4.  The applicant was born in 1971. The applicant’s home address after his release from detention in 2003 was not provided. 5.  As established in the criminal case against the applicant (see paragraph 26 below), on 6 November 2001, at around 5 a.m., the applicant and an accomplice attempted to steal a car. A person residing in the neighbourhood called the police. Seeing that his accomplice had been apprehended by two officers, the applicant ran off and did not stop despite warnings from officer S., who was pursuing him. Later on, this officer stated under oath that after he had fired a warning shot in the air he saw the applicant fall into an opening for water drainage. Having been asked to stand up and move into a lighted area, the applicant, as perceived by S., adopted a threatening stance and moved forward to inflict a blow on S. To prevent resistance, the officer inflicted a blow to the applicant’s chest and used martial arts. The applicant fell to the ground and was handcuffed. Officer S. subsequently confirmed his earlier description of the arrest during a confrontation with the applicant. Another officer, K., was interviewed and also confirmed S.’s description of the arrest. 6.  According to the applicant, early in the morning of 6 November 2001, when he was about to answer the call of nature on the street, a car stopped nearby and he saw a gun being pointed at him from the car window. Fearing for his life, he started to run away. However, hearing a gun shot and “Stop, police!”, he lay down on the ground and did not resist. 7.  After the arrest the applicant was taken to the Kryukovo district police station in Moscow (ОВД «Крюково» г. Москвы). In the police station, field service officer Ma. interviewed the applicant from 11.30 a.m. to 11.40 a.m. The interview record indicates that the applicant was informed of his right under Article 51 of the Constitution and that “in addition to his earlier statement” the applicant also mentioned his previous convictions. 8.  Investigator M. ordered field service officer G. to interview the applicant. Officer G. interviewed the applicant from 12.25 p.m. to 1 p.m. The applicant admitted that he had opened the door of the car with a screwdriver and had tried to start up the engine. 9.  As can be seen from another interview record signed by investigator M., after the above-mentioned interviews the applicant requested legal assistance and named as his representatives the advocate Mr Koblev and Ms Chuvilova, who was not an advocate but worked for a non-governmental organisation. According to the applicant, the investigator refused permission to call his representatives or otherwise notify them of his arrest (see, however, paragraph 12 below). 10.  According to the applicant, at the police station he was ill-treated by the operational officer who took his confession to the car theft. The applicant was handcuffed to a chair and punched and kicked. The officer put a gas mask on his face and blocked the air vent on it (see also paragraph 14 below). 11.  At 3.15 p.m. the applicant was examined for alcohol intoxication at a Moscow clinic. According to the record, the applicant was not intoxicated and had no cuts or bruises but his clothing was dirty. 12.  At 10 p.m. Ms Chuvilova arrived to see the applicant. On seeing injuries on his face and body, she called for an ambulance. It arrived and took the applicant to an emergency medical centre. The record of his admission there reads as follows:
“Pain on the bridge of the nose, ribs X and XII on the right side, and especially in the right wrist in the area of I metacarpal bone I ... [illegible] ... Dark blue haematomas on the body (the left side of the chest) and nose.”
The applicant’s chest and right wrist were X-rayed. The X-rays disclosed no fractures. It was concluded in the discharge certificate that the applicant was fit to remain in police custody. 13.  On 7 November 2001 investigator M. interviewed the applicant in the presence of his counsel Mr Koblev. The interview concerned the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant, and the interview record reads, in the relevant part, as follows:
“Mr Koblev: During this interview I have observed haematomas on your right ear and your nose. I also see that your right hand is bandaged. Please explain when and where these injuries were caused.
Answer by Mr Mogilat: These injuries were inflicted on me during an interview with an operational officer whom I can identify. This happened in office no. 213 of the Kryukovo police station. In addition to these injuries, I have bruises all over my body ...
Question for Mr Mogilat: When you were arrested by police officers at 5 a.m. on 6 November 2001, did you attempt to flee or resist the arrest? Did the police officers use any special measures or means, martial arts or firearms?
Answer by Mr Mogilat: During the arrest I attempted to escape, but after a police officer fired a shot in the air, I lay down and did not resist. They handcuffed me and took me to a police station ...”
The applicant’s counsel requested an inquiry to be ordered without delay and that the applicant be immediately examined by a forensic medical expert. 14.  During an interview with an assistant to the public prosecutor on 8 November 2001 the applicant described the operational officer in question in more detail:
“On 6 November 2001, at or around 11 or 12 a.m., I was in office no. 213 of the Kryukovo police station together with the operational officer, who was 175 to 180 cm tall, had a round face and dark brown hair and was stocky. Following the beatings he must have had a bleeding abrasion on his hand. At first I was handcuffed to a chair. The officer told me to sign a statement which indicated that I had tried to hijack the car. I refused to sign and he started hitting and kicking me all over my body; I do not remember the details as I was in a state of shock. Then he put a dark brown gas mask on me and blocked the air vent, and I felt a sudden strong blow to my head ... I signed the interview record. The handcuffs had to be removed with the aid of a hammer ... I would be able to identify the officer who ill-treated me ... A blow from the hammer used to remove the handcuffs left traces on the office table ...”
The applicant’s counsel, Mr Kovlev and Ms Chuvilova, were present at the interview and reiterated their request for an immediate expert examination of the applicant. Such an examination was carried out in December 2001 (see paragraph 16 below). 15.  On 9 November 2001 investigator M. ordered the applicant’s continued detention. The investigator referred to the “gravity of the crime committed by Mr Mogilat” and the risk that he would flee the investigation or trial. The prosecutor of the Zelenogradskiy district of Moscow countersigned the decision. 16.  On 4 December 2001 investigator Ts. from the Investigations Unit of the Kryukovo police station submitted the applicant’s medical documents for a forensic examination in order to determine the extent and origin of the applicant’s injuries. On 6 December 2001 the expert returned the following findings:
“During the examination [the applicant] was aggressive. When asked to get undressed, he swore and threatened to complain to the Strasbourg court. He wanted to be assisted by counsel in answering the questions raised before the expert ...
Having examined [the applicant], the medical hospital record and two X-rays, I have reached the following conclusions:
Having examined [the applicant] on 4 December 2001 (that is, one month after the events) I have not detected any injuries or traces of injuries ... The medical record from the hospital referred to haematomas on the right hand, chest and face. I note in this connection that the medical record has insufficient information about the morphological characteristics of the injuries, such as quantity, form, size, and exact anatomic location. Thus it is difficult to provide answers to certain questions raised by the requesting authority.
It follows that the following injuries were caused to Mr Mogilat: a haematoma on the right hand followed by oedema, a haematoma on the left side of the chest and a haematoma on the nose. These bodily injuries have no forensic qualification and their gravity cannot be determined because they did not entail temporary disability for up to 21 days ... The injuries could have been caused as a result of impact by a hard object(s)... it is possible that they could have been caused on 6 November 2001 in the circumstances described in the file ...” 17.  On 18 December 2001 the applicant read the expert report and requested that an alternative expert report be commissioned because he had not been informed of the investigator’s decision of 4 December 2001 to request an expert report and he had thus not been able to suggest questions to be raised before the expert. This request for a new expert report was rejected. 18.  It appears that on an unspecified date Ms Chuvilova was interviewed in relation to the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment. The applicant also confirmed his earlier allegations. 19.  Several other persons were interviewed by unspecified officials during the inquiry. Arresting officers S. and K. claimed that the applicant had resisted arrest and that they had resorted to martial arts. Investigator M. stated that he had not seen any injuries on the applicant and that he had asked officer G. to conduct the interview. Officer G. denied that he had used force against the applicant in the police station. This officer also maintained that the applicant had confessed voluntarily. 20.  On an unspecified date, the inquiry file into the allegation of ill-treatment was submitted to an assistant to the Zelenogradskiy district prosecutor. 21.  On 26 December 2001 Ms Chuvilova filed a complaint with the Zelenogradskiy District Court of Moscow alleging violations of the applicant’s rights on account of ill-treatment by the police, the conducting of interviews in the absence of counsel, the belated commissioning of a forensic examination, and the lack of an investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment. 22.  On 29 December 2001 the assistant to the district prosecutor issued a decision refusing the institution of criminal proceedings in relation to the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. On the basis of the testimony of above-mentioned witnesses, the medical report and the applicant’s own statements, the assistant to the prosecutor found that the injuries could have been caused during the applicant’s arrest and that there was no indication of abuse of power on the part of officer G. The Zelenogradskiy deputy prosecutor approved the assistant’s decision not to prosecute. It appears that the applicant’s counsel received a copy of that decision at the beginning of the trial in the applicant’s own criminal case. 23.  By a letter of 24 January 2002, a judge of the District Court forwarded Ms Chuvilova’s complaint of 26 December 2001 to the Moscow city prosecutor. Ms Chuvilova complained to the Moscow City Court that the District Court had not taken any procedural decision on her complaint. She received no reply from the City Court. Instead, on 18 February 2002 the District Court issued a decision by which it declared itself not competent to examine the complaint on the ground that such matters were not amenable to judicial review. 24.  According to the Government, on 28 February 2002 another refusal to institute criminal proceedings was issued in relation to the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment. In the Government’s submission, this document could not be submitted to the Court because of the destruction on an unspecified date of the inquiry file containing this document, due to the expiry of the retention period. 25.  On an unspecified date, the criminal case against the applicant was set for trial before the District Court. The applicant pleaded not guilty. Ms Chuvilova was removed from the proceedings by a decision of 2 April 2002 with reference to her previous questioning as a witness in relation to the allegation of ill-treatment. 26.  On 18 April 2002 the District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to five years and three months’ imprisonment. The District Court addressed the issue of the applicant’s injuries in the following manner:
“During the pre-trial investigation and the trial the applicant repeatedly claimed that he had been severely beaten by police/operational officers and that he had been taken to a trauma unit and been treated for injuries by the emergency squad. The court does not doubt the fact that the defendant sustained some injuries because his arrest, as it has been established, was accompanied by the use of force. Mr S. hit him in the stomach and used martial arts on him, which certainly does not preclude some bodily injury ... A forensic medical expert issued a report ... The district prosecutor’s office carried out an inquiry into the applicant’s complaint. The inquiry did not confirm the facts alleged by Mr Mogilat and the institution of criminal proceedings was refused.” 27.  On 22 April 2002 the City Court quashed the decision of 18 February 2002 (see paragraph 23 above) and remitted the matter for a new examination by the District Court (see also paragraph 30 below). 28.  The applicant appealed against his conviction and sought leave to be represented by Ms Chuvilova, but the court refused his request, noting that the applicant already had two lawyers, Mr Koblev and Mr Kozlov. On 17 June 2002 the City Court upheld the conviction. Following an application for supervisory review lodged by the President of the City Court, the Presidium of the City Court quashed the appeal judgment on unspecified grounds and remitted the matter for a new appeal hearing. 29.  On 26 July 2002 the City Court scheduled a new appeal hearing for 7 August 2002 and ordered that the applicant’s lawyers be informed accordingly and that the applicant should participate in the hearing by way of a video link from his detention facility. On 7 August 2002 one of the lawyers asked the City Court to adjourn the hearing because the other lawyer was participating in other unrelated proceedings. The City Court granted his request and fixed a hearing for 13 August 2002. The text of the adjournment order indicates that the lawyer was to inform his absent colleague of the adjournment. The adjournment decision sets out the lawyer’s undertaking to this effect and bears his signature. It is also indicated in the order that on 8 August 2002 the presiding judge left a telephone message with the absent lawyer’s office about the adjournment. On 13 August 2002 the appeal court held a hearing. On the same date, the appeal court issued an appeal decision upholding the conviction. The text of the decision indicates that the court heard the applicant and his lawyers. 30.  In the meantime, on 10 July 2002 the District Court re-examined Ms Chuvilova’s complaint about various violations of the applicant’s rights at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings (see paragraphs 23 and 27 above). Referring to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in force since 1 July 2002, the District Court noted that the applicant had already been convicted at final instance and that Ms Chuvilova had been removed from the proceedings by a decision of 2 April 2002 which had not been appealed against. On the merits of the complaint, the District Court ruled as follows:
“As regards the substance of Mrs Chuvilova’s arguments, the court has established that all these arguments were examined by the court in the criminal proceedings against Mr Mogilat; certain pieces of evidence were declared inadmissible ... The trial court made an appropriate legal assessment of these arguments ... ”
On 15 August 2002 the Moscow City Court summarily upheld that decision. 31.  On 25 October 2002 Mr Kozlov sought supervisory review of the trial and appeal judgments in the criminal case against the applicant. 32.  On 10 April 2003 the Presidium of the City Court upheld the judgment and reduced the applicant’s sentence to four years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s arguments were summarised as follows in the Presidium’s decision:
“... The appeal decision does not comply with the requirements of law because it does not contain responses to the entirety of the defence’s arguments as presented in the statements of appeal. Nor does it contain sufficient reasoning for rejecting certain points of appeal. Moreover, the appeal hearing did not remedy the shortcoming previously identified by the supervisory-review court.”
As to the alleged ill-treatment, the Presidium held as follows:
“The trial court found that [the applicant] had sustained injuries during his arrest; he had attempted to leave the crime scene. The police officers had had to use firearms and martial arts. As stated by the witness S., after his warning shot [the applicant] had fallen into an opening for water drainage ... his clothes were dirty.” 33.  The applicant was released in December 2003. 34.  From 10 to 13 November 2001 the applicant was held in a temporary detention centre and was then transferred to Moscow remand centre no. 77/5. 35.  Allegedly, the applicant was not given any food on the days of the court hearings between 28 March and 18 April 2002. He had to wake up at 5 a.m. and was taken back to his cell in the detention facility at 11 p.m. His cell was overcrowded and the material conditions were unsatisfactory.