5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the village of Krasnyy Yar in the Staropoltavskiy district of Volgograd Region.
6.  On 5 August 2002 a quarrel broke out between the applicant and T. on one side and the applicant’s brothers V. and P. and P.’s wife, E., on the other. V. and E. called the police.
7.  At about 8 p.m. police officers D., S., Sh. and Z. arrived and took statements from E., who complained that at about 6 p.m. the applicant and T. had burst into her home. The applicant had used obscene language towards her, threatening to “kill everyone” and attempting to hit her and her seven year‑old daughter. The police also took statements from A. who explained that she had been with E. when the applicant and T. had come over, asked about V. and then entered V.’s home. She had then heard shouting, and E.’s daughter had run in to tell her mother that there was a quarrel taking place in V.’s courtyard. E. had attempted to enter the courtyard but T. had not let her in. The applicant had come out of V.’s courtyard, using obscene language towards E. and threatening her with violence. The applicant and T. had followed E. into her house, continuing to insult and threaten her in the presence of her young daughter. This had continued until E.’s husband, P., had arrived home and the applicant and T. had then left.
8.  The police officers took the applicant to the Staropoltavskiy district police station. They arrived at about 11 p.m.
9.  According to the applicant, he was thrown into the boot of the police car and driven for about 80 kilometres. During the journey the police officers stopped the car and assaulted him. He was allegedly again assaulted at the police station. In particular, he was allegedly punched many times in the head and chest.
10.  At an unspecified time that day police officer Sh. drew up a report charging the applicant with petty hooliganism, an offence under Article 20.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences. It was stated in the report that at 6 p.m. on 5 August 2002 the applicant had started a brawl with E., using abusive language and attempting to hit her.
11.  At the police station the applicant was placed in a cell for administrative offenders overnight. Another detainee, K., was also being held in the cell.
12.  At about 9 a.m. on 6 August 2002 the applicant was brought before a judge of the Staropoltavskiy District Court, who found that at 6 p.m. on 5 August 2002 the applicant had started a brawl with E. while drunk and had used obscene language towards her. The applicant was sentenced to two days’ administrative detention for petty hooliganism.
13.  After the hearing the applicant was placed in the Staropoltavskiy district police temporary detention facility. At his request and in view of his condition, an ambulance was called.
14.  Before taking him to hospital, an ambulance paramedic, N., diagnosed the applicant with a traumatic rupture of the left eardrum, bruising to the left of the ribcage, two fractured left ribs, a stomach injury and bruising to the left hip.
15.  On the same day he was examined by an otolaryngologist from the Staropoltavskiy District Polyclinic. He complained of ringing in the left ear and stated that he had been assaulted by police officers. The otolaryngologist concluded that in addition to chronic otitis, the applicant had signs of traumatic otitis of the left ear.
16.  On his admission to the Staropoltavskaya Central District Hospital the applicant stated that on 5 August 2002 he had been assaulted by his brother and then by police officers. He complained of pain in the left of the ribcage, around the eighth and ninth ribs. He had an abrasion measuring 7 by 1.2 centimetres on the left of the chest. His final diagnosis was a fractured eleventh left rib confirmed by X-ray images, soft tissue bruising, abrasions on the left of the chest and traumatic otitis of the left ear.
17.  On 8 August 2002 he was discharged and sent for outpatient treatment by an otolaryngologist, a physician assessment and monitoring by a surgeon.
18.  The applicant received outpatient treatment at home. He was sent for a neurosurgical examination at the Volgograd Regional Polyclinic, where X-ray images showed that he had sustained fractures to the top and bottom of the left of the skull. He was urgently admitted to the Volgograd Regional Hospital. On admission the applicant complained that he had been suffering from recurrent headaches, ringing in the ears and dizziness, and hearing loss in the left ear. He explained that on 5 August 2002 he had been assaulted by police officers.
19.  The applicant’s hospital treatment lasted from 24 October to 11 November 2002. He was diagnosed with a closed head injury, mild bruising on the brain, a fractured left temporal bone (confirmed by X‑ray images), otitis of both ears, loss of hearing in the right ear and first degree mixed hearing loss in the left ear.
20.  On 8 August 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint with the chief of the Staropoltavskiy district police regarding his alleged ill‑treatment by police officers. He stated that during the incident before his arrest V. had hit him on the left hip with a spade handle, and he had punched him back in the face.
21.  On 10 August 2002 T. submitted a statement to the same chief of police describing the circumstances of the incident before the police arrived. He confirmed the applicant’s version of events.
22.  On 20 August 2002 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the prosecutor’s office.
23.  On 4 September 2002, following a pre-investigation inquiry, the Staropoltavskiy district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings, finding that there was sufficient indication that the elements of a crime under Article 286 § 3 (a) of the Criminal Code (abuse of powers) were present in respect of the officers’ actions.
24.  On 7 September 2002 the applicant was given victim status.
25.  On the same day P. was questioned as a witness in relation to the quarrel on 5 August 2002. He stated that he had punched T. but had not touched the applicant, and that the applicant had been “absolutely healthy” and had had no bruises or any other injuries.
26.  V. stated that on 5 August 2002 the applicant and T. had entered his house, and that the applicant had punched him in the eye. He had managed to trap the applicant underneath him, and T. had pulled him off the applicant by the legs.
27.  N., the paramedic who had provided the applicant with first aid on 6 August 2002 at the police station, gave the following statements as a witness: the applicant had complained of headaches, loss of hearing in the left ear, pain in the chest, stomach and left hip and shortness of breath. He had had hearing loss and fresh coagulated blood around his left ear, a sharp pain around his left ribs and pain in the stomach.
28.  On 23 October 2002 the prosecutor’s office ordered a forensic medical opinion to establish the origin of the applicant’s injuries, stating that at about 2 p.m. on 5 August 2002 the applicant had been hit in the right hip by V. with a spade handle, and that the applicant had alleged to have been punched multiple times by police officers on his way to the Staropoltavskiy district police station, where he had allegedly been taken in the boot of a police car.
29.  M., an expert from the Volgograd regional forensic medical bureau and A., a radiologist from the Volgograd Regional Hospital examined the applicant’s medical records, X-ray images of his skull and temporal bones taken on 24 and 28 October 2002 and X-ray images of his ribcage taken on 23 October 2002. In their report, dated 17 December 2002, they established that the applicant had a closed head injury in the form of mild bruising on the brain and a fractured left temporal bone, further complicated by traumatic otitis of the left ear. Those injuries had been caused by hard blunt objects and amounted to “severe damage to health”. The applicant also had a blunt injury to his ribcage with a fractured eighth left rib and an abrasion on the left of the chest, caused by hard blunt objects, which amounted to “medium damage to health”. The experts did not exclude the possibility that the injuries had been caused at the time and in the circumstances as alleged by the applicant.
30.  On 4 January 2003 the applicant did not identify Z. during an identification parade, saying that he had not seen whether it had been D. and Z. who had assaulted him on the road, but that they certainly had not assaulted him at the police station. On 15 January 2003 the criminal proceedings concerning the two officers were terminated under Article 24 § 1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCrP”) because none of the elements of a crime were present in respect of their actions.
31.  On 21 January 2003 the prosecutor’s office ordered an additional forensic medical opinion.
32.  On 13 February 2003 S., an expert from the Volgograd regional forensic medical bureau, examined the criminal case documents submitted to him by the prosecutor’s office. These included statements by P., V., the paramedic N. and police officers Sh. and S. (see paragraphs 25-27 above and paragraph 33 below), the applicant’s medical records and X-ray images of his ribs, temporal bones and skull dated 23, 24 and 28 October 2002. S. concluded that on 5 August 2002 the applicant had received the following injuries: a fractured left temporal bone with a rupture of the left eardrum, a displaced fracture of the eighth left rib and a fractured sixth left rib, and an abrasion on the left of the chest. On 24 October 2002 the applicant had been diagnosed with mild bruising on the brain. The expert concluded that all the injuries could have been inflicted in the manner alleged by the applicant, given their nature, number and location, the mechanism of their formation, the means of their infliction, notably by punching and kicking, the positions of the victim and attackers in relation to each other, and the direction of the blows.
33.  On 15 January 2003, during his examination as a suspect, police officer Sh. stated that he had not noticed any injuries on the applicant during his arrest on 5 August 2002, journey to the police station or at the police station. Nor had the applicant complained that anybody had injured him. Police officer S., who was also examined as a suspect that day, stated that he had seen abrasions on the applicant’s face immediately after his arrest.
34.  On 4 March 2003 the Staropoltavskiy district deputy prosecutor terminated the criminal proceedings against police officers S. and Sh. The decision stated that before his arrest on 5 August 2002 the applicant, who had been drunk, had committed an act of petty hooliganism against V. The applicant and V. had then physically assaulted each other. The decision also included statements by the applicant saying that V. had hit him in the left hip with a spade handle and that he had punched him back in the face, that he had travelled to the police station in the boot of a police car after being thrown in by police officers, that during the journey the officers had stopped the car and beaten him up, punching him in the head and chest, after seeing that he had dented the boot lid, and that they had assaulted him again at the police station. The decision relied on the statements of D., S., Sh., Z. and other police officers who had denied the applicant’s allegations of ill‑treatment.
35.  On 15 April 2003 the Staropoltavskiy district prosecutor annulled the decision of 4 March 2003 as the possibility of the applicant’s injuries being inflicted during the fight with V. had not been properly explored.
36.  On 16 May 2003 the Staropoltavskiy district deputy prosecutor issued a new decision terminating the proceedings, containing essentially the same wording as the previous decision. It was annulled on 9 February 2004 by the Volgograd regional deputy prosecutor as the exact circumstances of the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment had not yet been determined.
37.  On 9 March 2004 an investigator of the Staropoltavskiy district prosecutor’s office terminated the criminal proceedings against police officers S. and Sh. on the same grounds as previously.
38.  According to a letter of 27 August 2004, the Volgograd regional prosecutor’s office requested the Staropoltavskiy district prosecutor’s office to examine complaints by the applicant concerning the improper handling of the investigation and report on the results. According to a letter from the Volgograd regional prosecutor’s office dated 24 December 2004, a similar request was made in relation to a complaint by him concerning the termination of the proceedings. The Staropoltavskiy district prosecutor’s office was requested to submit its report before 13 January 2005.
39.  According to letters addressed to the applicant from the Volgograd regional prosecutor’s office and an investigator of the Staropoltavskiy district prosecutor’s office, dated 3 February 2005 and 10 February 2005 respectively, the decision of 9 March 2004 was set aside on 4 February 2005 and the investigation was reopened. 8.  Decision of 10 March 2005 terminating the criminal proceedings against police officers S. and Sh., annulled on 9 September 2005
40.  According to a letter from the Volgograd regional prosecutor’s office dated 3 November 2005, a new decision terminating the proceedings was issued on 10 March 2005 and annulled on 9 September 2005. According to a letter dated 17 May 2005, the Volgograd regional prosecutor’s office had in the meantime requested the district prosecutor’s office to inform the applicant of the results of the investigation and report back before 4 June 2005.
41.  On 24 October 2005 the Prosecutor General’s Office informed the applicant that his complaint concerning the termination of the proceedings had been forwarded to the Volgograd regional prosecutor’s office for examination.
42.  On 19 June 2006 it requested the Staropoltavskiy district prosecutor to examine the applicant’s complaint concerning the investigation in the case and report back before 30 June 2006.
43.  On 17 November 2011 the Court invited the Government to submit information concerning the investigation in the applicant’s case.
44.  On 21 December 2011 the Volgograd regional prosecutor’s office set aside the decision of 9 March 2004 terminating the criminal proceedings as the possibility of the applicant receiving the injuries in the fight with V. had not been examined. An additional investigation was ordered.
45.  The Volgograd regional prosecutor’s office carried out an internal investigation in connection with some irregularities found in the case file. It stated in its report of 31 January 2012 that the decisions of 4 February and 9 September 2005 (see paragraphs 39-40 above) were nowhere to be found and that according to new information received from the Staropoltavskiy district prosecutor and his deputy, the decision of 9 March 2004 had not been annulled. The prosecutor’s office therefore concluded that the decisions of 4 February 2005 and 9 September 2005 had never been taken. The report also noted other irregularities, such as the failure of the prosecutor’s office to send copies of the decisions taken in the case to their supervisory authorities or the information centre of the Ministry of the Interior, such as the decision of 9 February 2004.
46.  On 1 March 2012 the Pallasovskiy inter-district investigation division of the Volgograd regional investigative committee ordered a new forensic medical examination of the applicant in order to determine what, if any, injuries the applicant had had after the events of 5 August 2002, and whether he could have received them as a result of falling over or striking himself against something.
47.  Zh., an expert from the Staropoltavskiy district unit of the Volgograd regional forensic medical bureau, examined the applicant but found no injuries on him. As the applicant’s medical records and X-ray images from 2002 had been lost, the expert based his opinion on information contained in previous expert reports, notably a report dated 18 September 2002 containing information about his treatment at the Central District Hospital (see paragraph 16 above) and an expert’s suggestion that an opinion should be sought from a more experienced expert, and reports dated 17 December 2002 (see paragraph 29 above) and 13 February 2003 (see paragraph 32 above).
48.  In his report of 29 March 2012 Zh. concluded that the only injuries he could confirm were the abrasion on the chest and bruising to the eighth and ninth ribs. They could have been received on 5 August 2002 as a result of the applicant falling over and striking himself against protruding hard blunt objects – it was unlikely that they had been inflicted by punching and kicking. As regards the other injuries, noted in the expert reports of 17 December 2002 and 13 February 2003, Zh. considered that they could not be taken into account in the assessment of damage to the applicant’s health because no information about the relevant clinical manifestations or reliable X-ray imaging supporting them could be found in the previous expert reports.
49.  On 9 April 2012 the investigative committee ordered a new expert opinion, using the same questions as previously (see paragraph 46 above) because the conclusions made by Zh. in his report of 29 March 2012 completely contradicted the conclusions made by the experts in 2002 and 2003.
50.  A report of 19 April 2012, prepared by a panel of five experts from the Volgograd regional forensic medical bureau, confirmed the abrasion on the left of the chest which, according to them, could have been caused on 5 August 2002 by a hard blunt object with a limited surface area, as a result of hitting or being hit by it.
51.  The experts noted that no traumatic injuries to the skull or healed rib fractures had been found on the applicant’s X‑ray images made on 16 March 2012 and 9 April 2012 respectively.
52.  As the X-ray images of the ribcage, skull and temporal bones of 23, 24 and 28 October 2002 had been lost, the experts found it impossible to draw any conclusions as to the fractured left temporal bone, bruising on the brain or fractured eighths and eleventh ribs diagnosed previously.
53.  The experts considered that the medical records described in the previous expert reports contained no objective confirmation as to the diagnosis of traumatic otitis of the left ear, such as injuries or bleeding in that area, and concluded that the ringing and impaired hearing of which the applicant had complained had been explained by his chronic otitis. 12.  Decision of 30 April 2012 terminating the criminal proceedings against police officers S. and Sh., annulled on an unspecified date
54.  On 30 April 2012 the investigative committee terminated the proceedings in accordance with Article 24 § 1 (2) of the CCrP, because none of the elements of a crime were present in respect of the actions of police officers S. and Sh.. The decision was based, inter alia, on the following new statements received during the additional investigation in 2012.
55.  On 30 January 2012 E. stated that on 5 August 2002 she had seen the applicant assaulting V. but had not seen V. assaulting the applicant. After the quarrel between the two men the applicant had followed her to her house, where V. had retreated. The applicant had threatened and verbally abused her, and she had had no choice but to call the police.
56.  On 30 January 2012 P. stated that the applicant had had no injuries before his arrest on 5 August 2002. He had been behaving aggressively, shouting threats at E. and V.
57.  On 30 January and 7 February 2012 respectively, the applicant’s wife and T. stated that the applicant had had no injuries before his arrest.
58.  On 19 March 2012 V. stated that the applicant and T. had burst into his house and attacked him. He had pushed the applicant, who had fallen onto his left side. He had then jumped on him and punched him in the head.
59.  Police officers D., S., Sh. and Z. stated that on arriving in the village of Krasnyy Yar they had learned that the applicant and T. had assaulted V., and that the applicant had also threatened to kill E. and had hit her. They had arrested the applicant and T. and had then gone to E.’s house and taken statements. They had then set off to the police station. Once outside Krasnyy Yar, they had released T. because there had been too many people in the car, the engine had been overheating. T. had been behaving calmly, unlike the applicant. No violence had been used against the applicant, who had been in the passenger compartment of the car and not the boot as alleged. When arrested, the applicant had had traces of blood on his face and T‑shirt and coagulated blood in his left ear. His untidy appearance and dirty face had given the impression that he had been fighting with somebody. He had been moaning and holding the left of his chest, and had clearly been in pain.
60.  K., the detainee who had shared the same cell as the applicant on the night of 5 August 2002, stated that the applicant had had coagulated blood in his left ear and a swollen lip. He had been complaining of chest pain and coughing painfully. It also transpires from statements by K. and police officer G. that on their way to court on the morning of 6 August 2002 the applicant had been walking slowly. At one point he had crouched down, holding his right hand to the left of his body and saying that his ribs were aching. He had also been coughing painfully. On their way back to the police station the applicant had crouched down and complained of feeling unwell. There had been sweat on his forehead. He had been unable to lift his hands above chest height because of the pain. An ambulance had been called.
61.  N., the paramedic who had examined the applicant at the police station, stated that he had complained of headaches, loss of hearing on the left side, chest pain, difficulty breathing and pain in the left hip. He had stated that his brother had hit him on the hip with a spade handle. When asked about the origin of the other injuries, he had not said anything. One of the police officers, who had been present during the examination, had shouted that the applicant had also been hit in the ear with a spade handle.
62.  According to an examination report of the police car which had been used to take the applicant to the police station on 5 August 2002, the right side of the boot lid, the part closest to the petrol tank, had been dented. The decision stated that the location of the dents was different from where the applicant had said he had dented the lid, that the police officers had been unable to provide any explanation as to the dents, and that it was now impossible to examine the car as it had been written off.
63.  Relying on the results of the 2012 forensic medical examination, the decision stated that the only injuries confirmed were the abrasion on the chest and bruising to the ribs, and that the applicant could have received them in the fight with V. as had been confirmed by V. in 2012.
64.  It appears that on an unspecified date the decision of 30 April 2012 was annulled and the investigation was reopened.
65.  In his report of 29 May 2012, ordered by the investigating authority on 7 March 2012, a forensic psychologist found that the applicant had a tendency to use fantasy and invention in order to fill gaps in his memory, and that during his examination by the expert he had displayed signs of giving already prepared statements, hiding information or giving false information about the conflict situation between him and T. on one side and his brothers and E. on the other.
66.  The report referred to witness statements given in the case about the events of 5 August 2002. In particular, on 6 February 2012 V. had stated that the applicant and T. had burst into his house. The applicant had punched him in the face and T. had grabbed him by the legs. The applicant had then, while sitting on him, punched him repeatedly in the face and chest. V. had stated that he had not even struck the applicant once. During his additional examination on 19 March 2012 V. had stated that in the course of the fight with the applicant and T. he had managed to slip out, finding himself on top of the applicant and punching him in the head. During the reconstruction of events V. had stated that after bursting into his house the applicant and T. had knocked him down, T. had held him by the legs and the applicant, while sitting on him, had punched him five or six times in the face and chest. He had punched the applicant in the head. He had then managed to slip out and trap the applicant underneath him. Sitting on the applicant, he had tried to punch him but T. had pulled him off by the legs.
67.  On 3 June 2012 the proceedings against police officers S. and Sh. were terminated in accordance with Article 24 § 1 (2) of the CCrP because none of the elements of a crime had been present in respect of their actions. In addition to the evidence set out in the previous decision, the decision of 3 June 2012 relied on statements by E.’s daughter that after the incident between the applicant and V. the applicant had attacked her, throwing her to the ground and kicking her about six times. He had then tried to hit her mother, E. The decision also referred to the conclusions made by the expert psychologist (see paragraph 65 above).
68.  It was concluded, as in the previous decision, that the applicant’s allegations of police ill‑treatment had not been based on real facts and that the only injuries confirmed in 2012, namely the abrasion on the chest and bruising to the ribs, could have been received by the applicant in the fight with V., as had been confirmed by V. in 2012.