5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Goryunok, Kirov Region. 6.  On 26 August 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder and delivered to the Organised Crime Control Division of the Kirov Regional Department of the Interior (“the Division”) where, in his submission, he voluntarily confessed to the imputed offence. According to the applicant, despite his confession he was beaten up and tortured by police officers for several hours. He found out from one of the officers that the victim was their colleague, an officer of the same Division. 7.  On the same date at around 5.30 p.m. the applicant was transferred to a temporary holding facility of the Kirov Regional Department of the Interior (“the IVS”). According to a letter from the acting head of the Kirov Regional Department of the Interior dated 25 May 2010, no injuries had been observed on the applicant upon his arrival at the IVS, as followed from an extract of the IVS register of medical examinations of detainees (a copy of the extract was enclosed). The letter also stated that during his detention in the IVS the applicant had made no complaints concerning his health. 8.  In the applicant’s submission, upon his transfer to the IVS the same police officers tortured him again. 9.  On 28 August 2003 at around 9.15 a.m. the applicant was transferred to the Kirov IZ-43/1 remand centre, where he underwent a medical examination which attested to the presence of a large haematoma on the inside of his left thigh and two bruises on the left side of his forehead. The applicant was furnished with a certificate reflecting the results of the examination. He explained that he had sustained his injuries as a result of the beatings by the police; this information was then forwarded to the prosecutor’s office of the Pervomayskiy District, Kirov (“the district prosecutor’s office”) for examination. 10.  It appears that upon receipt of the aforementioned information, an inquiry was opened into the applicant’s allegations, and in a decision of 29 August 2003 the investigator in charge ordered a medical forensic examination of the applicant. 11.  On 2 September 2003 the applicant underwent a medical forensic examination. During that examination he submitted that he had been beaten by police officers on 26 August 2003 with the result that for a short period he had lost consciousness. He complained of headache and chest pain. The examination identified three abrasions on his face, which had been inflicted approximately ten to fifteen days before, and bruises on the applicant’s left forearm and thighs, measuring from 3 x 2 cm to 10 x 18 cm, as well as an abrasion on the right wrist joint, which had been inflicted approximately six to eight days before. The relevant expert report also stated that those injuries had been inflicted by hard blunt object(s), and that they had not caused any harm to the applicant’s health. 12.  On 11 September 2003 the district prosecutor’s office took a decision to dispense with criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, owing to the absence of evidence of a crime. The decision confirmed that on 28 August 2003 the applicant had been delivered to the IZ-43/1 remand centre with bodily injuries. He had explained that he had been beaten by police officers in the Division for Organised Crime Control of the Kirov Region Department of the Interior on 26 August 2003. The decision further referred to statements by police officers F. and Ye. and those of the investigator in charge, Zh., all of them having been interviewed during the inquiry into the applicant’s allegations. In particular, officer F. had stated that he had delivered the applicant to the premises of the Division where the latter had undergone a body search, had written a voluntary confession and had given certain explanations. Officer Ye. stated that he, along with officer F., had interviewed the applicant on the date in question. Both officers denied beating the applicant or applying any other unlawful methods of investigation. Investigator Zh. stated that he had interviewed the applicant on 26 August 2003, that the applicant had not complained about any violence on the part of the police officers, and that there had been no visible injuries on him. 13.  The decision further relied on a medical record made in the IVS, according to which no injuries were identified on the applicant when he was delivered to that facility. It was also stated that on 26 August 2003 investigative actions in respect of the applicant had been carried out from 9 a.m. until 12.10 p.m., that is before his transfer to the temporary holding facility. The decision thus concluded that no evidence had been obtained during the inquiry to confirm that the injuries to the applicant identified upon his arrival in the IZ-43/1 remand centre had been inflicted on him as a result of unlawful actions on the part of the police officers. 14.  The applicant received the decision of 11 September 2003 on 17 September 2003 and challenged it with the prosecutor’s office of the Kirov Region. 15.  On 24 October 2003 the criminal case against the applicant was sent to a court for trial. 16.  On 18 December 2003 a supervising prosecutor set aside the decision of 11 September 2003, stating that it was unfounded, as it had been established that the applicant had had injuries at the time of his transfer to the IZ-43/1 remand centre. The prosecutor’s office instructed the investigator in charge to establish the circumstances in which those injuries had been sustained by the applicant. 17.  In a decision of 1 March 2004 the district prosecutor’s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant’s allegations, owing to the absence of any evidence that a criminal offence had been committed. The decision was very similar to that of 11 September 2003. It gave a more detailed description of the injuries established on the applicant upon his transfer to the IZ-43/1 remand centre and contained his own submissions. It further relied on statements from police officers F. and Ye. and those of investigator Zh., all of them taken almost word for word from the decision of 11 September 2003. The decision then stated that investigative actions in the applicant’s respect had been carried out from 9 a.m. until 12.10 p.m., that is before his transfer to the temporary holding facility, and that, according to a medical record made in the IVS, the applicant had not made any complaints after his transfer there. It therefore concluded that it was impossible to establish in what circumstances the applicant had received bodily injuries and that there was no evidence that the police officers had applied unlawful violence to the applicant. 18.  The decision also stated that in accordance with Articles 124 and 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure it could be challenged before a higher prosecutor or appealed against in court. The applicant obtained a copy of that decision on 17 March 2004. It does not appear that he attempted to lodge any appeal against the decision. 19.  On 4 December 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Kirov convicted the applicant of unlawful possession of firearms and attempted murder and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. 20.  At the trial the applicant argued that he had acted in a state of powerful emotional distress and also that he had shot at his victim with no intention of killing him. The court critically assessed and rejected these statements as they contradicted the oral evidence given by the victim and two other witnesses. The court also relied on various expert reports, including that on the results of the applicant’s forensic psychiatric examination, which confirmed that during the incident the applicant had been fully in control of his actions. 21.  In his appeal against the first-instance judgment the applicant complained, inter alia, that he had been beaten by police following his arrest. 22.  On 13 January 2004 the Kirov Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal, reducing the sentence to nine years and six months’ imprisonment. As regards the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, the court stated that those were unfounded, as by a decision of 11 September 2003 the district prosecutor’s office had refused to institute criminal proceedings in this connection in the absence of evidence of a crime. 23.  By a decision of 1 November 2004 the Verkhnekamskiy District Court of the Kirov Region further reduced the applicant’s sentence to eight years’ imprisonment in view of recent changes in the criminal law.