5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Cahul. 6.  On 30 May 2002 (31 May 2002, according to the Government) the applicant was arrested in Chişinău by the Department of Criminal Investigation of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on suspicion of racketeering (banditism). He alleges that he was hooded, pushed into a car and taken to a police station. 7.  At Hânceşti Police Station the applicant was allegedly severely beaten up by police officers. He alleges that a police officer in plain clothes ordered five other officers to put a gas mask over his head; that he was handcuffed and his legs tied together and attached to his arms behind his back; that he was laid face-down on his abdomen; and that two electric wires were attached to his ears. He was allegedly given electric shocks while cold water was poured over him. Because of the severe pain he bit his tongue. In the meantime, another police officer had been blocking the air to the gas mask and moving the wires from his ears to his toes. The applicant alleges that between 30 May and 3 June 2002 he was subjected to the same ill-treatment every night. During the day he was driven to Comrat Police Station. 8.  On 3 June 2002 the Comrat District Court issued an order remanding the applicant in custody for a period of thirty days. The applicant was placed in the remand centre of Comrat Police Station. It is unclear from the documents in the case file whether he appealed against the decision of 3 June 2002. 9.  Following a request from his lawyer, an investigator from Comrat Police Station ordered the applicant’s examination by a forensic doctor A. medical report of 4 June 2002 stated, inter alia:
“[According to the applicant] On 30 May 2002 he was taken to Hânceşti Police Station. His arms and legs were tied together, and he was beaten with a baton and with metal bars. Electric wires were attached to his toes and he was given electric shocks. When he was losing consciousness water was poured over him. The wires were then attached to his ears and he was again given electric shocks. When he was losing consciousness water was again poured over him. A gas mask was put over his head and the air permanently cut off. The applicant complained of headache, nausea and pain in the injured places.
Above the right eyebrow – a scratch of 2.4 x 1.4 cm, ..., in the right occipital region of the head – a light-yellowish bruise of 1 x 0.8 cm, on the right upper eyelid - an oval bruise of 3.5 x 0.8 cm, around the left eye – a light-yellowish bruise of 4.5 x 2.1 cm, ... irregular-shaped light-violet bruises of 2.6 x 2 cm and 2.7 x 1.9 cm on both cheeks, in the right temporal region – an irregular-shaped light-yellowish bruise of 4 x 2 cm, auricles (right and left) [ears] – yellow, ... on the front part of the right shoulder – a yellow bruise of 10 x 7 cm, ... multiple bruises of between 7.3 x 2.4 cm, 1.3 x 1.2 cm and 4 x 0.9 cm on both sides of the chest, on the abdomen – multiple irregular-shaped light-yellowish bruises of between 1.8 x 1.2 cm and 6 x 1.7 cm, on the scapulas – irregular-shaped dark-reddish bruises of 9 x 6 cm, 14 x 2 cm and 3.7 x 1 cm, multiple bruises of between 0.2 x 0.4 cm and 7 x 2.2 cm on both legs. ... On the tip of the [applicant’s] tongue – oval scar of 1.4 x 0.6 cm, 0.3 cm in depth.
The scratches and bruises ... were inflicted by blows with a hard blunt object, the scar on the tip of the tongue ... could have been caused by human teeth, [the injuries] could have been caused in the circumstances and at the time indicated and are qualified as light bodily injuries.” 10.  On 26 June2002 a private newspaper published an article according to which the police had arrested a gang organised by the applicant. It gave his name and stated that he could be sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. 11.  On 13 June 2003 a State-owned newspaper also published an article about a group of people suspected of racketeering. However, it did not disclose the applicant’s name, but only mentioned “Petru B.”. 12.  On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the General Prosecutor’s Office about the alleged ill-treatment in Hânceşti Police Station. On 18 and 31 March 2005 the Hânceşti and the General Prosecutor’s Office, respectively, informed the applicant that his complaint had been dismissed on grounds of lack of “constitutive elements” of an offence. It appears that, in dismissing the applicant’s complaint, the Prosecutor’s Office relied on the statements of two police officers who had declared not having beaten the applicant and not having seen any signs of ill-treatment on his body on 1 June 2002 when they had escorted him from Hânceşti Police Station to another police station. The prosecutor concluded that the injuries found on the applicant’s body had not been caused by police officers from Hânceşti Police Station. 13.  Between January and October 2003 the criminal case against the applicant was examined by the Chişinău Court of Appeal. On 7 October 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal declined jurisdiction in favour of the Cahul Court of Appeal, which, in turn, declined jurisdiction on 31 October in favour of the Comrat Court of Appeal. In view of a competence conflict over jurisdiction, the case was sent to the Supreme Court of Justice which decided, on 27 January 2003 that the Cahul Court of Appeal was the competent instance. 14.  By a judgment of the Cahul Court of Appeal of 18 June 2007 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. It is not clear from the parties’ submissions whether the proceedings ended on that date.