5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Yegultys, Kemerovo Region. 6.  On 18 December 1998 the Kiselevsk Town Department of the Interior opened a criminal investigation in respect of a robbery and theft of a car. According to undisclosed sources, the stolen car was being kept in a garage belonging to the applicant’s husband. 7.  On 26 December 1998 six policemen, V., R., Sn., St., Bl. and Bk. went to the applicant’s house, in three cars, to follow up on the information received from the source. V. knocked on the door and opened it himself. In the house, he saw the applicant and her eleven-year old daughter. He showed his ID to the applicant and the policemen entered the house. They saw a gun holster on a hook in the hallway and asked the applicant about it and the whereabouts of her husband. The applicant shouted at them and ordered them to leave. She went outside with them and told her daughter to lock the entrance door. She threatened to set her dogs on the policemen. In order to neutralise the applicant and to prevent her from interfering with the inspection of the courtyard, V. held her by the arms and put her into one of the police cars. The applicant got out of the car and kicked R., who tried to stop her, in the groin. At this point she slipped and fell down. She bit R.’s fingers. R. got his hand free and together with St. handcuffed the applicant and put her back in the car. 8.  Meanwhile, Sn. went to the sauna which was in the courtyard. The applicant’s husband was there. When Sn. explained the purpose of their visit, he let them into the house. R. brought the applicant in and took off the handcuffs. The applicant’s husband showed them his guns and the relevant documents. They also looked into the garage. The stolen car was not there and the policemen left. 9.  On 26 December 1998 the applicant and her eleven-year old daughter were in their house. Her husband and their ten-year old son were in the sauna in the courtyard. At 6 p.m. seven men burst into the house. The first one hit her immediately in the face “to bring her to her senses”, as he put it. She asked for a search warrant and for civilian witnesses to be present: the same man hit her again. She asked the men to leave. They said that they would not leave until they had turned the place upside down. The applicant ran out of the house to call the neighbours. The men ran after her. She told the daughter to lock the door, which she did. The men tried to break down the door. Then one of them suggested breaking a window instead. They asked where her husband was. She told them that he was in the sauna. The men seemed surprised. They thought he should have been in prison. The applicant shouted for help. She ran, and got as far as the gate, but the men knocked her down, pushed her face into the snow and kicked her. One of them tried to gag her with a glove. Someone pulled her by the hair and dragged her to the car. They handcuffed her. They hit her head against the car. One of them grabbed her neck and tightened their grip. They kicked her and tore her mouth. Then they put her in the car. One man stayed by the car to guard her and the rest of them went back into the house. 10.  On 26 December 1998 the applicant was admitted to hospital. According to the applicant’s medical file maintained by the hospital, the applicant was diagnosed with a contusion of the left kidney, a closed abdominal contusion (закрытая травма живота), a contusion of the front abdominal wall (ушиб передней брюшной стенки), contusion of the lumbar spine (ушиб поясничного отдела позвоночника) and concussion. She also had a bruise near her lower lip. 11.  On 13 January 1999 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination conducted by local experts. The experts did not confirm the diagnosis indicated in the applicant’s medical file, except for the contusion of the kidney and the bruise near the lower lip, which were classified as “not serious damage to health”. They further noted that those injuries could have been caused by blows with a blunt instrument shortly before the applicant’s admission to hospital. 12.  On 17 March 1999 the applicant underwent a second forensic examination which, in substance, reiterated the findings of the experts on 13 January 1999. In addition, the experts explained that the kidney contusion must have been caused by a blow from a blunt instrument or collision with a blunt object or by a fall on to a flat surface. 13.  On 12 May 2000 the regional medical forensic experts presented their findings. They subscribed, in substance, to the previous examinations’ results and accepted that the applicant had suffered from concussion, which could have been caused by a fall. As regards the origin of the contusions of the kidney and lower lip, the experts ruled out the possibility that they had been caused by a fall on to a floor or the ground. 14.  On 7 October 2000 the Medical and Social Expert Commission found that the craniocerebral injury the applicant had sustained in December 1998 had caused her to acquire a Category 2 disability. 15.  On 20 December 2000 the applicant underwent another forensic examination, at the Altai Region forensic expert institution. The forensic expert panel noted as follows:
“On the basis of the ... medical documents, the forensic medical panel concludes that [the applicant] had the following bodily injuries: 1.1  Rupture inside the left renal capsule (подкапсульный разрыв левой почки). This injury was caused by a blunt blow (inflicted possibly by a booted foot or a fist). It could not have been caused by the applicant’s falling on to an even surface or a prominent object. A life-threatening injury, it should be classified as severe damage to the applicant’s health... 1.2  Injuries to the lower lip and the left corner of the mouth, accompanied by swelling of the soft tissue of the lip, could have been caused by one (or two) blunt blows administered to the [applicant’s] lower lip area, possibly by a fist. Those injuries could not have been caused by a fall and did not result in any damage to the [applicant’s] health.” 16.  As regards the applicant’s allegations that she had received multiple blows to her body, head or legs, the experts did not discern any medical evidence to confirm them. 17.  Dr B. gave a separate opinion on the results of the applicant’s examination. Taking into account the applicant’s medical documents and the witness statements, he considered that the applicant could have sustained the injuries, including the contusion on the lower lip, the craniocerebral injury, rupture of the left kidney, and bruises on the legs and arms as a result of the beatings she had allegedly been subjected to. 18.  On 26 December 1998 the hospital where the applicant had been admitted reported her injuries to the local police station. 19.  On 27 December 1998 F., a driver working for the road police, submitted a report to his superiors. He indicated that he had been driving one of the three cars which had been at the applicant’s house the day before. Six policemen had entered the house. Some twenty minutes later they had brought out a woman. She was handcuffed and her face was covered with blood. They had put her into his car. She stayed there for another twenty ot twenty-five minutes. Then the policemen took her back into the house. 20.  On 30 December 1998 the applicant lodged a complaint of police brutality with the Kiselevsk Town Department of the Interior. 21.  On 6 January 1999 the Prokopievsk Town Prosecutor opened a criminal investigation in respect of the applicant’s allegations. It was discontinued for lack of corpus delicti on 5 April 1999. 22.  On 13 August 1999 the Regional Deputy Prosecutor quashed the decision of 5 April 1999 and ordered a further investigation, which was completed on 9 June 2000. 23.  As part of the ensuing investigation, the prosecutor questioned the alleged perpetrators, who denied the applicant’s allegations. They provided the following account of the events of 26 December 1998:
“[The police officers] denied that they had beaten [the applicant]. They explained that their task was to find out whether [the applicant’s husband] was keeping a stolen car [at his place]. They entered the house, identified themselves to the applicant and showed her their IDs. They asked her about a pistol holster they saw in the house. The applicant asked them to leave. She shouted, without answering their questions. They went outside. In order to calm down the applicant, who wanted to set the dogs on them, policeman V. took hold of her and took her to a police car. The applicant shook him off and started screaming. They put her in the back seat of the car and left her there. Policemen R. and S. stayed by the car and the rest of them went back to the house when they saw the applicant’s husband and son going in. The applicant opened the car door to escape. R. tried to stop her, but she kicked him in the groin. She slipped and hit her back against the car when falling down. R. tried to help her stand up, but she bit his finger. When trying to get his finger out of the applicant’s mouth, R. might have caused her a bruise on the lower lip. None of them hit the applicant. She continued to resist and R. and S. had to handcuff her. Then they put her back in the car. R. went inside the house and put some iodine on the bite. The applicant’s husband asked the policemen to bring her into the house and they did so. They checked the cabinet where the applicant’s husband kept his guns, and the garage, and then left.” 24.  The applicant was questioned by the prosecutor on several occasions. She also repeated her accusations in the presence of the accused. The prosecutor noted, however, that her version of the events was contradictory concerning the number of blows she had received and the number of the alleged perpetrators. Each time she was questioned she gave a different number. At the beginning she did not identify policeman M. as one of the perpetrators. Later she changed her mind. The prosecutor concluded that the applicant’s testimony was not reliable. 25.  The applicant’s husband, when questioned in the course of the investigation, corroborated the applicant’s testimony. He submitted that two of the policemen were sober and the rest of them seemed to be inebriated. His daughter told him that the policemen had beaten up the applicant in her presence. He submitted that when the policemen had brought the applicant into the house her face was covered with blood, she was handcuffed and her hands were bluish. After the policemen had left, he and Bez., the applicant’s brother had taken her to hospital. 26.  The prosecutor decided against questioning the applicant’s daughter, who was unable to identify the perpetrators. 27.  K., one of the applicant’s neighbours, submitted that on 26 December 1998 he had heard a woman screaming in the street. He went outside and saw three cars near the applicant’s house. He also saw a woman lying on the ground and three men kicking her. He was unable to identify the alleged perpetrators. 28.  L., another neighbour, testified that Bez., the applicant’s brother, had asked her to come to the applicant’s house after the incident. L. had not seen the applicant. The policemen seemed to be drunk. 29.  Neighbours M. and S. testified that they had seen several men beating someone. They could not provide any further details about the perpetrators or the victim. 30.  Ms B., the applicant’s sister-in-law, testified that she had visited the applicant in hospital on 4 January 1999. The applicant’s legs, arms and back were covered with bruises. The skin on her jaw was yellowish. 31.  On the basis of the evidence collected, the prosecutor concluded that the applicant’s allegations were unsubstantiated, and discontinued the proceedings for lack of corpus delicti on 9 June 2000. 32.  On 26 June 2000 the decision of 9 June 2000 was quashed and the matter was remitted for further investigation. 33.  Between 25 August 2000 and 7 August 2002 the prosecutor’s office discontinued the investigation on six occasions for lack of corpus delicti Each time, in response to the applicant’s complaint, the superior prosecutor or the court ordered further investigation. The relevant final decisions were taken on 20 February, 4 May, 5 June and 1 August 2001, and 4 March and 7 August 2002. 34.  On 23 September 2002 the Town Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the investigation. 35.  On an unspecified date the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation reviewed the case file at the applicant’s request. It was noted that “the investigation had been conducted with a low level of professionalism and without due supervision by those in charge”. 36.  On 16 June 2003 the Regional Deputy Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 23 September 2002. The regional deputy prosecutor noted that that the policemen who had entered the applicant’s premises on 26 December 1998 had conducted a search without any authorisation. 37.  On 23 July 2003 the investigator with the Prokopievsk Town Department of the Interior discontinued the investigation. He noted that the policemen had acted in strict compliance with the law and had not beaten the applicant. The applicant appealed to the court. 38.  On 22 December 2005 the Rudnichniy District Court of Prokopievsk quashed the decision of 23 July 2003. The court noted that between 1999 and 2003 the case had been closed and reopened ten times. The court heard several witnesses summarising their testimonies as follows:
“Witness F. confirmed in court that he had been ... assigned as a driver to accompany policeman R. to Yegultus on two occasions on 23 and 26 December 1998 ... . He recalled that on 26 December 1998 a woman was placed in his car. She was beaten up and asked for the handcuffs to be removed. This woman did not try to escape. She did not fall down and she did not hit herself against his car prior to having been placed inside.
Witness R. submitted in court that on 26 December 1998 several other policemen and himself had carried out an inquiry in Yegultys ... . He had normal working relationship with driver F. They had carried out an inspection in the [applicant’s] house. Having observed [the applicant’s] behaviour, they had understood that something “had been wrong” and started working with her. He had said that they had been authorised to carry out a search. However, they had not invited attesting witnesses. When they had taken [the applicant] out of the house, she had thrown herself at them. Then she had fallen down hitting herself against the car. He had put her into the car in order to keep her warm because it had been very cold outside. 39.  On 14 March 2006 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 22 December 2005 on appeal. 40.  On 17 May 2006 the Prokopievsk Town Prosecutor’s office discontinued the proceedings. The decision was based on the statements by the applicant, her relatives and neighbours, policemen and the medical reports obtained in 1998-2001. 41.  On 14 November 2006 the District Court quashed the decision of 17 May 2006. The court accepted the applicant’s argument that the prosecutor’s office had not complied with the instructions issued by its superiors on further investigation. In particular, the court noted that the investigators had failed to question one of the drivers of the police cars, that they had not assessed the severity of the applicant’s injuries and had not determined whether the use of force by the policemen against the applicant had been lawful. On 6 March 2007 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 14 November 2006 on appeal. 42.  On 7 May 2007 the Prokopievsk Town Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the investigation. 43.  On 19 February 2008 the District Court quashed the decision of 7 May 2007, noting that the investigation had been incomplete. On 8 April 2008 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 19 February 2008 on appeal. 44.  On 16 June 2008 the investigator at the Prokopievsk Department of the Interior discontinued the investigation. On 8 July 2008 the Kemerovo Regional Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 16 June 2008. 45.  On 10 October 2008 the Kemerovo Regional Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the investigation. 46.  According to the Government, the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation reviewed the investigation file and found the decision of 10 October 2008 unlawful, noting that the investigating authorities had failed to comply fully with the court’s decision of 19 February 2008. In particular, the investigating authorities had not reconciled the contradictory findings of the forensic reports in order to assess the veracity of the statements made by the applicant, her daughter and the policemen. The Government did not submit a copy of the decision in question. 47.  On 29 April 2010 the case file was returned to the regional prosecutor’s office for further investigation. The proceedings are still pending.