4.  The first applicant was born in 1966 and is serving a prison sentence in correctional facility IK-8 in the Khabarovsk region. The second applicant was born in 1967 and is serving a prison sentence in correctional facility IK‑10 in the Sverdlovsk region. 5.  The applicants were arrested at 6 a.m. (the first applicant) and 7 a.m. (the second applicant) on 19 March 2007 on suspicion of having committed murder and taken to the Department for Combating Organised Crime at the Voronezh regional police department (управление по борьбе с организованной преступностью при ГУВД Воронежской области, the “UBOP”). Their arrest records were drawn up at 8.40 a.m. and 9 a.m., respectively. 6.  According to the applicants, S., G. and other police officers from the UBOP (according to the second applicant, in the presence of investigator M.) subjected them to violence in different offices at the UBOP premises in order to make them confess to various crimes. The applicants described being administered electric shocks through wires attached to various parts of their bodies, including ears and genitals, while gas masks were put over their heads, their hands were shackled behind their backs and several police officers restrained them on the floor in order not to let them throw the wires off. The police officers pushed on the handcuffs. The first applicant also described being punched and kicked. The applicants did not give any self‑incriminating statements. 7.  At around 10 p.m. the applicants were taken to a temporary detention facility at the Voronezh regional police department (the “IVS”). 8.  The IVS duty officer in the presence of police officer S. recorded the following injuries on the first applicant: bruises on the bridge of the nose, under both eyes, on the left shoulder blade, right shoulder and stomach, abrasions on the wrists, and an abrasion and a bruise on the buttocks. An ambulance was called. The ambulance medical assistant recorded an abrasion and bruising to the applicant’s right wrist and directed the applicant to an emergency hospital where he was diagnosed with contusion to the soft tissues of the right wrist. It was noted that he had abrasions and bruising to the right wrist, which was swallowed and hot. 9.  On 22 March 2007 the first applicant was transferred to pre-trial detention facility SIZO-1 in Voronezh, where the following injuries were recorded on him: bruises on both forearms, abrasions on both wrist joints, and small abrasions under thin scabs below the skin level on the left wrist, the right hip and shank. According to SIZO-1, the second applicant had no visible injuries on his arrival there on 23 March 2007. 10.  On 23 March 2007 an investigator of the Voronezh regional prosecutor’s office ordered the applicants’ forensic medical examination with a view to establishing the presence of injuries, stating that the applicants had been arrested on 19 March 2007 and asking whether injuries, if any, could have been self-inflicted or caused as a result of a fall. 11.  On the same day the second applicant was examined at the Voronezh Regional Forensic Medical Examination Bureau. Expert Sh. recorded the following injuries on him: a bruise in the area around each wrist joint measuring 13 to 0.4-0.5 centimetres; a bruise on the right shank measuring 3.5 to 2.5 centimetres; a stripe-shaped abrasion on the left forearm measuring 2.2 centimetres with uneven edges and a firm reddish-brown surface at the skin level; and small abrasions on each wrist measuring 0.2 to 0.4 centimetres and on the left shank measuring 0.3 to 0.7 centimetres of an irregular‑oval shape with uneven edges and firm reddish surface at or below the skin level. 12.  The expert concluded that “the injuries had been inflicted by a hard blunt object, as confirmed by bruises and abrasions”, not earlier than three‑five days before the examination (three days as regards the injuries on the wrist joints); that it was unlikely that they could have originated from a fall and that self-harm was not excluded. 13.  According to the expert’s report of 23 March 2007, the second applicant’s examination was conducted in the presence of police officer S. and the applicant stated that police officers had not inflicted any injuries on him. According to the second applicant, his examination was conducted in the presence of S. and other police officers who had subjected him to violence and he feared for his safety; he was not able to fully undress himself for the examination; and the expert did not ask him any questions. 14.  On 27 March 2007 the first applicant was examined at the Voronezh Regional Forensic Medical Examination Bureau by the same expert who recorded the following injuries on him: a wound on the right wrist joint measuring 1.4 to 0.4 centimetres, of an irregular-oval shape, with uneven edges and rounded ends, under firm brownish scab rising over the skin level; an abrasion on the left wrist joint measuring 1.4 to 0.8 centimetres, of an irregular-oval shape, under firm brownish scab entirely coming off here and there; stripe-shaped abrasions on the wrists under firm brownish scabs entirely coming off here and there, measuring 3.5 to 0.4 centimetres (on the front side of the right wrist joint), 5.5 to 0.4 centimetres (on the back side of the right wrist joint) and 3.7 to 0.4 centimetres (on the back side of the left wrist joint). 15.  The expert concluded that the injuries had been inflicted by a hard blunt object, as confirmed by their nature, shortly before the examination, possibly at the time as indicated in the investigator’s decision ordering the examination. The expert excluded a fall as the origin of the injuries, while not ruling out self‑harm. 16.  According to the expert’s report of 27 March 2007, the first applicant’s examination was conducted in the presence of police officer S. and the applicant stated that on 19 March 2007 after his arrest police officers had punched him in the area of the stomach and the arms, had handcuffed him and tortured him with electric current. 17.  Following the investigator’s decision of 30 March 2007, expert Sh. issued an additional report of 26 April 2007, prepared without the first applicant’s examination, in which she stated that the first applicant’s wrist injuries could have been caused by handcuffs with further squeezing, approximately 7-11 days before the applicant’s examination on 27 March 2007. 18.  On 24 February 2011 a new report by the forensic medical expert was issued, on the basis of the two previous reports and the first applicant’s medical records from the IVS and SIZO-1. The expert concluded that the injuries to the first applicant’s wrists could have been inflicted on 19 March 2007. Their infliction on 16‑18 March 2007 could not also be excluded. The lack of details in the description of the injuries recorded at the IVS made it impossible to determine the time of their infliction. As regards the injuries recorded at SIZO-1, they could have been inflicted on 19 March 2007 and very unlikely prior to that date. The injuries had been inflicted by a hard blunt object. The expert did not find it possible to give an opinion as to whether the injures could have been inflicted by electric current. The applicant had received at least one traumatic impact to his face and no less than three traumatic impacts to his torso. The expert found it difficult to determine the number of traumatic impacts to the applicant’s upper and lower limbs in view of the multiplicity of the injuries. The injuries were located within the reach of the first applicant’s own hand (except for the bruise on the left shoulder blade) and could have therefore been self‑inflicted. They could not have originated from a fall. 19.  On 25 and 30 March 2007 the first applicant complained about the violence he had allegedly suffered at the hands of the police officers at the UBOP to the Voronezh regional prosecutor’s office. On 9 April 2007 his complaint was received by the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office of Voronezh. Similar complaints were lodged by his wife with the Voronezh regional police department and prosecutor’s office and the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation. 20.  No criminal case was opened into his alleged ill-treatment. Investigators from the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office of Voronezh, and later from the investigative committee unit for the Leninskiy district of Voronezh, conducted pre‑investigation inquiries and issued seven refusals to bring criminal proceedings for lack of the elements of crimes under Articles 286 § 3 (abuse of powers with use of violence) and 302 (coercion to give statements) of the Criminal Code in the actions of police officers S. and G., pursuant to Article 24 § 1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCrP”). All refusals were annulled by the investigators’ superiors because they were based on incomplete inquiries and additional inquiries were ordered:
-  refusal of 20 April 2007, annulled on 19 September 2007;
-  refusal of 29 September 2007, annulled on 2 October 2007;
-  refusal of 12 October 2007, annulled on 28 November 2007;
-  refusal of 10 December 2007, annulled on 15 January 2008;
-  refusal of 25 January 2008, annulled on 11 February 2011;
-  refusal of 24 February 2011, annulled on 15 April 2011;
-  refusal of 28 April 2011, annulled on 6 July 2011; and
-  refusal of 8 July 2011 (on the grounds that the injuries could have been inflicted before the first applicant’s arrest and that the applicant had no injuries which could have been inflicted by electric current), annulled on 28 August 2015 (because the investigator failed, inter alia, to identify all police officers who had allegedly ill-treated the applicant). 21.  The following explanations were received by the investigators in the course of the pre-investigation inquiries. Witness B. stated to have seen that a blow “in the area of the ribs” had been delivered to the first applicant at the UBOP premises and to have heard the first applicant screaming in one of the UBOP offices. According to the first applicant’s wife who witnessed the applicant’s arrest at their home, the first applicant had no injuries before his arrest and he had injuries – he was limping and had a bruise under the right eye, an abrasion on the bridge of the nose and swallowed hands – next day when she saw him at the court hearing concerning his detention on remand. Police officers S. and G. stated that after arresting the applicant they had taken him to the UBOP premises where investigator M. had drawn up the record of his arrest. Then they had taken the first applicant to the IVS. At the IVS the first applicant had complained that handcuffs (used when taking him to the IVS) had chafed his hands and they had taken him to an emergency hospital where a doctor had disinfected a scratch on his wrist. They denied, as did investigator M., the first applicant’ ill-treatment. 22.  The first applicant’s appeals under Article 125 of the CCrP against the refusals to bring criminal proceedings of 20 April 2007, 12 October 2007, 10 December 2007, 24 February 2011, 28 April 2011 and 8 July 2011 were not examined by the Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh on the grounds that the impugned decisions had been annulled by the investigative authorities (after court appeals had been lodged). The applicant’s appeal against the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings of 25 January 2008 was examined and dismissed on the grounds that the refusal was reasoned and lawful (the District Court’s decision of 18 March 2008, upheld by the Voronezh Regional Court on 15 May 2008). 23.  On 14 August 2007 the second applicant complained about his alleged ill‑treatment by the UBOP police officers to the Voronezh regional prosecutor’s office. When describing tortures by electric current he noted, in particular, that in order to keep the wires attached to his body the police officers had put them under the gas mask, under the elastics of the socks, and had tied them to the penis. No criminal case was opened into his alleged ill‑treatment.  Investigators from the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office of Voronezh, and later from the investigative committee unit for the Leninskiy district of Voronezh, issued four refusals to bring criminal proceedings for lack of the elements of a crime under Article 286 (abuse of powers) of the Criminal Code in the actions of police officers S. and G. and investigator M., pursuant to Article 24 § 1 (2) of CCrP. All refusals were annulled by the investigators’ superiors because they were based on incomplete inquiries and additional inquiries were ordered:
-  refusal of 1 October 2007, revoked on 24 October 2007;
-  refusal of 6 November 2007, revoked on 16 November 2007;
-  refusal of 26 November 2007, revoked on 27 November 2007; and
-  refusal of 7 December 2007, revoked on 28 August 2015 (on the grounds, inter alia, that the information about the lack of injuries on the second applicant on his arrival to SIZO-1 on 23 March 2007 had not been supported by medical and other relevant documents). 24.  The refusals to institute criminal proceedings were based on explanations by police officers S. and G. and investigator M. denying the second applicant’s ill-treatment, and explanations allegedly received over phone from expert Sh. that the second applicant’s injuries could not have been inflicted by electric current. The investigating authorities concluded that the second applicant’s allegations were unfounded. 25.  On 14 February 2008 the District Court rejected the second applicant’s appeal under Article 125 of the CCrP against the decision of 7 December 2007. On 1 April 2008 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision. 26.  On 20 March 2007 the Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh examined in different proceedings an investigator’s request that the applicants be detained on remand on the grounds of the gravity of the crime of which they were suspected (murder) and resultant risks of their absconding, re-offending, threatening witnesses, victims and other participants to the proceedings, destroying evidence and otherwise hindering the criminal proceedings. The applicants and their lawyers objected, referring to the applicants’ permanent places of residence, the hypothetical nature of the investigator’s arguments and, in the first applicant’s case, to his employment and family ties. The court ordered the applicants’ detention, being satisfied that the applicants – suspected of the particularly grave crime punishable by long terms of deprivation of liberty – might re-offend, exert pressure on their potential accomplices and abscond, if at large. 27.  On 28 March 2007 the applicants were accused of robbery committed in September 2001 and theft. They were also suspected of having committed a number of other robberies and thefts as part of an organised group. The investigator advanced reasons for the extension of the applicants’ detention on remand similar to those in his initial request. In its decisions of 17 May 2007 (concerning both applicants, upheld on appeal by the Voronezh Regional Court on 5 June 2007), 8 June 2007 (concerning the second applicant, upheld on appeal on 3 July 2007), 9 June 2007 (concerning the first applicant, upheld on appeal on 26 June 2007) and 6 September and 12 December 2007 (concerning the second applicant, the latter decision upheld on appeal on 17 January 2008) the District Court, after hearing the applicants and their lawyers who maintained their objections, granted the investigator’s requests and extended the applicants’ detention, stating that they were accused of the grave crimes and the grounds for the court’s initial decision to remand them in custody had not changed. 28.  Essentially the same reasoning can be found in the court’s decision of 14 September 2007 (concerning the first applicant) which was taken in the presence of the investigator and prosecutor and in the first applicant’s absence due to his “health condition”. In his appeal against that decision the first applicant’s lawyer stated that on 14 September 2007 the first applicant had been taken to the hearing from his detention facility, he had felt unwell in the courthouse and an ambulance had been called. According to the ambulance records, the applicant had pain in the stomach, was diagnosed with rupture, was provided with medical assistance and required hospitalisation, which was refused. According to the lawyer, hospitalisation had been refused by the investigator who had ordered that the applicant be taken back to the detention facility. Despite the lawyer’s objections to holding the hearing in the applicant’s absence, the court had decided to proceed with the hearing. The lawyer had allegedly left the courtroom in protest. 29.  On 11 October 2007 the Regional Court, after hearing the applicant’s lawyer and the prosecutor, upheld the decision of 14 September 2007, holding that the District Court had taken into account the gravity of the offences incriminated to the applicant, his personality and the lack of grounds for the change of the preventive measure. It noted that according to the District Court’s records of the hearing the applicant’s lawyer had been present. 30.  On 12 December 2007 the District Court, having heard the applicants and their lawyers, extended the applicants’ detention until 16 March 2008. In addition to the gravity of crimes and the alleged corresponding risks of the applicants absconding, re-offending and influencing victims and witnesses, it noted that the investigator had to finalise important investigative measures, such as the additional questioning of victims, psychological expert examinations of the accused and bringing final charges against the applicants and their co‑accused. On 17 January 2008 the Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal. 31.  In its decisions for extension of the applicants’ detention of 6 March (concerning both applicants), 17 March 2008 (concerning the first applicant, upheld by the Supreme Court of Russia on 20 May 2008) and 18 March 2008 (concerning the second applicant, upheld on appeal on 20 May 2008) the Voronezh Regional Court relied on the gravity of multiple crimes of which the applicants stood accused (including banditry according to final charges), the risk of their re‑offending and the need to finalise investigative activities involving 36 victims and eight accused and their lawyers. It also noted complaints by the applicants’ co‑accused V.Z. and A.S. that the first applicant had allegedly threatened them with physical retaliation. In his appeal against those decisions the first applicant’s lawyer noted that the complaints by V.Z. and A.S. had not been read out and examined at the hearing, that they appeared to be meaningless in view of the fact that V.Z. and A.S. had themselves been detained pending trial and that the first applicant had lodged a counter-complaint with the police that they had slandered him. According to the first applicant, V.Z. and A.S. had not confirmed their complaints in the course of the relevant inquiry. In upholding the Regional Court’s decisions the Supreme Court did not address the arguments concerning the complaints by V.Z. and A.S. The Regional Court further issued detention extension orders similar to the previous orders on 11 June 2008 (concerning the first applicant, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 11 September 2008) and 16 June 2008 (concerning the second applicant). 32.  On 16 September 2008 the Regional Court held a preliminary hearing in the case against the applicants and others. In a grouped decision the court ordered that the applicants and other defendants should remain in custody pending trial, stating in general that it had no reasons to consider that the previous grounds for their detention were no longer valid or that a change in preventive measures was warranted. On 27 January 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 16 September 2008 on appeal. Essentially the same reasons were relied on in extending the applicants’ detention in the Regional Court’s decision of 25 February 2009, upheld on 10 June 2009 by the Supreme Court, which noted, without providing any details, that some victims in the case had expressed fears for their safety and that some defendants had abused their rights delaying the proceedings. 33.  The applicants’ detention was further extended pending trial for essentially the same reasons by the Regional Court’s decisions of 22 May 2009, 25 August 2009, 23 November 2009 (upheld by the Supreme Court on 25 February 2010) and 19 February 2010 (upheld on 27 July 2010). The reasoning in these grouped decisions concerning several defendants comprised (without indicating whom of the defendants it concerned) a reference to victims Kh., S. and Z. who had objected to the defendants’ release fearing for their and their families’ safety (the Government also referred to victims A.G., V.G. and M.; the first applicant noted that those victims, not mentioned in the courts’ decisions, had acknowledged at the trial that they had actually not received any threats from the defendants), the first applicant’s criminal records, the defendants’ abuse of their rights by submitting multiple requests the majority of which had been rejected and the resultant protraction of the proceedings and the risk of the defendants exerting pressure on jurors. It was noted that identification parades at the preliminary investigation had been conducted in a way that the visualisation of some victims by the accused had been excluded, in order to ensure the victims’ safety. According to the first applicant, it was not shown that this had been requested by the victims. The Regional Court also referred to alleged pressure on a co‑accused and witnesses by the first applicant by way of written instructions as to what statements to give at the trial. The first applicant disputed those allegations and unsuccessfully requested an expert opinion as to whether the instructions had been written by him. 34.  The applicants’ case was examined in a jury trial. At the preliminary hearing the Voronezh Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ and their co‑defendants’ complaints that they had been subjected to violence by the UBOP officers. The trial court heard, among others, witness R.D. who stated to have been subjected to violence, including electric shocks, by police officers S. and G. in the presence of investigator M. Witness B. stated that he had been taken to one of the UBOP offices where the first applicant was lying on the floor face down. Police officers had threatened B. to do the same to his son (the applicants’ co-accused) if B. would not write statements under their instructions. B. had seen that they had pushed on the shackles on the first applicant’s hands. According to written statements by one of the applicants’ co-defendants, V.Z., of 8 April 2008, and by a detainee in SIZO‑1, V.A.Z., of 7 April 2008 (submitted to the Court by the second applicant), V.Z. and V.A.Z. had allegedly been subjected to violence, including electric shocks, by the UBOP officers in 2007. 35.  Following a jury verdict of 1 December 2010, the Regional Court in a judgment of 29 December 2010 convicted the applicants of banditry (Article 209 of the Criminal Code), several accounts of theft and robbery, murder and illegal use of weapons, and sentenced the first applicant to twenty-four years’ imprisonment and a fine and the second applicant to twenty-two years’ imprisonment and a fine. 36.  On 23 August 2011 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgment in respect of the first applicant and remitted his case to the trial court for a fresh examination from the moment following the jury verdict, extending his detention on remand until 23 November 2011. It upheld the judgment in respect of the second applicant. 37.  On 17 October 2011 the Regional Court convicted the first applicant of banditry (Article 209 of the Criminal Code), several accounts of theft and robbery, murder and illegal use of weapons, and sentenced him to twenty‑five years’ imprisonment and a fine. On 29 March 2012 the Supreme Court amended the judgment of 17 October 2011 by, inter alia, reducing the first applicant’s sentence to twenty-four years’ imprisonment and a fine and upheld the judgment in the remaining part. 38.  According to a certificate of 27 August 2015 of SIZO-3 in the Voronezh region of the Russian Federal Penal Authority («Федеральная служба исполнения наказаний», “the FSIN”) submitted by the Government, the first applicant was held in SIZO-3 alone in cell no. 26 from 20 May 2009 to 29 November 2010, and alone in cell no. 3 from 29 November 2010 to 20 May 2012. The first applicant’s detention in SIZO‑3 in the Voronezh region from 20 May 2009 to 20 May 2012 is also confirmed by a certificate of 28 August 2015 of medical unit no. 10 of medical-sanitary department no. 36 of the FSIN. 39.  According to a certificate of 8 September 2015 of SIZO-3 and logs of dates of “individual consultations and psycho‑correctional work” submitted by the Government, the first applicant received such consultations on the following dates: 16 June 2009; 28 April, and 2 and 9 December in 2010; 4 February, 11 March, 21 April, 29 September and 23 December in 2011; and 29 March and 5 May in 2012. According to the first applicant, he did not receive such consultations. On some of the dates indicated in the records submitted by the Government he participated in court hearings in his case or had access to the case‑file at the courthouse, and some records indicated cell no. 28 as the place of his detention while he was never held there. 40.  According to a certificate of 14 October 2015 from medical unit no. 5 of medical-sanitary department no. 27 of IK-8 (in the Khabarovsk region) addressed to the applicant’s lawyer, the first applicant’s examination to determine his fitness for solitary confinement was not carried out. 41.  The first applicant had family visits on the following dates: 21 August, 11 and 25 September, and 6 November in 2009; 15 January, 5 February, 19 March, 16 April, 7 May, 4 June, 9 July, 16 August, 14 September, 17 November, and 3 and 28 December in 2010; 31 January, 21 March, 20 April, 16 May, 11 October, 8 November and 16 December in 2011; and 11 January and 16 May in 2012. 42.  On 15 June 2011 a deputy head of the FSIN Voronezh regional unit issued a report for determining a further place for the first applicant’s detention. He stated that during his detention in SIZO-3 in Voronezh the first applicant had not committed disciplinary offences, had not entered into conflicts with the administration of the detention facility, and had been polite and tactful. However, he had shown himself as an adherent to the thieves’ customs. That report was approved by the head of the operational department of the FSIN for the Voronezh region and by the head of the FSIN for the Voronezh region. 43.  On 30 June 2011 the head of the FSIN ordered that the first applicant further serve his sentence in the Khabarovsk region. 44.  On 19 March 2012 the first applicant requested the Head of the FSIN that he be allowed to serve his sentence in the Voronezh region where his family resided. On 27 April 2012 his request was refused pursuant to Article 73 § 4 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences. 45.  In July 2012 the first applicant arrived at correctional facility IK-8 located in the Khabarovsk region. 46.  On 13 July 2012 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh dismissed the applicant’s mother’s appeal against the FSIN’s decision, relying on Article 73 § 4 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences. 47.  On 7 November 2012 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh dismissed the applicant’s wife’s similar appeal on the same ground. 48.  On 11 January 2013 the first applicant again requested the FSIN that he be transferred to the Voronezh region for serving his sentence. On 25 February 2013 his request was refused. In April 2013 the first applicant challenged the FSIN’s refusal before the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow. He complained, in particular, that his transfer to the remote correctional facility had made it impossible for him to have visits from his wife, two children and elderly disabled mother. On 19 July 2013 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint on the grounds that his transfer to the remote correctional facility did not contradict domestic law and that the hindrance of his family members’ visits could not serve as a ground for transferring him to a similar correctional facility in his region. The applicant appealed against that decision. On 22 September 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld the District Court’s decision on the same grounds, noting that the three‑month time‑limit to appeal against the FSIN’s order had expired.