5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Moscow. 6.  On 17 April 2003 the police arrested the applicant on suspicion of robbery and extortion and took him to the Yuzhnoye Tushino police station in Moscow. The applicant alleged that once at the police station, he had been beaten by police officers to make him confess to criminal offences and that he had then written a self-incriminating statement. 7.  On 18 April 2003 the Tushinskiy Interdistrict Prosecutor’s Office (“the prosecutor’s office”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of several criminal offences, including robbery and extortion. On the same date the applicant was released. 8.  On 24 April 2003 an investigator from the prosecutor’s office ordered that the applicant be taken to the police station for questioning. The order stated that despite numerous summonses, the applicant had failed to appear at the police station for questioning. 9.  On 25 April 2003 the investigator questioned the applicant in the presence of legal counsel. During the interview the applicant submitted that he had confessed to criminal offences on 17 April 2003 after having been beaten by police officers. 10.  On the same date the investigator charged the applicant with several criminal offences, including robbery and extortion, and made him sign a written undertaking not to leave his place of residence. The decision stated that the applicant had a permanent address and was not trying to abscond and that there was therefore no need to deprive him of his liberty. It appears from the material of the case file that starting from that date and throughout the criminal proceedings against him, the applicant was assisted by legal counsel. 11.  On 28 April 2003 the deputy prosecutor quashed that decision on the grounds that the applicant had failed to appear at the police station despite numerous summonses, had no permanent job, and might reoffend and interfere with the proceedings. 12.  On the same date the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention, holding as follows:
“It transpires from the evidence at the disposal of the court that Mr Mikhalchuk A.V. has committed serious and particularly serious offences punishable by deprivation of liberty and that he has no job. Having regard to the nature of the offences committed by him, the court has grounds to believe that he might abscond and reoffend.
Having regard to the above, the court comes to the conclusion that there are no grounds to choose a more lenient measure of restraint, other than pre-trial detention.” 13.  On 19 May 2003, following the applicant’s statement that he had been beaten by police officers, the investigator ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant. 14.  On 31 May 2003 a forensic expert concluded that the applicant had several bruises on his body and face. However, it was impossible to ascertain the date on which they had been sustained. 15.  On the same date the investigator refused to open criminal proceedings into the applicant’s complaints that he had been beaten by police officers on 17 April 2003. The decision stated that the applicant had the right to appeal against it either to a prosecutor or to a court. On the same date a copy of that decision was sent to the applicant. 16.  On 20 June 2003 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 28 July 2003, holding as follows:
“It transpires from the evidence at the court’s disposal that Mr Mikhalchuk A.V. is charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment and that he has no job.
Having regard to the above, the court has grounds to believe that if released Mr Mikhalchuk A.V. might abscond and therefore the court concludes that there are no grounds to choose a more lenient measure of restraint in respect of Mr Mikhalchuk.” 17.  On an unspecified the criminal case against the applicant was referred to the District Court for trial. 18.  On 4 August 2003 the District Court set the preliminary hearing of the case for 19 August 2003 and held that the measure of restraint applied to the applicant, namely, pre-trial detention, should remain unchanged. 19.  On 19 August 2003 the District Court held a preliminary hearing. 20.  On 12 January 2004 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for release and extended his and his co-defendant’s detention until 16 April 2004. The District Court held as follows:
“Mr Mikhalchuk and Mr Isayev are charged with serious and particularly serious offences. Mr Mikhalchuk was placed in pre-trial detention on 28 April 2003 ... Taking into account that the case had not yet been examined on the merits, a psychological expert examination of the victim had been arranged and had not yet been performed, and having regard to the gravity of charges against each of the co‑defendants, the court considers that no other measure of restraint can ensure their appropriate behaviour. Therefore the court cannot choose another, more lenient preventive measure.” 21.  In his appeal against the detention order the applicant submitted that the District Court had not given any grounds to support its assertion that it could not apply a different preventive measure. 22.  On 17 February 2004 the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”) dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the decision of 12 January 2004 was lawful and justified, in particular, by the gravity of the charges against him. 23.  On 13 April 2004 the District Court extended the detention of the applicant and his co-defendants until 16 July 2004, on the same grounds as in its decision of 12 January 2004. 24.  On 14 July 2004 the District Court found the applicant guilty of several criminal offences, including robbery and extortion, and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. At the trial the applicant pleaded not guilty and submitted that he had confessed to the criminal offences under physical pressure from police officers. The District Court did not address his complaint that he had been beaten by police officers. It based the applicant’s conviction on statements by victims, witnesses, his co-defendants and a large amount of material evidence. The District Court also held that the applicant’s statements made during the pre-trial proceedings could form the basis of a judgment since they had been made in the presence of legal counsel. 25.  In his appeal against the conviction the applicant submitted, among other things, that he had confessed to the crimes after being beaten by police officers and that the investigator had refused to institute criminal proceedings against them. 26.  On 19 October 2004 the City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction. It appears from the appeal decision that the City Court did not address the applicant’s complaint about his forced confessions. 27.  Following the applicant’s repeated complaints about the ill-treatment by police officers on 17 April 2003, on 4 May 2005 the prosecutor’s office again informed the applicant that it was open to him to challenge the decision of 31 May 2003 in court. It appears from the material in the case file that the applicant did not lodge a judicial appeal against the decision of 31 May 2003. 28.  On 16 June 2005, the Presidium of the City Court, by way of a supervisory review, modified the part of the judgment of 14 July 2004 concerning the legal classification of the offences and upheld the remaining part of the judgment.