability.” 39.  The Government did not inform if there was any follow-up to the inquiry.