6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the village of Inchkha in the Dagestan Republic of the Russian Federation. 7.  On 16 April 1996 the Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic, sitting as a court of last instance, found the applicant guilty of manslaughter and the unlawful possession of weapons and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment in a correctional colony. 8.  In separate proceedings on 16 May 1996 the Kizlyar Town Court of the Dagestan Republic found the applicant guilty of a grave traffic offence which led to the victim’s death under Article 211 § 2 of the RSFSR Criminal Code and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment, to run concurrently with the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court. 9.  The applicant began serving his sentence in 1996 in colony no. IU-4 in the Tyumen Region. 10.  In 2000 a special police unit came to the colony in order to search the cells. 11.  The applicant alleges that he was beaten up during the search and that his gall-bladder was damaged as a consequence. He also alleged that he contracted diabetes as a result of the injury. 12.  In September 2000 the applicant sued the colony administration for damages. 13.  On 21 September 2000 the Kalininskiy District Court of Tyumen returned the applicant’s claim without examining it on the grounds that he had failed to comply with the procedural requirements prescribed by law, namely to pay a court fee, submit additional copies of his statement of claim and indicate possible evidence. Apparently the applicant did not rectify the mentioned shortcomings. 14.  On 1 August 2002 a special police unit (ОСН УИН МЮ РФ в Тюменской области) arrived at the colony. According to the applicant, the unit stayed at the colony until 7 August 2002, and during that period he was severely beaten on several occasions. No medical assistance was provided after the beatings and the colony’s doctors refused to record ill-treatment in his medical records. 15.  The applicant alleged that his ribs were broken and his left kidney damaged. He was X-rayed but was never given a copy of the results. 16.  According to the Government, at about 10.20 a.m. on 1 August 2002 warders searched the applicant’s cell. A warder told the applicant to undress in readiness for a body search. When the applicant refused he was warned that his further refusal would result in the use of force in accordance with sections 28-30 of the Penitentiary Institutions Act. The warder gave the applicant a minute “to reconsider”. 17.  As the applicant refused to implement the order and became aggressive, the warders gripped his hands and forced him to undergo the body search. 18.  On 1 August 2002, immediately after the events complained of, the applicant was examined by a colony doctor who made the following entry on the applicant’s medical card:
 “State of health after the use of force: no injuries.” 19.  On 9 August 2002 the applicant complained to the colony doctor of chest pain. He was examined and diagnosed with neurocirculatory dystonia. On 29 August 2002, following further complaints, he was re-examined.
 20.  On 2 September 2002 the applicant was admitted to the colony hospital. He claims that doctors diagnosed him with nephroptosis (a kidney disease) which resulted from the beatings. However, according to the documents submitted, he was diagnosed with diabetes. 21.  On 4 September 2002 a surgeon at the colony hospital examined the applicant and diagnosed him with “an injury to the left side of the chest”. 22.  On 16 October 2002 the applicant underwent a “large picture frame photoroentgenography”, which revealed no pathological changes. 23.  The applicant submitted his complaint about the alleged ill-treatment during the period from 1 to 7 August 2002 to the General Prosecutor’s Office, which redirected it to the Tyumen Regional Prosecutor’s Office. 24. On 30 August 2002 an investigator from the Tyumen Regional Prosecutor’s Office rejected the applicant’s request for criminal proceedings to be initiated against the warders, having found no evidence that an offence had been committed. He referred to a statement by one of the warders and to the entry made on the applicant’s medical card on 1 August 2002, both of which indicated that the applicant had not been found to be suffering from any injuries. 25.  On 13 September 2002 the applicant lodged a further complaint about the events of 1 August 2002. On 24 December 2002 the investigator at the Tyumen Regional Prosecutor’s Office authorised a forensic medical examination of the applicant to be conducted on the basis of the latter’s medical records. 26.  The expert submitted his report on 24 January 2003. He had studied the photofluorograms taken of the applicant’s chest on 24 July 2002 and 16 October 2002 and found no sign of injuries. Nonetheless, he noted that it was necessary to perform a plan (survey) X-ray of the applicant’s chest in order “to establish whether he had had fractures of the ribs”. 27.  By a decision of 25 January 2003 the investigator of the Tyumen Regional Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the applicant’s second request for the institution of criminal proceedings. He questioned five colony warders and noted that on 1 August 2002 the applicant had disobeyed the lawful orders of the warders who had intended to perform the body search, in particular, he had “acted aggressively, pushed away the warders’ hands and grabbed them by their clothes”. The order to use force had been given because there were no other means to make the applicant obey a lawful order of the colony administration. Two warders had used physical force by holding the applicant’s arm in an arm-lock behind his back. The applicant had agreed to the search and it was then carried out. 28.  The investigator also established that the applicant had been examined by doctors on several occasions. On 1 August 2002 the colony doctor had found no evidence of ill-treatment on the applicant’s body. On 12 September 2002, during the applicant’s stay in the hospital, a bruise on the left side of his chest was reported. The investigator also noted that an additional X-ray had been scheduled for 9 October 2002, however there was no indication whether it had been performed. 29.  The investigator relied, lastly, on the conclusion in the expert report of 24 January 2003 that the applicant’s medical records contained no information about the alleged injuries. 30.  On 5 March 2003 the Tyumen Regional Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 30 August 2002 concerning the applicant’s first request (see paragraph 24 above) and remitted the case for further investigation. 31.  On 11 June 2003 another investigator from the Tyumen Regional Prosecutor’s Office again dismissed the applicant’s request for the institution of criminal proceedings against the warders. He based his decision on the same grounds as in the decision of 25 January 2003 after questioning the police officers who had visited the colony on 1 August 2002 and who confirmed that they had not used any force against the applicant. 32.  On 12 May 2005 the Tyumen Regional Prosecutor quashed the decision of 11 June 2003. He noted that the detainees C., M., L. and K. had confirmed the applicant’s allegations about the use of force against him, so that there was a conflict in the evidence which needed to be settled. The prosecutor ordered criminal proceedings to be instituted on the fact of alleged ill-treatment pursuant to Article 286 § 3 (a) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for abuse of official power associated with the use of violence). 34.  Following the institution of the proceedings, on 30 November 2005 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. The X-ray showed some deformation of the applicant’s left rib no. VIII, which according to the forensic experts “was consistent with a united fracture that occurred at the time and in the circumstances described in the documents”. No further details were given in the report. 35.  On 13 November 2006 the proceedings were suspended in accordance with Article 208 (1) § 1 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (failure to identify the culprits). 36.  On 24 February 2009 the Investigative Committee at the Tyumen Regional Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 13 November 2006 and resumed the proceedings with further instructions on investigative measures to be undertaken. 38.  On an unspecified date the colony administration applied for a court order subjecting the applicant to a different detention regime, inter alia, because he had disturbed the order in the colony, disobeyed the lawful orders of warders, refused to work, and consumed alcohol and drugs. 39.  On 12 November 2002 the Kalininskiy District Court of Tyumen ordered that the applicant should serve the remaining term of his sentence in a prison. The applicant was not present or represented at the hearing. 40.  The applicant appealed against that decision. He also asked for Mr R. M. (who, at the time, was detained in colony no. IU-2) to be appointed as his representative. 41.  On an unspecified date in November 2002 the applicant was transferred from the colony to a temporary detention facility pending a further transfer to a prison. 42.  On 17 December 2002 the Tyumen Regional Court quashed the decision of 12 November 2002 and remitted the matter for fresh examination by the first-instance court. 43.  The outcome of the proceedings remains unclear. However, it appears that the applicant was returned to colony no. IU-4 where he remained until his release on 7 November 2003.