5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in a correctional colony in the Republic of Bashkortostan.
6.  On 17 November 2004 the applicant was abducted, allegedly by the police. According to him, he was first taken to the premises of the Tyumen police Organised Crime Department (“the Organised Crime Department”) and subsequently to a private cottage, where he was allegedly subjected to various forms of ill-treatment until 23 November 2004. The applicant was forced to do the splits, he was suffocated with a plastic bag, a book was held on top of his head and hit with a mallet, causing him to suffer head injuries, he had his arms twisted and stretched out and was given nothing to eat.
7.  On 23 November 2004 the applicant was arrested and taken to the Organised Crime Department’s premises to be interrogated and was subsequently put in a temporary detention facility. He was examined by a medical assistant and discovered to have large bruises on both thighs, abrasions in the area of the nasal septum and limitation of movement in the left hand and both legs. An X-ray examination performed on the same date showed no clear indications of structural, anatomic or traumatic changes in the applicant’s bones.
8.  On 25 November 2004 the applicant was admitted to detention facility SIZO-72/2 in Zavodoukovsk, the Tyumen Region. Upon admission the applicant was discovered to have a bruise on the upper third of the left inner shoulder up to 3 cm in diameter, large bruises on the surface of his inner thighs and a large bruise on the upper third of the right inner shin. He was treated with antibiotics, vitamins, and analgesic and vascular medications.
9.  On 29 November 2004 charges were brought against the applicant. He alleged that he had been beaten up by officers of the Organised Crime Department for his refusal to make self-incriminating statements.
10.  On the same date the applicant made a request for a forensic medical examination to confirm the injuries sustained by him between 17 November and 23 November 2004. The investigator ordered a review of the applicant’s medical file by a forensic medical expert.
11.  From 30 November to 7 December 2004 the applicant was again held in the temporary detention facility. Upon his admission he could not walk unassisted, explaining that his legs hurt. No physical injuries were discovered on him. The applicant made no requests for medical assistance.
12.  In the meantime, on 1 December 2004 the forensic medical expert concluded that it was impossible to carry out a review in the absence of the relevant documents (report no. 9900).
13.  On 3 December 2004 a lawyer was appointed to represent the applicant.
14.  On 9 December and 14 December 2004 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the prosecutor for the Leninskiy District of Tyumen (“the district prosecutor”) and the Tyumen regional prosecutor (“the regional prosecutor”) respectively about the beatings administered to the applicant between 17 November and 23 November 2004 by unidentified people. Outlining the circumstances of the beatings and their consequences on the applicant’s health, the lawyer requested the institution of criminal proceedings against the perpetrators and that the applicant be admitted to hospital as a matter of urgency.
15.  From 12 December to 23 December 2004 the applicant underwent hospital treatment for his injuries. An extract from his medical records indicates that he was referred to the hospital with a diagnosis of post‑traumatic femoral and paroneal nerve damage, and that he was released following a diagnosis of simulating the symptoms of a number of neurological conditions.
16.  On 27 January 2005 the investigator again ordered a review of the applicant’s medical file by a forensic medical expert.
17.  On 28 January 2005 the forensic medical expert reported that the abrasions on the bridge of the applicant’s nose, in the region of his left elbow, left forearm, right shin and left thigh would not cause harm to the applicant’s health and had been inflicted by the impact of blunt objects, which had not left traces suitable for identification, between eight to thirteen days prior to the applicant’s examination (apparently, the report referred to the applicant’s examinations on 23 November and 25 November 2004) (report no. 691).
18.  From 20 February to 7 April, from 16 May to 28 June, from 22 October to 7 November and from 29 November to 5 December 2005, from 27 January 2006 to an unspecified date and from 28 February to 21 March 2006 the applicant underwent hospital treatment for a variety of neurological conditions (neuropathy of the sciatic nerve, neuritis of the left radial and left paroneal nerves, osteochondrosis of the lumbosacral spine, polyneuropathy and distal paresis of the lower limbs).
19.  In the meantime, on 27 April 2005 the investigator appointed a panel to conduct a forensic medical examination of the applicant.
20.  On 11 May 2005 the applicant’s lawyer applied to the regional prosecutor, claiming, inter alia, that the applicant had not been receiving adequate medical assistance and seeking the alteration of the applicant’s custodial measure.
21.  On 24 May 2005 the applicant was examined by forensic medical experts, who on 26 May 2005 issued report no. 80 containing the following conclusions:
“... Complaints of inability to walk, absence of movement [and] numbness in the left hand, pain in the left forearm at rest and in movement, periodic enuresis. The above symptoms appeared several weeks after [the applicant] had been handcuffed for seven days by his left hand to a radiator, had received multiple blows to his arms and his legs and had been stretched out. Suffers ... from osteochondrosis of the lumbar region. Demonstrates immobility while walking, sharply [reduced mobility] in the left hand, especially the wrist. Moves with the assistance of two persons carrying him by the shoulders. Neurological status. Cranial nerves without irregularities. Diffuse hypotension in the left hand muscles. Not possible to state objectively the capacity of active movement due to manifestly [feigned] behaviour. Full extent of passive movement in all articulations. The left wrist position is typical for radial nerve lesion – “wrist drop”. The left foot position is typical for peroneal nerve lesion – “foot drop”. Sensory damage impossible to reveal due to manifestly [feigned] behaviour.”
22.  In the period between 27 April and 5 May 2006 the applicant underwent a medical examination, resulting in the following conclusion: “lumbar spinal osteochondrosis, herniated disk, radiculopathy, simulation of neurological conditions”.
23.  Between 30 December 2004 and 19 July 2007 an investigator of the Tsentralnyy district prosecutor’s office of Tyumen issued at least seven decisions refusing the institution of criminal proceedings against police officers or any other people for allegedly ill-treating the applicant between 17 November and 23 November 2004. All of the above decisions, except for the most recent decision of 19 July 2007, were subsequently set aside by the deputy prosecutor of the Tsentralnyy district prosecutor’s office of Tyumen as unfounded, and additional pre-investigation inquiries were ordered. The above decisions were based on the following evidence:
-  explanations by the applicant that on 17 November 2004 he and [one of his co-defendants] Yam. had been forced into a green VAZ 2110 car by three unidentified men. They had been taken blindfolded to a yellow brick building. Unidentified people had started stretching the applicant out, asking him about money and firearms. The applicant had replied that he had no money or guns. In the evening, the applicant had been taken by car to a cottage said to have been situated in the village of Patrushevo and to have belonged to the Bor. family. The applicant had seen people from the Bor. family in the cottage. He had spent seven days in the cottage, during which time he had been repeatedly subjected to torture. The unidentified men had threatened to kill the applicant’s son. On 23 November 2004 the applicant and Yam., blindfolded and handcuffed to one another, had been taken to a car and left on their own. Yam. had shouted out, asking that the handcuffs be taken off, but the unidentified people had already left. A police officer had then approached the car and had taken the applicant and Yam to the police station. After an hour, the applicant and Yam. had been taken to the Organised Crime Department. There, the applicant had recognised two men who had tortured him, who turned out to be police officers. After physical and mental coercion, the applicant had confessed to having abducted M. Bor;
-  explanations by the applicant’s co-defendant, Yam., similar to that of the applicant above;
-  a report by chief police officer S., who submitted that on 23 November 2004 police officer D. had contacted him and asked him to assist him in the arrest of the applicant and Yam.;
-  explanations by police officer D., who submitted that on 23 November 2004 he had seen a VAZ 21213 car with two people inside. He had previously received information that the above car was being searched for, having been used in the commission of several particularly serious crimes and that those responsible for the crimes might be inside the car. D. took the decision to arrest the two people in the car;
-  explanations by the head of the Organised Crime Department, Sh., who submitted that in September 2004 M. Bor. had been abducted and that criminal proceedings had been instituted in that connection. The investigation had been entrusted to the Organised Crime Department. In the course of operational proceedings it had become apparent that the applicant, Yam., and [another person, who had been identified later as L.] had been involved in the crime under investigation. On 19 November 2004 L. had been arrested. He had confessed to his involvement in the abduction of M. Bor. On 20 November 2004 B. had been arrested and given self‑incriminating statements. On the same day, the applicant’s and Yam.’s flats and garages had been searched, but that had not yielded anything. On the following day, information had been sent to all police stations to search for the applicant and Yam. On 23 November 2004 the Organised Crime Department had been informed that the applicant and Yam. had been arrested. The latter were taken to the Organised Crime Department. Sh. further submitted that he had not known about the abduction of the applicant and Yam. No physical force had been applied to them and they had not been subjected to any pressure;
-  explanations by M. Bor. and B. Bor., who submitted that they did not know the applicant and Yam. They further submitted that they owned an incompletely built cottage that had no heating or lighting;
-  the record of the applicant’s arrest of 23 November 2004 from which it could be seen that the applicant had made no allegations regarding ill‑treatment by the police;
-  expert report no. 9900 (see paragraph 12 above);
-  expert report no. 691 (see paragraph 17 above);
-  the report of a service inquiry by the IZ-72/2 remand prison in connection with the delayed recording of Yam.’s physical injuries;
-  an expert report on Yam.’s physical injuries;
-  explanations by Yam.’s ex-wife;
-  explanations by the applicant’s wife to the effect that on 17 November 2004 the applicant had not come home, and that on 20 November 2004 the police had carried out a search of their flat and seized the applicant’s personal belongings, video and audio equipment, and the applicant’s hunting rifles. On 23 November 2004 a lawyer, Yar., called to inform her that the applicant had been arrested and was at the premises of the Organised Crime Department. The applicant’s wife further asked that medical assistance be provided to the applicant who had been in a very bad state of health;
-  the reply from the prison hospital where the applicant had been examined in the neurological unit and given the following diagnosis: “Mentally healthy, simulation of neurological condition. Inclined to feigned behaviour, fit for work without limitations.”;
-  a similar document concerning Yam.;
-  the questioning of Yam.’s ex-wife as part of the criminal proceedings against him and the applicant to the effect that Yam. had been “mad” about guns and hunting, that he had often been absent for several days, that he had been friends with the applicant and that they used to go hunting together;
-  the questioning of Yam.’s son to the effect that his father and the applicant had been friends and had often gone hunting together; that on 17 November 2004 Yam. had left and he had not known his whereabouts;
-  the questioning of the applicant’s step-daughter, Z., to the effect that the applicant had been friends with Yam. and that they had often hunted together, that sometimes the applicant had been absent for several hours during the day, and that sometimes he did not leave the house for several days;
-  the questioning of Z.’s husband to the effect that the applicant had often gone hunting with his friend Yam.
24.  Having regard to the above evidence, the decisions refusing the institution of the criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment concluded that:
-  the abrasions on the bridge of the applicant’s nose, in the region of his left elbow, left forearm, right shin and left thigh had not caused harm to the applicant’s health;
-  the presence of abrasions on the applicant’s body, which had not caused harm to the applicant’s health and could have appeared in the course of everyday life, had not been indicative of alleged torture;
-  the applicant was inclined to lie and deceive;
-  between 17 November and 23 November 2004 measures had been taken by the domestic authorities to identify and arrest those involved in the commission of crimes with which the applicant and his co-defendants had been charged, however the applicant could not be located;
-  the applicant had often gone away from home hunting, therefore his allegation of abduction should be regarded with a critical eye as being a means to avoid criminal responsibility; the applicant’s allegations had contradicted the statements by the police officers, and the Bor. family, who did not know the applicant.
25.  On 20 July 2005 the applicant was brought to the Leninskiy District Court in Tyumen (“the District Court”) in order to participate in a hearing concerning the extension of his custody. As the applicant could not walk, he was assisted by two officers from the Organised Crime Department. After the hearing, the officers dragged the applicant out of the courthouse to the prison van, where they allegedly subjected him to severe beatings on the way to remand prison IZ-72/1 in Tyumen where the applicant was being detained at the material time.
26.  The applicant’s lawyers complained on 1 August 2005 about the above incident to the Tyumen regional prosecutor.
27.  On 10 August 2005 the district prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators.
28.  On 20 November 2004 a search was carried out in the applicant’s flat. The investigator seized a camera belonging to the applicant and his wife and the applicant’s hunting rifles as material evidence.
29.  On 1 June 2005 the District Court granted the investigator’s request for the impounding of a VAZ 21213 car and the attachment of a garage belonging to the applicant.
30.  On 2 June 2005 the investigator drew up a record of the impounding of the applicant’s car and the attachment of his garage.
31.  Following the applicant’s conviction, the rifles were destroyed and the car and the garage were confiscated to cover the damage sustained by the victims.
32.  It appears that the applicant’s wife brought proceedings seeking to get the camera back. The outcome of those proceedings has not been disclosed to the Court.
33.  On 25 November 2004 the District Court remanded the applicant in custody, referring to the particular gravity of the charges against him and the risk of his absconding and obstructing justice.
34.  On 17 January, 15 March and 20 July 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 23 March, 25 July and 23 November 2005 respectively. On each occasion the court took into consideration the particular gravity of the charges against the applicant, his being suspected of having committed several other crimes and his being unemployed, which created the risk of his absconding, resuming criminal activity and obstructing the administration of justice in the case. The court further held that the material in the case file contained no evidence to the effect that the applicant’s state of health prevented him from being detained in a remand prison.
35.  On 2 August 2005 the Tyumen Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) quashed the extension order of 15 March 2005 on appeal (considered in the applicant’s absence) and remitted the matter for fresh examination by a different bench.
36.  On 19 August 2005 the District Court ex post facto authorised the applicant’s detention until 25 July 2005.
37.  On 17 November 2005 the Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 23 February 2006. In addition to the reasoning previously applied, the court mentioned the risk of the applicant’s hiding and destroying evidence.
38.  On 20 February 2006 the Regional Court further extended the applicant’s detention pending trial for a total of eighteen months, until 23 May 2006. The court further mentioned the risk of the applicant’s exerting pressure on victims and witnesses.
39.  On 25 May 2006 the Supreme Court of Russia (“the Supreme Court”) upheld the above decision on appeal.
40.  On 17 May 2006 the Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention on remand until he and his lawyer had finished studying the case file and the case was submitted to the trial court.
41.  The applicant appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the Regional Court had not indicated the end date of his detention period, thereby rendering it impossible to seek further judicial review of the issue.
42.  On 10 August 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the extension order of 17 May 2006 on appeal. The Supreme Court found as follows:
“... [P]ursuant to Article 109 § 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court correctly extended the [applicant’s] detention until such time as [he] and [his] lawyer have finished studying the case file materials ...
The statement in the appeal to the effect that the court was required to indicate a specific date when extending [the applicant’s] detention in such circumstances was not based on [domestic] law. ...”
43.  On 8 November 2006 the Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention for thirty days, to be counted from the date on which the prosecutor had approved the indictment in respect of the applicant and sent the case to the trial court.
44.  The applicant appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the above decision had failed to indicate a specific end date for the extension of his period in detention.
45.  On 19 January 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the above decision on appeal. In reply to the applicant’s argument, the court noted as follows:
“... As is clear from the decision [of 8 November 2006], when the issue of extending [the applicant’s] detention [was being decided] the indictment had already been prepared. The time-limits for submitting the indictment to the prosecutor are determined by [domestic] law; therefore, the calculation of the time-limit for [the applicant’s] detention depended on the submission of the criminal case to the prosecutor. ...”
46.  In the meantime, on 15 November 2006 the supervising prosecutor approved the indictment and the case against the applicant was sent to the Regional Court for trial.
47.  On 14 December 2006 the Regional Court set the opening date of the trial and extended the detention of the applicant and four co-defendants until 15 June 2007.
48.  On 6 June, 2 August and 2 November 2007, and 22 January 2008 the Regional Court extended the detention of the applicant and his co‑defendants until 15 August and 15 November 2007, and 15 February and 15 May 2008 respectively. The court referred to the particular gravity of the charges against the defendants, the risk of their absconding, resuming their criminal activity, threatening witnesses and other participants in the proceedings, destroying evidence and otherwise obstructing the administration of justice. The court found no reasons to alter the custodial measure in respect of the defendants and, in so far as the applicant’s health was concerned, mentioned that the forensic medical report contained in the case file indicated that the applicant was simulating the symptoms of neurological conditions and that there was nothing to prevent him from participating in the proceedings.
49.  On 13 September 2007, and 10 January, 11 March and 28 April 2008 respectively the Supreme Court upheld the above decisions on appeal.
50.  On 2 December 2006, in the course of a preliminary hearing in the applicant’s case, the investigator gave an interview to the local newspaper The Tyumen Courier (Тюменский курьер) in which she referred to the applicant and his co-defendants as a criminal gang and expressed her opinion on the issue of their guilt.
51.  On 14 September 2007 another local newspaper Aloud about the Most Important Things (Вслух о главном) published an article, giving an update about the ongoing trial against Yam.’s criminal gang.
52.  On 4 April 2006 the applicant and his lawyer were notified that the investigation had come to an end. On the same day they expressed their wish to study the case file, both together and separately.
53.  On 12 April 2006 the applicant and his lawyer started going through the case file, which comprised forty-nine volumes, fifteen audio and video tapes and physical evidence.
54.  Between 12 April 2006 and 1 September 2006 the applicant looked through thirty volumes of the case file, while his lawyer examined five volumes.
55.  On 6 September 2006 the District Court set a deadline of 30 September 2006 for the applicant and his lawyer to finish going through the case file. The applicant appealed.
56.  On 2 October 2006 the investigator took a decision to terminate the studying of the case file by the applicant and his lawyer.
57.  Numerous requests by the applicant to be granted additional time to examine the case file were refused.
58.  On 14 November 2006 the Regional Court held on appeal that the applicant and his lawyer should be allowed to study all the case file material, including audio and video tapes and physical evidence, until the expiry of the deadline for the conclusion of the pre-trial investigation (extended by then until 27 November 2006).
59.  However, as mentioned above, on 15 November 2006 the case file was sent to the Regional Court for trial without the applicant and his lawyer having been able to finish examining it (see paragraph 46 above).
60.  Following an application by the applicant and his lawyer in the course of the trial, the latter was afforded an opportunity to study the case file between 4 December and 28 December 2006.
61.  On 11 January 2007 the applicant applied to the Regional Court for more time to study the case file in full, including the audio and video tapes and the material evidence.
62.  However, that application was dismissed on the same day by the Regional Court. It noted that the applicant had been given additional time to complete his studying of the case file (see paragraph 60 above), and that although it had been open to him to study the case file each day until 6 p.m., he had only done so until 3 p.m. The Regional Court therefore concluded that the applicant had been afforded sufficient time to finish studying the case file and that he had familiarised himself with it as much as he had considered necessary. As to studying the audio and video tapes and physical evidence, the Regional Court held that those items would be examined during the trial to the extent considered necessary by the prosecution and defence.
63.  On 5 March 2007 the applicant and his lawyer were afforded additional time to study the case file.
64.  On 6 May 2008 the Regional Court, in a jury trial, convicted the applicant of involvement in an organised armed gang, theft, robbery, illegal deprivation of liberty, the stealing of firearms, hijacking, murder, kidnapping and extortion, and sentenced him to twenty-five years’ imprisonment.
65.  The presiding judge had previously sat on the bench examining the appeal against the decision of 6 September 2006 limiting the time which the applicant had been allowed to study the case file.
66.  It appears that some members of the public wishing to attend the trial were not let in, as the presiding judge made an order in respect of those arriving late to court.
67.  The defence asked to tape record the hearing, but their request was dismissed so that the jury would not feel intimidated.
68.  On 12 May 2009 the Supreme Court modified the qualification of the crimes committed by the applicant and upheld the rest of the judgment on appeal.