4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and is detained in Orsk. 5.  Late in the evening on 19 December a resident of Orsk, Mr Sh. was killed in his home. Suspicion fell on the applicant. 6.  The circumstances surrounding the applicant’s arrest and questioning are partly disputed, and therefore each version is given below. 7.  On 23 December 2004 two operatives of the town anti-narcotics brigade, First Lieutenants Kh. and U., were waiting in ambush near the applicant’s hiding place. When the applicant appeared, they approached him. Kh. noticed bruises under the applicant’s eye and on a lip. The officers introduced themselves, and asked the applicant to follow them. In reply, the applicant (who was drunk) cursed and shouted that as an ex‑commando he would easily overpower the officers. He hit Kh. in the chest, and then tried to flee. The operatives used sambo (a martial art) to tackle him, and took him in handcuffs to Sovietsky police station (Советский РОВД г. Орска). 8.  At the station the applicant was shown into room 31 for an “explanatory conversation” (разъяснительная беседа) with Captain Shch. in order to clarify the circumstances of the crime. 9.  According to one source, Shch. noticed that the applicant had a black eye and asked about its origin. The applicant explained that he had had a fight with a neighbour. According to another source, Shch. noticed no injuries on the applicant. 10.  During the conversation, which was respectful, the applicant decided to confess because, as he said, he would be unable to live with a heavy heart. The applicant told that on 19 December he had been drinking with Sh., that Sh. had angered him, and that he had twice punched him on the nose. At 5.55 p.m. Shch. recorded the confession (явка с повинной). The applicant signed it and was handed over to Investigator Po. at Oktyabrsky police station. 11.  At 5 p.m. Investigator Po. opened a criminal investigation into Sh.’s murder. Once in front of the investigator, the applicant said that he had confessed at Sovietsky police station and wrote another confession. This time he added that after he had punched Sh., Sh. had collapsed to the floor and fallen asleep. The applicant noted that he was confessing without psychological or physical coercion. 12.  At 7.12 p.m. the investigator formally detained the applicant as a suspect. The applicant agreed with the detention order and made no remarks. The investigator told the applicant’s partner about the detention. 13.  The investigator also commissioned a forensic examination to find out, in particular, if the applicant’s hands were injured. 14.  According to one source, in the morning of, or, according to another source, at 2–3 p.m. on 23 December 2004 the applicant was arrested by three officers, two young fair-haired ones, and an older one wearing a moustache. They put a gun to the applicant’s head and drove him to Sovietsky police station. 15.  At the station the applicant was shown into a room on the third floor. The officers started to punch and kick him on the sides, buttocks, and ears, urging him to incriminate himself. The beatings left him bleeding with a burst eardrum, a black eye, split lips, and several chipped teeth. On seeing the futility of the beatings, the officers turned to torture. They tied the applicant into a painful position called “the swallow” (“ласточка”), in which hands and legs are fastened together behind the back, and four times suffocated him with a gas-mask filled with ammonia. After six hours, already after dark, the applicant capitulated and penned a dictated confession. He was handed over to Investigator Po. at Oktyabrsky police station. 16.  Once in front of the investigator, the applicant complained to him of the torture. In response, the investigator commissioned a forensic examination of the applicant, but for some reason omitted to record the applicant’s complaint. 17.  Later the same day, a forensic doctor examined the applicant. The applicant told the doctor that he and Sh. had struck each other in the face and that the police had tortured him. To his description of torture he added slaps on his right hand. The doctor established the following injuries: bruises on the left eye and cheekbone caused by a blunt object three to five days before, and bruises on the upper lip and damage to the two upper front teeth caused by blunt objects no more than one day before. The right hand was not injured. 18.  Another report made on the same day established that the applicant was moderately intoxicated as a result of alcohol. 19.  At 1.30 a.m. on 24 December 2004 the applicant was transferred to the temporary-detention centre (ИВС) of Orsk. On admission, the duty officer noticed a bruise under the applicant’s left eye. 20.  At 12–1 p.m. on 24 December 2004, the applicant (aided by counsel) re-appeared before Investigator Po. The investigator formally interviewed the applicant first as a suspect, and then as the accused. Both times the applicant declined to testify and made no other remarks. 21.  On 25 December 2004 the applicant appeared before a judge of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Orsk. The judge ordered that the applicant be detained on remand. The applicant agreed to be detained and made no other remarks. 22.  In February 2005 Po. opened a criminal investigation into the theft of electronic devices from Sh.’s home. He joined the two investigations, and on 21 February 2005 interviewed the applicant as the accused. The applicant (aided by counsel) declined to testify and made no other remarks. 23.  On 10 March 2005 the applicant complained to the Orenburg Region public prosecutor of torture. 24.  On 21 March 2005 the applicant went on hunger strike in protest against the lack of a reply. 25.  On 28 March 2005 the complaint was referred to the prosecutor of the Sovietsky district of Orsk for a pre-investigation inquiry (доследственная проверка). 26.  The inquiry into the applicant’s allegation of torture was entrusted to Investigator Pa. of the Oktyabrsky district prosecutor’s office. 27.  In his turn, Pa. asked the head of the unit in which the applicant’s alleged assailants served to hold an internal inquiry (служебная проверка). Officers Kh., U., and Shch. wrote out their versions of the applicant’s arrest and interview at Sovietsky police station. The head of the unit issued three almost identical performance reviews for the officers, saying, among other compliments, that each of them could “inspire others to confessional conversation” (обладает умением располагать людей к доверительной беседе). The internal inquiry concluded that the applicant had not been ill‑treated. 28.  In addition, Pa. interviewed the applicant (assisted by counsel) and Investigator Po. 29.  On 15 April 2005 Pa. decided not to institute criminal proceedings. Based on the gathered evidence, he concluded that the applicant had been injured before he had been brought to Sovietsky police station, and thus the officers had no case to answer. At the same time, the investigator decided not to prosecute the applicant for falsely accusing the officers because he had been honestly mistaken that they had wronged him. 30.  On 26 April 2005 the Oktyabriskiy District Court of Orsk found the applicant guilty of murder and theft. The court established that the applicant had beaten Sh. to death while they had been drinking in Sh.’s flat and had stolen some home electronic equipment on his way out. 31.  At the trial the applicant pleaded not guilty. He said that on the night of the murder he had been drinking elsewhere and that he had been tortured into falsely incriminating himself as proven by the injuries on his body. 32.  The court dismissed this defence, noting that the forensic report suggested that the applicant had been injured before his arrest, and that the pre-investigation inquiry had cleared the officers of any misconduct. 33.  The court sentenced the applicant to eleven years’ imprisonment. 34.  On 2 June 2005 the Orenburg Regional Court upheld this sentence. 35.  In January 2008 the applicant’s representative, Mr Kiryukhin applied for judicial review of the decision not to institute criminal proceedings against the operatives. He alleged that Pa.’s inquiry had been superficial because he had failed to have the officers undergo a lie-detector test. 36.  On 25 January 2008 the Sovietsky District Court ruled that for pre‑investigation inquiries a lie-detector test was not mandatory and upheld the investigator’s findings. 37.  The applicant appealed, pleading that he himself would be prepared to undergo a lie-detector test to prove his accusations, that the court had blindly sided with the operatives, that in 2006 or 2007 U. had been convicted for torturing others and of forging official records, and that the court had ignored the case-law of the Strasbourg Court. 38.  On 26 February 2008 the Orenburg Regional Court upheld the decision of 25 January 2008 without answering the argument about U.’s conviction.