5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in the city of Moscow. Her son, Mr Vasiliy Yuriyeivich Keller (V.K.), was born on 30 August 1977 and as of 1998 resided in the city of Ivanovo, in the Ivanovo Region. 6.  On 13 September 2000 the applicant’s son was arrested and escorted to the Oktyabrskiy District Department of the Interior in Ivanovo (Октябрьский районный отдел внутренних дел города Иванова – “the ROVD”). 7.  An arrest record was drawn up at 5.30 p.m. by investigator A., following which the applicant’s son was questioned as a suspect in the theft of two bicycles. 8.  The interrogation record drawn up on that day at 6.30 p.m. noted that the applicant’s son was a drug addict infected with HIV, that he had been caught red-handed riding a stolen bicycle and that during the police interview he had confessed to that theft. 9.  After the interview the applicant’s son was detained in the Regional Department of the Interior’s custody room (ИВС Управления внутренних дел Ивановской области). 10.  On 16 September 2000 V.K. was brought from the custody room to office no. 315, situated on the third floor of the ROVD station. 11.  Acting in the presence of duty lawyer D., investigator Ya. charged V.K. with theft. The applicant’s son denied the charges. The interview ended around 1.45 p.m., at which time D. apparently left the office. Investigator Ya. asked her office mate, trainee investigator K., to keep an eye on V.K. while she was away meeting with a prosecutor. 12.  At around 3 p.m. that day V.K. was found dead in the internal courtyard of the ROVD station. 13.  Immediately following the incident an emergency medical team arrived and its doctors confirmed V.K.’s death. 14.  The authorities drew up a scene record and sent the corpse for a forensic medical examination to establish the cause of death. 15.  On the same date investigator K. wrote a report about the incident. He stated as follows:
“... At 2.30 p.m. Ya. left the office, having warned me that she was going to see the prosecutor about the arrest of V.K. At that time V.K. was sitting on a chair two metres away from me and two metres away from the door. At 2.35 p.m. I was minding my own business, when V.K. quickly stood up and ran out of the office. I ran after him and saw that he was running to the other wing of the building. I ran after him and saw him running into the toilet. There was no one in the corridor. I ran into [the toilet] and saw that the window was half open and V.K. was not there. I looked out of the window and saw that V.K. was lying on the ground and not moving...” 16.  On 17 September 2000 the applicant asked the prosecutor for the Ivanovo Region to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the death of her son, blaming the police officers in charge of the investigation and escorting V.K. for it. 17.  On 19 September 2000 the head of the Ivanovo City civil registry office issued death certificate I-FO no. 524264 in respect of V.K. The certificate stated that his death had taken place on 16 September 2000 in the city of Ivanovo and that the cause of death was “traumatic shock and multiple trauma to the head, chest and torso”. 18.  On 20 September 2000 the Ivanovo City Department of the Interior issued order no. 125, admitting the absence of the escorting officers on the spot at the relevant time and the fact that the interview had taken place in the investigator’s office rather than appropriate designated premises. The order stated that this was in breach of Order of the Ministry of the Interiorno. 41-96 and also admitted that some of the relevant officials had been unaware of the requirements of Order no. 41-96. A number of the officials involved, including the ROVD’s officer on duty, escorting officer M. and the head of the ROVD were reprimanded in relation to this episode. 19.  On 2 October 2000 the senior management of the Regional Department of the Interior discussed the incident leading to the death of V.K. The officials admitted the violation of domestic law, but, having regard to the fact that investigators Ya. and K. had been “inexperienced”, decided to give them a warning. 20.  On 7 October 2000 an investigator from the District Prosecutor’s Office, having examined the materials collected as a result of the inquiry into the events of 16 September 2000, decided not to institute criminal proceedings in connection with V.K.’s death. The decision was reasoned as follows:
“... in the course of the check it was established that on 13 September 2000 [V.K.] was arrested on suspicion of having committed a crime set out in ... part 2 of Article 158 of the Criminal Code of Russia, and under Article 122 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR was detained in the Ivanovo Regional Department of the Interior’s custody room, where he was held between 13 and 16 September 2000. On 16 September 2000 [Ya.] in view of the considerable amount of investigative actions [to be performed] in this case took a decision to carry them out in her office, which is why [V.K.] was escorted from the custody room to [Ya.’s] office situated on the third floor of the ROVD building. After carrying out the investigative actions [Ya.] ... left the office to see the district prosecutor [in order] to decide on the measure of restraint in respect of [V.K.], trainee investigator [K.] remained [in the office] along with [V.K.]. Suddenly [V.K.] ran out of the office and threw himself out of the window of the ROVD building.
[K.], questioned during the check, stated that on 16 September 2000 he was in the office with [V.K.], whilst [Ya.] was away to see the prosecutor. Suddenly [V.K.] ran out of the office, down the corridor and entered the toilet. Having entered the toilet in the footsteps of [V.K.], [K.] saw the toilet window, which was partly opened. He looked out of the window and saw that [V.K.] was lying on the ground [three floors below] without moving. [K.] told the officer on duty and the prosecutor what had happened. It was 2.40 p.m.
During the examination of the scene of the incident it was established that the corpse of [V.K.] was located in the courtyard of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD [station] situated at 39 Lenin Avenue, Ivanovo. The corpse of [V.K.] was 2.5 metres away from the wall of the ROVD building, parallel to that wall. The corpse was lying on its back face up, with the head [facing] towards the garages and the legs pointing towards Lenin Avenue. The face was turned to the right side. The external examination revealed yellowish and greenish-yellow bruises on the face and chest area. Just above the location of the body on the third floor of the ROVD [building] in the male toilet there was a window with two blinds left open towards the inside.
The check revealed that at the time of admission to the custody room [V.K.] did not make any complaints about his state of health, having made a hand-written statement in the search record: ‘generally fit’. On 14 September 2000 at9.25 a.m. the emergency medical team was called upon to see him and the doctor who examined [V.K.] made the following diagnosis: ‘myositis of the left side of the chest. He may be held in the custody room.’ Subsequently, at the time of his detention in the custody room [V.K.] did not complain about his health.
According to the record concerning the circumstances of the infliction of the bodily injuries, [V.K.] himself explained that the bruises near his left eye and on the right shoulder [had occurred] on 13 September 2000 [when] he had bumped into a door. [V.K.] wrote by his own hand in that record that he had had no complaints against the police officers in this connection.
Thus, basing itself on the results of the check, the investigation considers the arguments made by [the applicant and blaming the officials for the death of her son] in her application unjustified.
...
The investigation is of the view that there is no indication of any crime as defined by the Criminal Code of Russia in the actions of the police officers or other persons.” 21.  On 24 October 2000 the Prosecutor’s Office for the Ivanovo Region reviewed the decision dated 7 October 2000 and quashed it as unlawful and unjustified. It was noted that:
“... the incident became possible through serious breaches by the officers of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD of the relevant requirements concerning the detention, protection and escort of suspects and accused. The breaches of the rules of escort committed in respect of [V.K.] ... manifested themselves in the non-execution or untimely execution of their duties by officials of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD which resulted in the accidental death of a man.” 22.  By the same decision it was decided to institute criminal proceedings into the circumstances of V.K.’s death and transfer the case to the Ivanovo City Oktyabrskiy District Prosecutor’s Office (“the District Prosecutor’s Office”) for investigation. 23.  On 13 November 2000 an investigator from the District Prosecutor’s Office interviewed investigator K., who essentially confirmed his statement of 16 September 2000. 24.  On 24 December 2000 an investigator from the District Prosecutor’s Office summarised the findings made as a result of the criminal investigation and decided to discontinue it, citing the lack of any indication of a crime. 25.  As a result of the investigation, some additional written statements had been collected from the witnesses in the case, including the applicant, police officer M. – who had escorted V.K. on 16 September 2000 to office 315, investigator K. and officer on duty A.M. It appears that the latter three essentially confirmed the version of the events set out in the decision of 7 October 2000. The investigator again examined the male toilet’s window on the third floor of the ROVD building and obtained an additional forensic examination of the corpse of V.K. dated 23 November 2000. From that forensic examination it was established that apart from the injuries related to V.K.’s fall there were also the following unrelated injuries: three bruises on the face, and six bruises on the chest dating approximately 3 to 7 days before the date of death.
The decision was reasoned as follows:
“Having analysed the materials of the criminal case, the investigation has come to the conclusion that ... there is no indication of any crime set out in Part 2 of Article 293 of the Criminal Code [criminal negligence] in the actions of the ROVD officers ... [V.K.] took steps himself – ran out of the office of the investigator, tried to escape, jumped out of the window of the toilet situated on the third floor of the building ... There was no physical or psychological pressure [exerted] on [V.K.] by the police officers.
The investigation is of the view that one could speak of disciplinary liability of the ROVD officers ... who committed serious breaches in the area of treatment of detainees escorted from the custody room ... and indeed they were found disciplinary liable by Order no. 125 of 20 September 2000. However, there is no indication of any crime in their actions or inaction ...” 26.  On 2 March 2001 the decision of 24 December 2000 was quashed by the City Prosecutor’s Office as unfounded. 27.  On 6 March 2001 the investigation resumed. 28.  On 14 March 2001 an investigator interviewed V., who at the relevant time had acted as the head of the ROVD’s investigation department. She stated that she had witnessed the incident on 16 September 2000:
“... When I entered the office [of Ya. and K.], I saw investigator K. and an unknown woman talking to each other about something. Ya. should have been in that office, since [Ya. and K.] worked together... I asked K. about the whereabouts of Ya., to which he responded that Ya. had probably gone to see the prosecutor about the measure of restraint [to be applied in respect of] V.K. I went out of the office and went to the office of prosecutor L. He was alone in the office. I asked him about the whereabouts of Ya., to which he responded that she was not there... [having then visited a duty area of the ROVD building and failed to locate Ya., I went back to the office of Ya. and K.] Here I met K. again. The woman was not there anymore. I started to question him in an insistent manner regarding the whereabouts of Ya. Right after I spoke K. got up and silently ran from the office, which surprised me very much. I went to the corridor where I met an officer from the duty area who asked me about the whereabouts of V.K. I told him that I did not know. At this moment, K. approached us from where the toilets were. He was pale and scared, all disturbed. From their conversation I understood that Ya. had brought V.K. to her office. Then I asked K. about whereabouts of V.K., to which he did not respond, but said at the same time that he had looked everywhere and could not find him. After this conversation I realised that V.K. had been in [their] office and had then somehow managed to escape. We then decided to search the toilet [on the third floor]. I was the first to enter it. There was a window on left side. It was neither shut nor open. I opened one of the windows, stood up and leaned with my knee on a window sill and looked out. Down on the paved area I saw a man lying. I had no doubts whatsoever that it was V.K. ...” 29.  On 6 April 2001 the District Prosecutor’s Office again discontinued the investigation for essentially the same reasons as stated in the decision of 24 December 2000. 30.  On the same date the decision to discontinue the investigation was again quashed and the investigation resumed. 31.  On 17 April 2001 an investigator interviewed investigator K., who now changed his submissions. He admitted that V.K.’s escape had initially gone unnoticed by him until the arrival of V., following which they had seen V.K.’s body on the ground beneath the toilet window. K. was also questioned about V.K.’s injuries, to which he responded that V.K. “may have had a bruise or two” but that he “could not remember exactly”. 32.  On 20 April 2001 an investigator questioned V.K.’s lawyer D., who stated in relation to the events of 16 September 2000 that V.K. had had a bruise in the area of his left eye as a result of ill-treatment by the police during his arrest but that he had made no further complaints. 33.  On 29 June 2001 the District Prosecutor’s Office again discontinued the proceedings. This time the investigator collected statements from a wider range of witnesses, such the applicant’s other son and other members of the family, senior ROVD officers, the District Prosecutor, all escorting officers who had been on shift on the relevant date, the investigating officers, two private individuals, Da. and Ko., who were apparently the victims of the crime V.K. had been accused of and who had taken part in his arrest, and Za., a detainee who had seen V.K. on 16 September 2000. The investigator also collected statements from Zh. and S., two police officers who had brought V.K. to the police station on 13 September 2000. 34.  On the basis of the evidence in the case file, the investigator essentially upheld the previous factual conclusions but for one element. It was now argued that at 1.45 p.m. V.K. had ceased to be a suspect in the case, as he had become an accused. Since no measure of restraint had yet been chosen, the investigator argued that V.K. had no longer been in custody, had been free to leave and that the police officers had had no duty to take care of him. It was also confirmed that there had been no evidence confirming physical coercion by the police. The latter conclusion was made on the basis of the following pieces of evidence:
“...Da. and Ko., interviewed as witnesses, gave corroborating statements that on 13 September 2000 they arrived at their place of work in the drug rehabilitation centre ... by bicycle. Having noted that the bicycles had gone missing, they started to search for them. They managed to apprehend [V.K.], who tried to escape on Da.’s bicycle. They did not beat him while they were apprehending him. After that they called the police...
Za., interviewed as a witness, stated that on 16 September 2000 he was brought from the custody room to the ROVD building along with [V.K.] and that he saw a bruise on the latter’s face. He knew nothing about the circumstances in which it had been inflicted...
The case file contains a report concerning [V.K.’s] injuries drawn up on 13 September 2000 in the custody room, according to which [V.K.] had bruises in the area of his left eye and on his right shoulder. In the report there is a statement that these injuries were received by [V.K.] at [his home] on 13 September 2000 [when he]: “bumped into a door”. [V.K.] wrote by his own hand in that record that he had had no complaints against the police officers in this connection.
The case file contains a certificate from the custody room [to the effect] that during [V.K.]’s admission on 13 September 2000 he made a hand-written statement ... [that he was] “fit”... On 14 September 2000 an emergency medical team was called to [V.K.], which authorised his continued detention from the medical point of view. [V.K.] did not make any further complaints about his health during his detention.
The case file contains copies of medical records [drawn up by] the emergency medical team... During his [examination by them] no bodily injuries were identified and he was diagnosed with “Acute respiratory disease. Myositis of the chest on the left side”...
[The post-mortem medical examination of [V.K.] established the following injuries:] three bruises on the face and six bruises on the chest, which had formed as a result of no less than nine blows from blunt and hard objects on the aforementioned areas three to seven days prior to death, and are unrelated to the cause of death...
Therefore, considering the evidence collected in the course of the criminal investigation, the investigation finds that: 1. Three bruises on the face, six bruises on the chest dating from three to seven days before death, which, according to the expert examinations were unrelated to the cause of death ... were inflicted on [V.K.] during his apprehension [by the victims of the theft] on 13 September 2000. This conclusion is confirmed in part by the ... medical examinations, in part by [a member of [V.K.]’s family who saw him on 13 September 2000 prior to the events], investigator Ya., investigator K. and ... by the other pieces of evidence. At the same time, the investigation concludes that the aforementioned injuries were inflicted on [V.K.] ... by Da. and Ko., whose statements the investigation finds not to be credible. At around 11 a.m. on 13 September 2000 [V.K.] left his home [with no injuries, as confirmed by one of his family members], whilst police officers Zh. and S. who arrived at around 3 p.m. at the rehabilitation centre ... were [able to attest that they had seen] the presence of injuries. There was no need for them to apply force [by then], because [V.K.] had already been apprehended [by Da. and Ko.] and was unable to escape. The investigation is critical of [the information contained in the statement of witness D.] that, according to [V.K.], one of the bruises on [V.K.’s] face had been received by him through ill-treatment by the police officers, as [V.K.] did not make any complaints in this connection, even though he could have done so. This conclusion is confirmed by the hand-written statement of [V.K.] in the [relevant report made in the custody room] to the effect that he had no complaints about the police officers. The investigation does not exclude that the injuries could partly have been received on 13 September 2000, when he “bumped into a door”, but did not become fully apparent [until later], which is why [his family member] failed to notice them...” 35.  On 10 October 2001 the above decision was essentially confirmed by the same official and repeated, in order to comply with changes in applicable legislation. 36.  On 28 June 2002 the General Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 10 October 2001 and sent the case for additional investigation to the District Prosecutor’s Office. Among the reasons for the decision, the reviewing body cited the lack of any in-depth inquiry into the personality of V.K. and, in particular, him having been infected with HIV. 37.  On 31 July 2002 the case was accepted for examination by the District Prosecutor’s Office. 38.  On 15 August 2002 the authorities took yet another decision to discontinue the investigation and essentially repeated their earlier reasoning. 39.  On 22 October 2002 the decision of 15 August 2002 was quashed by the Regional Prosecutor’s Office, which took the view that “the relevant police officers had acted with manifest negligence”. 40.  On 17 November 2003 the investigation was again discontinued by the District Prosecutor’s Office. This time, the investigation obtained a new forensic examination of the corpse, studied and presented a new theory of the possible reasons for V.K. to have committed suicide, which it was considered was supported by the fact that he had already had a criminal record and, as a drug addict, feared pre-trial detention because of the difficulty of obtaining drugs in a detention centre. Overall, it was concluded that the officers involved had committed a disciplinary offence which did not contain any elements of a crime. The investigation concluded that the V.K.’s attempt to escape was in itself a crime. As regards V.K.’s injuries, the decision stated:
“... According to a [fresh] expert examination ..., there were the following injuries on the body of [V.K.]: 1. On the face: around the left eye [there was] a bruise, purple in the centre area and blue-greenish on the periphery, sized 6 to 9 cm; in the area of the nose and lips on the right side of the [danger] triangle area a similarly-sized bruise and a similarly-sized bruise in the area of the lower jaw around the third and fourth teeth, sized 2 to 3 cm; 2. On the front surface of the chest: on the right and left sides of the collarbone and front armpit lines [there are] similarly sized bruises (as on the face), numbering six and sized from 2 to 4 and 4 to 6 cm ...
The blue-greenish colouring on the periphery of the bruises on the face and front chest confirms that [these] bruises dated from three or more days before the date of death, were inflicted by blows from blunt and hard objects... and were not causally connected with the cause of death...” 41.  As regards V.K.’s motives, the investigation concluded as follows:
“On the basis of the combined collected evidence in the case, of both a subjective and an objective character, the investigation concludes that the death of [V.K.] took place as a result of an unsuccessful attempted escape from the detention. Fearing that a measure of restraint would be adopted in respect of him, which for him as a drug addict constituted a real challenge in view of the inability to obtain drugs in the remand prison where he would be held for a long time and using the fact that K. was looking away, [V.K.] exited the investigator’s office... proceeded to the male toilet on the third floor and jumped out of the window. Given, however, that he had no prior experience of jumping from such a height, he misjudged his actions and died upon landing...” 42.  On 24 December 2003 the Ivanovo Oktyabriskiy District Court (“the District Court”) examined the applicant’s complaint in respect of the decision of 17 November 2003 and quashed the said decision as unlawful and unjustified. The court ruled that many relevant circumstances, such as the exact location of the police officers at the moment of the V.K.’s fall, who the first officer to start looking for V.K. was, and the exact lapse of time between the fall and the discovery of the body were still unclear and had to be examined. 43.  On 15 January 2004 the Ivanovo Regional Court essentially upheld the decision of 24 December 2003. 44.  On 19 February 2004 the Regional Prosecutor’s Office again discontinued the case as it had failed to establish any causal link between the death and the violation of the security rules by the police officers. The investigation concluded that it was unclear exactly how V.K. had gotten to the toilet, but it was clear that it had not happened through or because of any violence. It was concluded with reference to the way he had jumped and landed that he had done so by himself and that there had been no coercion by the police officers in this connection. 45.  On 20 April 2004 the District Court quashed the decision of 19 February 2004, ruling that the investigation should have arranged for a confrontation between all witnesses with divergent statements in the case. 46.  The decision of 20 April 2004 was upheld by the Regional Court on appeal on 25 May 2004. 47.  On 24 May 2004 the District Prosecutor’s Officer took a new decision to discontinue the investigation in the case. Having complied with the instructions of the courts, the investigation was of the view that a confrontation would not serve any purpose, as too much time had elapsed from the time of the incident and the witnesses could not recall the event in the necessary detail. The investigators decided that in any event the previous conclusions of the decision dated 19 February 2003 still held true, irrespective of the outcome of any possible confrontation, and accordingly decided to discontinue the case. 48.  On 8 June 2004 the Regional Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 24 May 2004 so as to comply with the appeal decision of 25 May 2004 (see paragraphs 45-46 above). 49.  On 6 July 2004 the case was again discontinued for essentially the same reasons as stated previously. 50.  On 10 September 2004 this decision was again quashed by the higher level of the Prosecutor’s Office. It was decided that not all the circumstances of the case were clear, in particular whether the window was open or closed after V.K. fell out of it and whether the corpse was moved after the fall. 51.  By a new decision dated 13 October 2004 the investigators decided to discontinue the proceedings, having reiterated the conclusions from all of their previous decisions and concluding that V.K. had unsuccessfully attempted to escape. The decision reads as follows:
“The instant proceedings were instituted by the Prosecutor’s Office for the Ivanovo Region on 24 October 2000 under Article 293 § 2 of the Criminal Code of Russia in connection with the alleged negligence of [policemen] resulting in [V.K.’s] death...
The investigation in the present case established that on 13 September 2000 [V.K.] was arrested on suspicion of having committed theft under Article 158 § 2 (a) of the Criminal Code of Russia and taken to the custody room of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD station in the city of Ivanovo.
On 16 September 2000 [V.K.] was escorted to [the police station]. He was taken to the office of investigator Ya. – a room on the third floor of the police station. The escorting officers left him in that office [with two investigators, Ya. and K.].
On 16 September 2000 at 1.45 p.m. Ya. in the presence of [V.K.]’s lawyer D., officially charged [V.K.] on suspicion of theft and questioned him. Subsequently, Ya. went out of the office to make a decision about the measure of restraint [to be applied] in respect of [V.K.], leaving him with K. 52.  On 18 March 2005 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 13 October 2004. The decision was reasoned as follows:
“In accordance with Article 7 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure of Russia, a decision of an investigator should be lawful and reasoned. The court concludes that the impugned decision of the investigator satisfies these requirements. It contains a description of the circumstances of the case [and makes] reference to the evidence.
First of all, the investigating authority examined the expert reports issued by the expert of the Ivanovo Region Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination, by the expert panel of the Ivanovo Region Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination, by the expert panel of the Ministry of Health’s National Centre of Forensic Medical Examination and the expert examination of the body performed by the expert from the Ivanovo Region Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination.
The aforementioned expert examinations proved that [V.K.]’s death and his injuries were caused by his fall. The experts found that [V.K.] had landed on his feet, i.e. [V.K.] had controlled his motions. [V.K.] suffered all of the injuries in a short time interval, almost simultaneously. He died immediately after the fall.
The alleged contradictions in the experts’ findings given in connection with the injuries on [V.K.]’s face and the time of his death were resolved. The expert from the Ivanovo Region Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination explained why there had been certain differences in the description of the facial injuries. He stated that the differences had been insignificant and could not have affected the overall conclusions about the nature of these injuries, their seriousness and the alleged time of their infliction. He explained that the conclusions of the experts had not been contradictory. These results had supplemented each other. The conclusions about the origin of the injuries also lacked contradictions, they were reasoned and valid. No additional expert examination of the exhumed body was required.
In the court’s view the experts’ reports are sufficiently consistent. They are based on the case file materials, including the record of examination of the scene of the incident. The experts who carried out the examinations were competent. They were informed of [the potential] criminal liability for deliberately false reporting. There are no reasons why the court should depart from their conclusions.
The circumstances of the death were examined by the court in its decision of 24 December 2003, which has entered into legal force. The [applicant’s] arguments were declared unfounded. The investigator’s refusal to order an examination of the exhumed body of 6 November 2003 was upheld by the courts.
The investigator did not examine the expert opinion [which had been submitted by the applicant] because it essentially repeated the previous conclusions of the experts.
The investigator took certain steps towards the reconciliation of certain differences in the statements of the witnesses by ordering cross-examinations between them. During these cross-examinations he established the circumstances [of V.K.’s death]. The description of the events presented by the investigator is sufficiently detailed. Only several insignificant details remained unclear owing to the lapse of time. However, this could not affect the general assessment of the circumstances of [V.K.’s death] and the overall findings of the investigating authorities.
The statements of the witnesses were examined and compared with the expert reports and other pieces of evidence. The court agrees with the investigator’s conclusion that [V.K.] was not ill-treated and was not forced to commit suicide.
The investigator responded to [the applicant’s allegation] that the crime had not occurred in the place where the body had been found. Referring to the expert examination reports the investigator explained why [V.K.] had been found lying on his back. The investigator took into account the mechanism of [V.K.’s] injuries. There is no evidence which could prove that [V.K.]’s body had been moved.
The investigator established all the circumstances of [V.K.]’s death. He gave an assessment of the actions of the policemen in light of the provisions of the Criminal Code of Russia, including its Article 293 § 2. He concluded that the police officers had breached certain rules of legislation; however there had been no causal link between their [unlawful] actions and [V.K.’s] death.
The court has no reason to call the investigator’s conclusions into question. All required investigative actions aimed at gathering of additional evidence and settling the contradictions were carried out. There is no reason to order additional expert examinations.
The court concludes that the decision of 13 October 2004 issued by the [investigative authorities] in connection with [V.K.]’s death is reasoned and lawful.” 53.  On 15 April 2005 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld the decision of the District Court on appeal, reiterating its reasoning and conclusions.