5.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Krasnodar. 6.  On 25 August 2003 B. was found dead by the Kuban river. On 26 August 2003 the district prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation into B.’s murder. 7.  On 29 August 2003 the applicant attended at the police station for questioning. He explained that he had discovered B.’s body on 25 August 2003 in the yard of his summer cottage. There had been a knife next to the body. According to the applicant, he had panicked, thrown away the knife, put B.’s body into the sidecar of his motorcycle, taken it to the river and left it there. Later he had realised that he had made a mistake and gone back to the river. The body was not there. The applicant had spoken to lawyer M., who had advised him to contact the police. According to the applicant, he was handcuffed and taken to an office where five police officers beat him for several hours, ordering him to confess to B.’s murder. The applicant alleged that the officers hit him with rubber truncheons on his feet, legs, stomach, chest and the back of his head. They allegedly tortured him with electricity and threatened to rape and kill him and his family members. When his resistance was worn down, the applicant wrote a confession statement, prompted by the police officers. He reiterated his confession, in the lawyer’s presence, on 31 August 2003. 8.  From 29 to 31 August 2003 the applicant was held in an overcrowded cell at the police station, allegedly without food or water. The police officers allegedly continued threatening the applicant, offering to secure his release in exchange for 10,000 US dollars. 9.  On 1 September 2003, at 6.10 p.m., the police officers took the applicant to a hospital, where he was examined by the doctor on duty, who documented an infected wound on his chest. The doctor treated the wound and concluded that the applicant was fit for detention. The applicant was then transferred to a temporary detention centre. 10.  On 5 September 2003 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the prosecutor’s office about the applicant’s ill-treatment in police custody. 11.  On 8 September 2003 investigator G. of the prosecutor’s office ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant, which was conducted immediately. On the same day, the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers, relying on their statements, in which they denied having put any pressure on the applicant when questioning him. 12.  On 11 September 2003 the applicant’s daughter lodged a complaint with the prosecutor’s office about the applicant’s ill-treatment in police custody. The applicant lodged a similar complaint on 25 September 2003. 13.  On 23 September 2003 the forensic expert completed the report concerning the applicant’s injuries. In particular, the expert stated as follows:
“[The applicant] has a striated abrasion on the chest which measures 6 centimetres in length and 2.5 centimetres in width and is covered with a sanious yellow [crust] ... [There is] an injury having an irregular oval form and measuring 1.5 centimetres in length and 0.5 centimetres in width on the external surface of the upper third of the left leg, [the injury] is covered with a dry dark brown crust ... [There is] a round abrasion measuring 0.6 centimetres in diameter on the front surface of the upper third of the left leg; [the injury] is covered with a dark brown crust ... [There is] an abrasion on the back surface of the left foot; [the abrasion] has an irregular oval form, measures 2 centimetres in length and 1 centimetre in width and is under a red brown crust ... The skin around [the abrasion] is oedematous and reddish. No other injuries have been discovered ...
...
On the basis of the data from the forensic medical expert examination of [the applicant] [I] reach the following conclusions in response to the questions put:
[The applicant] has sustained the following injuries:
- an abrasion on the front surface of the chest, an abrasion of the left foot [caused] up to 1 day before the expert examination;
- abrasions on the leg [caused] 3-4 days before the examination.
The above-mentioned injuries were caused by blunt solid objects and did not cause damage [to the applicant’s] health.” 14.  On 30 September 2003 the decision of 8 September 2003 was quashed and the materials were sent for further examination. The supervising prosecutor noted as follows:
“The decision [of 8 September 2003] was not substantiated. No inquiry ... was in fact conducted. [The investigator] questioned only the police officers; [the applicant], his lawyer and [the applicant’s daughter] were not questioned. Their allegations were not confirmed or refuted. Accordingly the said decision must be quashed.” 15.  On 8 October 2003 the regional prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against the police officers on charges of abuse of power. 16.  The investigator questioned the applicant, his daughter, the two lawyers representing the applicant, the guards at the police station, certain persons who had been detained with the applicant at the police station, and the alleged perpetrators. The applicant named two of the police officers who had taken part in the beatings and claimed that he would be able to identify the others if given the opportunity. 17.  On 11 March 2004 the applicant underwent another forensic medical examination. In the report, issued on 26 March 2004, the experts confirmed that at the time of the first examination the applicant had had an infected wound on the chest, two abrasions on the left leg and abrasions on the left foot. They concluded that the injuries had been caused by solid blunt objects and could have been sustained “in the circumstances and on the dates detailed by the applicant”. The experts also noted that the injuries on the left foot could have resulted from electrocution. 18.  On 7 May 2004 investigator P. closed the criminal investigation against the police officers. He relied on the statements of the alleged perpetrators, who stated that they “had tried to convince” the applicant to confess to the murder. They fiercely denied that any force or pressure had been used against him. They also stated that the applicant had had no visible injuries. The senior investigator also included in his decision statements by a number of police officers and arrestees who had seen the applicant between 29 August and 1 September 2003. The officers and arrestees, except for one person, stated that the applicant had had no visible injuries and that he had not made any complaints about the alleged beatings. One of the arrestees confirmed that the applicant had had an injury on his chest and that he had complained that the police officers had tortured him. On the basis of that evidence, the investigator concluded as follows:
“[The applicant] indicates that he was beaten up by police officers of the Crime Detection Unit of the Prikubanskiy District Police Department in Krasnodar and thus that the statements in which he confessed to B.’s murder, a crime which he had not committed, were obtained under duress. However, it is necessary to take into account that in the materials of the case file concerning the charge against [the applicant] there is sufficient evidence to prove [the applicant] guilty of a particularly serious criminal offence – murder; the criminal case was sent to the trial court to be examined on the merits, and the materials of the present criminal case do not contain sufficient evidence to prove [the police officers] guilty of committing an offence in respect of [the applicant]. The forensic medical expert examinations performed ... came to mutually exclusive conclusions. The conclusions of the additional forensic medical examination in respect of the time and origin of [the applicant’s] injuries are hypothetical. The witnesses’ statements, save for those made by lawyer P. and [the applicant’s] daughter, do not confirm that unlawful investigative measures or unlawful arrest were used in respect of [the applicant] and [do not confirm] any of the other circumstances described by [the applicant].
...
In such circumstances, the [applicant’s] allegations about the offence committed against him have not been substantiated. It follows that there are no grounds to indict [the police officers] on criminal charges. Their guilt of committing the criminal offence of [abuse of power] is not confirmed by the evidence collected.” 19.  On 6 December 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar quashed the decision of 7 May 2004 and remitted the matter for further investigation. In particular, the court indicated as follows:
“Having examined the materials in the criminal case file and compared them with the arguments proffered by [the applicant], the court concludes that [the decision of 7 May 2004] was premature. The statements made by [the police officers under investigation] are contradictory. Furthermore, not all investigative measures ... were carried out.” 20.  On 9 March 2005 the Krasnodar Regional Court, acting on an appeal by the prosecutor, quashed the decision of 6 December 2004 and remitted the matter for fresh examination to the District Court. 21.  On 20 June 2005 the District Court upheld the decision of 7 May 2004, reasoning as follows:
“As has been established ..., on 8 October 2003 the [regional prosecutor’s office] opened [a criminal investigation] in respect of [the police officers] who had allegedly caused injuries to [the applicant].
In the course of the investigation of the criminal case ..., all investigative actions were carried out. The witnesses and [the alleged perpetrators], and ... were questioned. Forensic medical expert examinations were conducted. However, no circumstances which objectively confirmed that the police officers had used physical force against [the applicant] were established.
Moreover, on 19 November 2004 [the applicant] was convicted ... ; [the applicant’s] confession statement served as the basis for [the conviction].
The court cannot take into account [the applicant’s] argument that he made the confession statement as a result of unlawful ... measures taken against him by the police officers ... . Those arguments were refuted in the course of the [applicant’s] trial as contradictory to the actual circumstances of the case.” 22.  On 12 October 2005 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal, endorsing the reasoning of the District Court. 23.  On 1 September 2003 the Prikubanskiy District Court of Krasnodar authorised the applicant’s detention pending the investigation noting as follows:
“The applicant is suspected of a particularly serious criminal offence, and, if released, might abscond or interfere with administration of justice”. 24.  On 25 October 2003 the Leninskiy District Court of Krasnodar extended the applicant’s detention until 30 November 2003. The court reasoned as follows:
“The information pertaining to the circumstances of the case, the progress of investigation and the [applicant’s] character shows that the investigation cannot be completed within two months and that there are no grounds to change or lift the preventive measure imposed on [the applicant].” 25.  On 30 November 2003 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 December 2003. The court noted as follows:
“The fact that [the applicant] is charged with a particularly serious criminal offence and that neither he nor his defence lawyer has so far studied the materials of the case file shows that the investigation cannot be completed within three months. There are no grounds to change or lift the preventive measure imposed on the [applicant].” 26.  According to the Government, on 16 February 2004 the Prikubanskiy District Court held a preliminary trial hearing of the case and ruled, inter alia, that the applicant should remain in custody pending trial. It again extended the applicant’s detention on 22 June and 23 August 2004. 27.  On 19 November 2004 the Prikubanskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. The District Court based its decision on, inter alia, the confession statements given by the applicant between 28 August and 1 September 2003. As regards the applicant’s arguments that those statements had been made under duress, the court stated as follows:
“The court considers that [the applicant’s] argument that his initial statements made in the lawyer’s presence did not correspond to the factual circumstances as [those statements] had been extracted by the use of unlawful methods of criminal investigation, is farfetched [and was] made in order to evade the punishment for the crime committed.
The [applicant’s] allegations were examined during the pre-trial investigation and were not confirmed; which fact was indicated in the [investigator’s] decision ... of 7 May 2004 to discontinue the criminal proceedings concerning ... [the police officers who had allegedly subjected the applicant to ill-treatment] ... .” 28.  On 9 February 2005 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. 29.  On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no. IK-2 in the Krasnodar Region to serve his prison sentence. 30.  Approximately two and a half years after the applicant’s conviction, on 19 July 2007, the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed, by way of supervisory review, the judgments of 19 November 2004 and 9 February 2005 and remitted the matter for a retrial. The decision of 19 July 2007 was silent on the issue of the applicant’s detention. The applicant remained in custody. 31.  On 6 November 2007 the Prikubanskiy District Court fixed the preliminary trial hearing for 14 November 2007 and ruled that “[the applicant] should be remanded in custody [pending trial]”. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer attended the hearing. 32.  On 14 November 2007 the District Court listed the trial for 26 November 2007. As regards the applicant’s detention, the court held that “the preventive measure applied to [him] should remain unchanged”. The court also dismissed an application by the applicant for release. 33.  On 28 November 2007 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 14 November 2007 on appeal. 34.  On 21 February 2008 the Prikubanskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of manslaughter and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. The court dismissed the applicant’s allegations that initially he had confessed to the crime because of the undue pressure put on him in the police custody as unsubstantiated. The court took into account the period the applicant had already spent in detention and released him on his own recognisance. Neither the applicant not the prosecutor appealed against that judgment. 35.  The applicant brought a civil action against the regional prosecutor’s office and the Regional Treasury, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of his allegedly unlawful arrest and detention, ill-treatment by the police, and conviction. 36.  On 5 August 2008 the Pervomayskiy District Court of Krasnodar dismissed the applicant’s action, finding that he had been convicted by a final judgment on 21 February 2008 and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. Despite the fact that the trial court had changed the initial classification of the criminal offence from murder to manslaughter, the applicant had not acquired the right to rehabilitation as his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The District Court also noted that the applicant’s complaint about the alleged ill-treatment in police custody was unsubstantiated. 37.  On 18 November 2008 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.