5.  The applicants are two married couples who were born in 1968, 1966, 1970 and 1969 respectively and live in Chişinău. 6.  On 3 June 2005 all the applicants were attending a wedding party. At 9.30 p.m. the wedding party was interrupted by masked police officers who arrested the first and second applicants. The applicants were informed later that they had been arrested on suspicion of forging a contract and swindling a large amount of money from a third company. 7.  Later in the evening, between approximately 12 midnight and 3 a.m., masked police officers conducted a search of the applicants’ houses. On unspecified dates the third and fourth applicants contested the legality of the search arguing that it had been carried out in breach of the law. They complained that the searches had been conducted during the night and that the police officers had not had a court order indicating what they were authorised to search for. The complaint was finally dismissed by the Supreme Court of Justice on 11 October 2005. 8.  In the days following the applicants’ arrest the prosecutor’s office issued a press statement in which it was said that the first and second applicants were members of a criminal gang. 9.  On 6 June 2005 a judge from the Râscani District Court issued a detention warrant for the first and second applicants for a period of thirty days. The reasons relied upon by the judge were that the applicants were suspected of having committed a serious offence punishable with more than two years’ imprisonment and that they could abscond or obstruct the investigation. 10.  The applicants’ lawyers appealed arguing, inter alia, that there was no reasonable suspicion that the first and second applicants had committed a criminal offence. In any event, there were no reasons to believe that the applicants, who had families and children, would abscond or hinder the investigation. 11.  The appeals were dismissed by the Court of Appeal and the first two applicants’ detention was extended several times on similar grounds until 11 November 2005. All the habeas corpus requests made by the applicants were dismissed up until that date. 12.  In the meantime the first and second applicants were detained in the detention facility of the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (“the CFECC)”. On a few occasions the first applicant was taken to a prison hospital as a result of a hunger strike and health problems. He was also seen on several occasions by independent doctors. On 12 October 2005 the first applicant was seen by a doctor of his choice who concluded that he would need to be programmed for repeated surgery to his back. The second applicant was detained for fifty-three days in solitary confinement in a room which was poorly lit and had only a small window. According to him, his sight diminished by at least ten per cent as a result. 13.  At one point in July 2005 both applicants requested to be transferred temporarily to another detention facility and their request was granted on 5 August 2005. On 26 September 2005 the applicants asked for cable television to be installed in their cells. This request was not granted on the ground that the applicants had been moved in the meantime to another detention facility. The applicants requested permission to receive numerous visits from family and lawyers which appear to have been granted. 14.  On 6 September 2005 while the first applicant was being detained in a prison hospital, several police officers conducted a search of his cell. When the first applicant asked for the reason for conducting the search, he was allegedly kicked in the abdomen and then in the back, where he had recently had surgery, and lost consciousness. He was then dragged out of the cell and left lying in the corridor. After regaining consciousness and trying to stand up he was kicked and punched again and lost consciousness two more times. The first applicant’s account of the events was confirmed by his cellmate, who wrote an affidavit to the applicant’s lawyer to that effect. The Government disputed the allegations concerning the first applicant’s ill-treatment by the police and submitted that his injuries had either been self-inflicted or sustained as a result of his falling over. 15.  On 7 September 2005 the first applicant lodged a complaint of ill-treatment with the prosecutor’s office. 16.  Two medical reports dated 7 and 29 September 2005 indicated that the first applicant had multiple bruises and scratches on his forehead, chest, stomach, arms and back. The medical report concluded that the injuries had been caused by blows from a small, blunt object, possibly as a result of being beating on 6 September 2005. 17.  On 14 October 2005 the prosecutor’s office dismissed the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment. The applicant appealed to the Râscani District Court, which, on 23 December 2005, upheld the appeal and ordered the prosecutor’s office to re-examine the case. The District Court found, inter alia, that the prosecutor’s office had failed to question the first applicant’s cellmate and other persons present at the search of 6 September 2005. 18.  On 9 February 2006 the prosecutor’s office asked a forensic medicine institute to determine whether the injuries present on the first applicant’s body after the incident of 6 September 2005 could have been caused by falling over and whether the injuries to his hands could have been caused by handcuffs. On the same date the forensic medicine institute replied that it was possible that the injuries to the first applicant’s back, forehead and arms had been caused by his fall. Some of the injuries to his wrists had been caused by the handcuffs while others and the bruises on his stomach could have been self-inflicted since the area had been accessible to the applicant’s hands. 19.  On 10 February 2006 the prosecutor’s office again dismissed the first applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment after having questioned the police officers who had participated in the search of the first applicant’s cell on 6 September 2005. All the officers stated that the first applicant had lost consciousness after the beginning of the search and fallen over. Relying on the forensic report of 9 February 2006 the prosecutor’s office concluded that the injuries to the applicant’s back and forehead and the scratches on one of his arms had been caused by his fall. It further concluded that the scratches on the applicant’s elbows and the bruises on his stomach had been self-inflicted, while the scratches on his wrists had been caused by the handcuffs. 20.  On 24 October 2006 the prosecutor’s office decided to drop the criminal charges against the first and second applicants for lack of evidence of their guilt.