5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Costeşti. 6.  On 15 July 2008 the applicant was visited by three police officers who inquired about the whereabouts of his son and who wanted to conduct a search of the applicant’s house. According to the applicant, when he asked whether they had a warrant they beat him up, handcuffed him and took him to the police station. At the police station the ill-treatment continued. The applicant received a blow to his head as a result of which he fell over and lost consciousness. He woke up lying in a pool of blood and was made to clean it up. The applicant was detained and released five days later. The Government did not contest the above facts. 7.  On 16 July 2008 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with a prosecutor’s office, complaining about his ill-treatment the evening before. 8.  On 17 and 23 July 2008 the applicant was examined by forensic doctors who reported that he had scratches and bruises on his face, chest and right foot. The doctors concluded that the injuries could have been caused by blows with a blunt object with a limited surface area, possibly in the way described by the applicant. 9.  On 25 July 2008 a prosecutor from the Ialoveni prosecutor’s office dismissed the applicant’s complaint as ill-founded. The prosecutor’s office reached this conclusion on the basis of statements made by the accused police officers, who submitted that they had searched the applicant’s house in order to find his son. They alleged that the search had been conducted with the applicant’s permission, but that the applicant had kept insulting them during the search. Because of the way the applicant had been behaving, the accused police officers had decided to take him to the police station. His injuries had been caused as a result of him putting up resistance. 10.  On 29 October 2008 a hierarchically superior prosecutor quashed the above decision and ordered a re-investigation of the circumstances of the case. 11.  On 21 November 2008 a prosecutor from the Ialoveni prosecutor’s office again dismissed the applicant’s complaint as ill-founded, on similar grounds as the first time. The applicant appealed, but his appeal was rejected by a hierarchically superior prosecutor on 31 March 2009. The applicant appealed to an investigating judge. 12.  In the meantime, the Ialoveni prosecutor’s office initiated administrative proceedings against the applicant on charges of having insulted the accused police officers and having resisted arrest. On 3 March 2009 the Chișinău Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant with final effect, after finding the charges against him ill-founded. 13.  On 24 April 2009 an investigating judge from the Ialoveni District Court upheld the applicant’s appeal, quashed the decision of 31 March 2009 and ordered a fresh re-examination of the applicant’s complaint. 14.  On 24 July 2009 a prosecutor from the Ialoveni prosecutor’s office again dismissed the applicant’s complaint. 15.  On 20 August 2009 a hierarchically superior prosecutor rejected a further appeal by the applicant. The applicant appealed to an investigating judge. 16.  On 24 December 2009 the Ialoveni District Court upheld the applicant’s appeal, quashed the decisions of 24 July 2009 and 20 August 2009 and ordered a re-examination of the case. 17.  On 17 February 2010 a prosecutor from the Ialoveni prosecutor’s office again dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The applicant appealed to a hierarchically superior prosecutor. 18.  On 10 May 2010 the Ialoveni District Prosecutor upheld the applicant’s appeal and quashed the decision of 17 February 2010, ordering a new examination of the case. 19.  In the re-opened investigation a new forensic medical report was obtained, which confirmed the findings of the initial reports and excluded the possibility of the injuries to the applicant’s body having been self-inflicted or caused by a fall. 20.  On 12 July 2010 a prosecutor from the Ialoveni prosecutor’s office again dismissed the applicant’s complaint as ill-founded. The applicant appealed to a hierarchically superior prosecutor. 21.  On 5 August 2010 a hierarchically superior prosecutor rejected the applicant’s appeal. The applicant appealed to an investigating judge. 22.  On 13 October 2010 a judge from the Ialoveni District Court upheld the applicant’s appeal and quashed the decisions of 12 July 2010 and 5 August 2010, ordering a re-examination of the case. 23.  On 3 January 2011 a prosecutor from the Ialoveni prosecutor’s office again dismissed the applicant’s complaint. 24.  On 7 April 2011 a hierarchically superior prosecutor quashed the above decision and ordered a re-investigation of the circumstances of the case. 25.  On 14 April 2011 a criminal investigation was formally initiated for the first time by the Ialoveni prosecutor’s office and the applicant was formally recognised as a victim. 26.  Between that date and 23 November 2011 the prosecutor’s office took evidence from the applicant, his wife and two neighbours. One of the neighbours has seen the applicant being ill-treated by two police officers while a third police officer held back his wife. He had seen one of the police officers kicking the applicant in the chest two or three times. Another neighbour, who did not see the whole incident, had seen two police officers carrying the applicant, who appeared to be unconscious, to their car. The applicant’s wife submitted that her husband had been beaten up by two police officers and thrown to the ground while the third one held her back. 27.  On 6 April 2012 the Ialoveni prosecutor’s office remitted the case file to the District Court for trial. It appears that to this day the proceedings are still pending before that court.