4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Kharkiv. 5.  On 11 April 2002 soon after 8 a.m. the applicant was arrested at his home by officers from the Kharkiv City Police Department (Харківське міське управління Головного Управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ в Харківській області)[1]. He was then taken to the forest, where the police officers beat him severely, forcing him to confess that he was storing weapons and ammunition. Later the police took him to the Kharkiv City[2] Police Station, where they beat him again and put a gas mask on him to induce suffocation. The applicant then confessed to storing and trading weapons. 6.  The applicant was taken home after 2 p.m. and the police conducted a search and seizure of weapons and ammunition at his house and in his garage. 7.  The same day he was taken to the Moskovskiy District Police Station, where he was asked to sign several documents including a paper that said he had no complaints about the police officers. 8.  On 12 April 2002 the applicant was released around 6 p.m. 9.  On 11 April 2002, officers of the Criminal Investigation Unit of the Kharkiv City[3] Police Department summoned the applicant for questioning. The applicant arrived at the Kharkiv City[4] Police Station and was questioned. On the same date, the police officers carried out a seizure of ammunition at the applicant's place of residence and in his garage. After the seizure, the police officers took the applicant to the Kharkiv Moskovskiy District Police Station. On the same date, the applicant was released. In the evening of the same day, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of storing drugs and taken to the district police station. A report of an administrative offence was drafted in respect of the applicant. 10.  On 12 April 2002, the officers of the Moskovskiy District Police Department (Московський районний відділ Харківського міського управління Головного Управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ в Харківській області)[5] took the applicant outside the city and, there, the applicant indicated the place where the rest of the ammunition had been stored. On the same date, the applicant was released at 5 p.m. Criminal proceedings against the applicant were instituted on charges of ammunition storage. 11.  Following his release, the applicant went home and felt unwell. An ambulance brought him to hospital the same day at about 8 p.m. The applicant told the doctors that he had been ill-treated by the police. The diagnosis on admission contained the following: closed head trauma, chest injuries, rib fractures, bruises on the back of the head, concussion, kidney trauma and post-traumatic pneumonia. According to the applicant, the doctors did not report all of his injuries, but only the most serious ones. 12.  On 18 April 2002 the applicant lodged a formal complaint about his ill-treatment by three officers of the Kharkiv City[6] Police Department – Messrs O.V.S., D.M.S. and D.N.S. – with the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor's Office (“the KRPO”). 13.  On 23 April 2002 the applicant's complaint was readdressed to the Moskovskiy District Prosecutor's Office (“the MDPO”). 14.  On 4 May 2002 the applicant was discharged from the hospital. Afterwards, he requested an examination by a forensic expert and received a letter of referral from the prosecutor handling the matter. 15.  On 7 May 2002, following a query by the applicant, the MDPO informed him that they had been reviewing the lawfulness of his detention at the Moskovskiy District Police Station and that they were sending his complaint to the Kharkiv City Prosecutor's Office (“the KCPO”)[7] to investigate the actions of the Kharkiv City[8] Police Department. 16.  On 17 June 2002 the KCPO[9] refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers of the Kharkiv City[10] Police Department, basing such refusal on the lack of proof that a crime had been committed. 17.  On 15 August 2002, the forensic expert gave his opinion that the applicant had sustained light and medium bodily injuries, including concussion and injuries to the chest and kidneys. 18.  On 20 August 2002 the KCPO[11] instituted a criminal investigation into the infliction of medium bodily harm on the applicant. The KCPO[12] noted that despite the refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers of the Kharkiv City[13] Police Department, the findings of the forensic examination called for an investigation into the infliction of bodily injuries to the applicant. 19.  In October 2002 two police officers of the Moskovskiy District Police Department and two attesting witnesses who had been present during the ammunition seizure on 11 April 2002 were questioned. They all denied seeing any violence towards the applicant or that he had suffered any injuries. 20. On 2 December 2002 the KRPO quashed the decision of 17 June 2002 and ordered a further investigation into the applicant's complaints. The KRPO noted that the applicant had always indicated that the injuries were inflicted on him by officers O.V.S., D.M.S. and D.N.S. from the Kharkiv City[14] Police Department and not by the officers of the Moskovskiy District Police Department. It was also noted that information on the possible involvement of the Kharkiv City[15] Police Department in the crime had been obtained and that not all of the necessary investigative actions had been carried out in the case. 21.  Following the applicant's complaint, the Kharkiv City[16] Police Department also conducted an internal inquiry and the applicant was informed in January 2003 that two police officers had been dismissed and one officer subjected to disciplinary sanctions. The dismissed police officers were later reinstated in their positions under a court decision. 22.  On 4 and 10 January 2003, the investigator questioned two of the officers of the Kharkiv City[17] Police Department – O.V.S. and D.M.S., who denied the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment. 23.  On 27 January 2003, upon the applicant's request, the investigator ordered a forensic medical examination, which was conducted on 4 March 2003. According to its conclusion, the previous diagnosis had been made on the basis of the applicant's complaints and had not been supported by any evidence. Therefore, the only injury that was not questioned was a bruise on the applicant's chest which could be classified as a light bodily injury. 24.  On 7, 16 and 28 May 2003 officers O.V.S., D.M.S. and D.N.S. from the Kharkiv City[18] Police Department were questioned and on 21 and 28 May 2003 a confrontation was conducted between them and the applicant. They denied any ill-treatment of the applicant. 25.  On 23, 26 and 27 May 2003 three more people present during the seizure of ammunition from the applicant on 11 April 2002 were questioned. They testified that they had seen no injuries being inflicted on the applicant and that they had heard no complaint from him. 26.  On 2 June 2003, the investigator terminated the criminal proceedings for want of proof of a crime. On 25 June 2003 this decision was quashed by the KRPO. 27.  On 4 September 2003, the investigator questioned Ms Ch., the applicant's neighbour, who had seen him together with the police officers near the entrance to his house on 11 April 2002. She had not seen evidence of any injuries to the applicant. 28.  On 26 September 2003, the investigator ordered an additional forensic medical examination, which was carried out between 9 October 2003 and 20 February 2004 by a group of specialists from the Central Forensic Medical Examination Office. The experts concluded that the medical diagnoses had been based on the applicant's complaints and not supported by other medical indications and were to be excluded as unreliable. Furthermore, the symptoms taken as a manifestation of concussion might have had a different explanation. They concluded that the applicant had not sustained medium bodily harm as indicated in the first report, but rather a light bodily injury which had been a bruise on his chest. 29.  On 11 May 2004, the investigator issued an order terminating the criminal proceedings for want of proof of crime and for lack of corpus delicti. The decision took into account both the testimonies of witnesses who had seen the applicant on 11 April 2002 and who had not noticed any injuries to the applicant, and the results of the forensic medical examinations of 4 March 2003 and 20 February 2004 which overruled the previous medical findings as to the existence of injuries to the applicant after the events of 11 April 2002. 30.  On 14 July 2004 the applicant challenged the decision of 11 May 2004 before the Moskovskiy District Court of Kharkiv. 31.  According to the applicant, the court received the case file from the MDPO only in February 2005. This was the first time that he had had the opportunity to study it, as all his previous requests to this end had been refused. 32.  On 8 April 2005, the Moskovskiy District Court quashed the decision of 11 May 2004 and ordered the prosecutor's office to conduct a further investigation. The court found, amongst other things, that the applicant's version of events had not been examined and that the chronology of the events of 11 April 2002 had not been established, despite the discrepancies between the testimonies of the applicant and the police officers. 33.  On 13 September 2007, the prosecutor's office decided to forward the case for further investigation to the police authorities, considering that infliction of bodily harm fell within their jurisdiction. 34.  On 30 November 2007, the investigator of the Moskovskiy District Police Department took the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti. He noted that none of the witnesses had confirmed the existence of injuries to the applicant on 11 and 12 April 2002 and that the forensic medical examination of 20 February 2004 had not confirmed the earlier findings as to the applicant's injuries, save for a bruise on his chest which could only qualify as a light bodily injury. 35.  According to the Government, the decision of 30 November 2007 was sent to the applicant on the same day and the applicant did not appeal against it. The applicant denied that he had received a copy of the aforementioned decision.