6.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lived, before his arrest, in Lipetsk. 7.  On 3 February 2004 the Sovetskiy district prosecutor opened an investigation into the murder of a Ms B. An investigator, Mr N., was assigned to take charge of the proceedings. 8.  According to the applicant, at about 4 p.m. on 19 February 2004 he came back from work to his flat on Lavochkina Street; his wife and fifteen‑year-old son were at home. His mother and his wife's sister were visiting at the time. At about 7 p.m. four police officers barged into the flat and searched the premises in the presence of two attesting witnesses. The applicant was told that he was a suspect in a murder case; they handcuffed him and took him away in a blue Zhiguli car. Once in the car, an officer punched the applicant in the head and body and then pulled his cap down so that it covered his eyes. After a fifteen-minute ride the applicant was pushed out of the car into the snow. Police officers kicked and punched him, demanding that he tell them about the murder he had allegedly committed. Sometimes the officers took breaks from the beatings and drank vodka. At one point the applicant felt a sharp pain in his left side and realised that his rib had been broken. 9.  The applicant further related that at about 10 p.m. he was taken by car to the Sovetskiy district police station. He was taken to the office of Mr Ry., whom the applicant had met before. Another officer, Mr Ro., was also present. Four officers started beating him, demanding that he confess to the murder of Ms B. and reveal where he had hidden her cell phone. Whenever he fainted, they poured water on him. The officers drank alcohol and verbally assaulted the applicant and his relatives. The applicant was beaten with a baseball bat on his shoulders, arms and upper body. He started bleeding and stained the wallpaper with his blood. 10.  The beatings continued for two hours. The applicant was then taken into the detention cell within the police station, whereas the police officers left to search the applicant's parents' flat at 40 Let Okryabrya Street. 11.  While in the cell, the applicant slit open a vein on his left forearm with a shard of a broken light bulb. His cellmate alerted the wardens. An ambulance arrived and took him to the trauma unit where the doctor sutured the wound. The police officers, who had in the meantime come back from the search, accompanied the applicant. The doctor wanted to X-ray the applicant but the police officers would not let him. 12.  Upon his return from the trauma unit, the beatings continued in the Sovetskiy district police station. The applicant felt that his ribs were broken on the other side. The officers kicked him in the groin and burned his genitals with a lighter. They took his trousers off, inserted an empty plastic bottle into his anus and took a photo, threatening to show the photo to his cellmates and tell them that he was a homosexual. They also stripped him naked, threw cold water on him and made him stand in front of an open window. 13.  The Government submitted copies of two search-and-seizure records dated 19 February 2004. In so far as it can be ascertained, one record concerned the search carried out in the applicant's flat from 6.30 to 7.35 p.m. and the other related to the search of a flat at 40 Let Oktyabrya Street, which lasted from 10.05 to 11.15 p.m. In both records the applicant was listed as having been present during the search; however, the signatures are visibly dissimilar. 14.  At about 7 a.m. on 20 February 2004 the applicant agreed to confess. The police officers took him to the investigator Mr N., in charge of the murder case, and told him to write a confession statement. They stayed throughout the time it took the applicant to write the statement and then left once the investigator began to question him as a suspect. When asked by the investigator about the origin of his injuries, the applicant replied that he had been beaten up by unknown persons the day before on his way home. 15.  At 10 a.m. the investigator compiled an arrest record concerning the applicant. According to the arrest record, the applicant had been detained at 9.30 a.m. on 20 February 2004 in the prosecutor's office of the Sovetskiy District of Lipetsk. 16.  Feeling unwell, the applicant asked the investigator to take him to a doctor. At 5.30 p.m. the applicant was examined by medical specialists who discovered large bruises on his chest, lumbar region, left iliac area, left elbow, head and face. Three ribs were broken on the left side and one rib on the right side. 17.  The case-file contained a statement, allegedly signed by the applicant on 20 February 2004, in which he indicated that the day before he had been seriously drunk and had been beaten up by unidentified persons on his way home from work. 18.  Following treatment for his injuries in hospital, on 3 March 2004 the applicant was transferred to a remand prison. 19.  On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the prosecutor's office that the statement which he had allegedly written by hand on 20 February 2004 had been a forgery. On 24 February 2005 an investigator with the Pravoberezhniy district police station of Lipetsk asked a graphologist from the Lipetsk Regional Forensic Centre (экспертно‑криминалистический центр УВД Липецкой области) to determine whether or not the statement of 20 February 2004 could have been written by the applicant's hand. 20.  According to the graphologist's report of 10 March 2004, no part of the statement of 20 February 2004 had been written by the applicant. The signature also belonged to another person. 21.  It would appear that on 13 March and 26 May 2006 the investigator refused to open a criminal investigation into the forgery. Both of those decisions were set aside by the Pravoberezhniy district prosecutor. On 18 August 2006 the Pravoberezhniy District Court of Lipetsk granted the applicant's request and ordered the prosecutor to take the necessary procedural measures. 22.  On 6 March 2007 another investigator asked a graphologist from the Ministry of Justice Forensic Centre in the Lipetsk Region to determine whether the statement could have been written by a certain Mr A. On 26 March 2007 the expert replied that the samples of Mr A.'s handwriting provided were of such poor quality as to be unsuitable for forensic examination. 23.  According to the Government, on 26 April 2007 the Pravoberezhniy district prosecutor quashed an earlier decision to suspend the proceedings and instructed the investigator to take specific action. 24.  On 1 April 2004 the applicant, on the advice of his counsel, complained about the ill-treatment described above to the head of the Lipetsk Regional Police. He submitted that he had been unlawfully taken from his home, detained overnight and severely beaten by officers P., D., Z., Ro. and Ry. His complaint was referred to the investigator Mr N. for examination. Counsel for the applicant asked the investigator to arrange a medical examination. 25.  On 2 April 2004 a medical examination returned the following findings:
“3.1.  The forensic medical examination has established that [the applicant] suffered chest injuries in the form of numerous bruises, fractures of the fifth, sixth and ninth ribs on the left side and the eighth rib on the right side, [and] numerous bruises on the head and upper limbs. 3.2. These bodily injuries resulted from the impact of hard blunt objects and could have been caused by blows and kicks on 19 February 2004. 3.3.  The chest injuries are of medium severity, having resulted in a health impairment lasting over a period of more than twenty-one days; the other injuries did not result in any health impairment.” 26.  On 9 April 2004 the investigator Mr N. questioned the applicant, who described in great detail the ill-treatment inflicted on him by the police officers on the night of 19 and 20 February 2004. 27.  On 14 April 2004 the investigator questioned Mr P., the head of the criminal investigations department of the Lipetsk police. He confirmed that the police had apprehended the applicant on 19 February 2004. However, he insisted that the applicant had not been beaten or ill-treated while in the police custody and that he had made his confession voluntarily. Officers D., Z., Ro. and Ry. testified in a similar vein. 28.  On 28 April 2004 the applicant's wife told the investigator that on 19 February 2004 her husband had had no injuries on his return from work and had not complained about being beaten up by anyone. She had been present during the search of their flat and seen her husband being taken away by the police. The applicant's wife's sister also stated that she had not seen any injuries on the applicant. 29.  On 12 May 2004 counsel for the applicant asked the investigator to identify and examine the applicant's co-workers and factory doctor, his mother, wife and son, their neighbours, who had acted as attesting witnesses, the doctor and nurse from the trauma unit who had been on duty on the night of 19 and 20 February 2004, and the applicant's cellmate. He also requested that the investigator identify whether the actions of the police officers who had held the applicant overnight without registering his detention had been lawful. 30.  On 25 May 2004 the investigator examined Mr Ch., one of the attesting witnesses who had been present during the search of the applicant's flat. He testified that the applicant had had no visible injuries and raised no complaints. 31.  The investigator also heard police officer G., who had been the officer-on-duty from 8 a.m. on 19 February to 8 a.m. on 20 February 2004. He stated, in particular, that he did not remember the distinctive features of the man who had been brought in by officers Ry. and Ro. He maintained, nevertheless, that there had been no visible injuries on the man and that he had not received any complaints of ill-treatment. 32.  On 26 May 2004 the investigator Mr N. decided not to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant's complaint of ill-treatment. Relying on the policemen's statements, he accepted the version of events according to which the applicant had been beaten up by unidentified persons on the day preceding his arrest. The investigator found as follows:
“Thus, the fact that [the applicant's wife's sister] and [the attesting witness] Mr Ch. did not see any injuries on [the applicant] may not prove the fact that there were no bodily injuries on [the applicant] at the moment he was taken away by the policemen, because Mr K., the traumatologist who carried out a cursory examination of [the applicant], did not see any injuries, either, and [the applicant] did not complain to him ...
The investigation concludes that the allegations [of ill-treatment] were raised by [the applicant] for the purpose of avoiding criminal responsibility and punishment for the crime he had committed.” 33.  The applicant contested Mr N.'s decision to a higher prosecutor and to a court of general jurisdiction. He submitted that the inquiry had been superficial, that the investigator had not questioned all the relevant witnesses or collected the material evidence, such as his blood-soaked shirt. Counsel for the applicant maintained, in particular, that the inquiry should not have been entrusted to the same investigator who had examined the criminal charge against the applicant. The court was also asked to identify whether the actions of the police officer-on-duty and his assistant, who had permitted the unacknowledged detention of the applicant, had been lawful. 34.  On 12 August 2004 the Sovetskiy District Court of Lipetsk partly upheld the applicant's complaint and declared the investigator's refusal unlawful. It determined that the investigator had not examined the crime scene, collected material evidence or interviewed the available witnesses. On 21 September 2004 the Lipetsk Regional Court quashed that decision on appeal and remitted the matter. 35.  On 7 October 2004 the Sovetskiy District Court determined that the investigator's decision of 26 May 2004 had been lawful and justified. The investigator had acted within his competence and the applicant had not previously challenged him as lacking independence. The decisions he had taken as to whether to interview witnesses or collect material evidence had been within his discretion as investigator and could not be declared unlawful solely because he had decided that, in the absence of any indication of a criminal offence, those pieces of evidence had not been necessary. 36.  The applicant lodged an appeal. He submitted that although the forensic examination of 2 April 2004 had revealed injuries on his body, the investigator Mr N. had not opened a criminal case, inspected the crime scene or questioned his wife, mother, son, fellow co-workers or medical personnel. The investigator had not established how the document of 20 February 2004 bearing the applicant's forged signature had found its way into the case file. Finally, he had not addressed the issue of his unrecorded detention in the Sovetskiy police station. 37.  On 9 November 2004 the Lipetsk Regional Court upheld the District Court's judgment on appeal. On 27 September 2007 the Presidium of the Lipetsk Regional Court quashed the appeal judgment by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for a new appeal hearing. 38.  On 30 October 2007 the Lipetsk Regional Court issued a new appeal judgment, upholding the District Court's judgment of 7 October 2004 in a summary fashion. 39.  On 11 January 2005 the Sovetskiy District Court of Lipetsk found the applicant guilty of Ms B.'s murder and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment in a high-security institution. The trial court explicitly refused to examine the issue of whether or not the applicant's confession had been obtained under duress because the Regional Court had already determined that matter in a final judgment of 9 November 2004 (see above). As to the applicant's overnight detention from 19 to 20 February 2004, the District Court held as follows:
“It has been reliably established at the hearing that [the applicant] was actually brought into the Sovetskiy district police station in Lipetsk on the night of 19 February 2004 and remained [there] until the moment he was [formally] arrested by the investigator as a suspect. For that reason the court considers it necessary to credit one day, 19 February 2004, towards the period of his detention.” 40.  On 1 March 2005 the Lipetsk Regional Court upheld the applicant's conviction on appeal.