4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is currently serving a prison sentence. 5.  At around 5 a.m. on 13 May 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robberies by officers of the police unit for combating organised crime in the Ryazan region (УБОП при УВД по Рязанской области – “the organised crime unit”), assisted by officers of the special rapid response unit of the Ryazan region (СОБР (ОМСН) УВД Рязанской области – “the rapid response unit”). 6.  The applicant’s account of subsequent events is the following. He was taken to the Moskovskiy district police station of Ryazan, where the (unnamed) police officers beat him for an hour, forcing him to confess to carrying weapons. He was then taken to the organised crime unit, located at a different address, where police officers N.A. and I.O. physically assaulted him and subjected him to electric shocks in a gym. Two other (unnamed) police officers of the rapid response unit then continued physically assaulting him, chained his handcuffs to some exercise equipment, pinched his nose and sprayed tear gas into his mouth to force him to confess to robberies and assaults. On the evening of 13 May 2006 the applicant was taken to the Zheleznodorozhnyy district police station of Ryazan. 7.  At 7.40 p.m. on 13 May 2006 investigator A.A. from the investigation unit of the Zheleznodorozhnyy district police department drew up a record of the applicant’s arrest. The record indicates that the applicant was arrested at 7 p.m. that day. 8.  According to the applicant, during his time at the Zheleznodorozhnyy police station, he was allegedly driven to the organised crime unit several more times and subjected to various forms of ill-treatment. This allegedly included beatings, electric shocks and having a plastic bag placed over his head so that he lost consciousness. 9.  At 2 p.m. on 15 May 2006 the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Ryazan extended the applicant’s arrest until 6 p.m. on 16 May 2006. 10.  According to the applicant, on the evening of 15 May 2006 he was physically assaulted again at the Zheleznodorozhnyy police station by an unknown police officer, who tried to force him to confess to different unsolved crimes concerning weapons, thefts and drugs. 11.  On 16 May 2006 the District Court remanded the applicant in custody. He was placed in a Ryazan pre-trial detention facility (IZ 62/1). 12.  According to records from IZ 62/1 dated 16 May 2006, on his arrival at 4.20 p.m. that day the applicant was examined by a medical assistant (feldsher). He had the following injuries: (i) multiple abrasions covered in brown scabs on his forehead and the back and top of his head; (ii) swelling on the inner surface of the lips; (iii) multiple large purple and blue bruises on his chest, abdomen, left side, forearms and shoulders; (iv) purple and yellow bruises on his knee joints; and (v) abrasions covered in brown scabs on the back of the toes of his left foot. 13.  On 18 May 2006 the material concerning the applicant’s injuries was forwarded from the pre-trial detention facility to the Zheleznodorozhnyy district prosecutor’s office of Ryazan. It was registered on 25 May 2006. 14.  On 25 May 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Zheleznodorozhnyy district prosecutor against the police officers, requesting that they be prosecuted. His complaint was registered that day. 15.  On 30 May 2006 the material in both files concerning the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment were joined. 16.  On 5 June 2006, 20 December 2006 and 10 June 2008 officials at the prosecutor’s office, and later the Zheleznodorozhnyy inter-district investigation unit of the investigative committee for Ryazan (“the investigative committee”) issued refusals to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers. 17.  The two earlier refusals were overruled by the higher authority within the investigative committee on 25 September 2006 and 9 June 2008 respectively, and the investigation authorities were ordered to carry out additional inquiries. The most recent refusal of 10 June 2008 was issued in accordance with Article 24 § 1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”) on the grounds that none of the elements of crimes under Articles 285 and 286 of the Criminal Code (abuse of powers) were present in respect of the police officers’ actions. 18.  Police officer A.S. from the organised crime unit stated in an explanation of 8 June 2006 that on 13 May 2006 eight officers from the rapid response unit had carried out the applicant’s arrest. As the applicant and three other individuals were armed and refused to get out of their car, physical force (unspecified “sambo” wrestling techniques) and special devices (handcuffs) were used on them. A.S. could not remember whether those arrested had received any injuries. According to him, they were then taken to the Moskovskiy police station. A.S. referred to a report on the arrest. 19.  According to the report on the arrest, signed by the head of division no. 1 of the rapid response unit on 13 May 2006, the arrest operation had been carried out between 5.00 a.m. and 5.30 a.m. on 13 May 2006 by eight officers from the rapid response unit. The applicant and four other suspects had been in a car. Two guns had been found during the search. It was stated in the report that the police officers had used “physical force” and handcuffs, and that “no incidents had happened”. 20.  Police officers of the rapid response unit (T.D., M.A., O.S., K.D., K.A. and Ch.D.) stated that they had carried out the applicant’s arrest at around 6 a.m. on 13 May 2006. They arrested four individuals (including the applicant), who all resisted arrest. They used physical force and special devices (handcuffs). 21.  Police officer P.V. from the organised crime unit stated that, after the applicant’s arrest in the early hours of 13 May 2006, he had searched him in the presence of attesting witnesses. He denied subjecting him to any physical or verbal abuse. 22.  Police officers R.A. and B.A. of the Moskovskiy police denied subjecting the applicant to any ill-treatment. 23.  Investigator A.A. stated in an (undated) explanation that the applicant had been arrested in the early hours of 13 May 2006 by police officers of the organised crime unit. During his arrest the applicant resisted, and physical force was used on him. A.A. did not know whether the applicant had been subjected to any ill‑treatment by the police officers of the Zheleznodorozhnyy police station. At 7 p.m. on 13 May 2006 the applicant was taken to his room. A.A. arrested him on suspicion of organised robbery pursuant to Article 91 of the CCrP. A.A. denied subjecting the applicant to any physical or psychological pressure. 24.  In its most recent refusal to open a criminal case against the police officers dated 10 June 2008, the investigative committee briefly concluded that the applicant’s injuries had resulted from the use of force and special devices (handcuffs) by police officers of the rapid response unit during the applicant’s arrest, as the applicant had resisted arrest.
(b)  Judicial review of the investigators’ decisions 25.  Relying on Article 125 of the CCrP, the applicant appealed against two of the refusals to open a criminal case against the police officers to the courts, namely those of 20 December 2006 and 10 June 2008. 26.  On 10 June 2008 the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Ryazan ruled that the applicant’s appeal against the refusal of 20 December 2006 should not be examined, and terminated the proceedings on the grounds that on 9 June 2008 the investigative committee had already revoked the refusal. 27.  On 16 December 2008 the same court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the refusal of 10 June 2008, holding that it was lawful and well-grounded. In particular, the court noted that the applicant’s arguments concerning his alleged ill-treatment in police custody from 13 to 15 May 2006 had been examined during his criminal trial and on appeal and dismissed as unconfirmed. On 5 February 2009 the Ryazan Regional Court fully endorsed that decision on appeal. 28.  On 26 May 2006 a copy of the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment was forwarded to the Sovetskiy district prosecutor’s office of Ryazan for a separate inquiry in relation to the police officers of the organised crime unit. 29.  On 2 June 2006 and 24 February 2009 respectively, in accordance with Article 24 § 1 (1) of the CCrP, officials at the Sovetskiy prosecutor’s office and Moskovskiy inter-district investigation unit of the investigative committee for Ryazan issued refusals to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers as none of the elements of crimes under Articles 285 and 286 of the Criminal Code (abuse of powers) were present in respect of their actions. On 25 December 2008 the first refusal was overruled by the higher authority within the investigative committee as unsubstantiated, and the investigation authorities were ordered to carry out an additional inquiry. 30.  In its most recent refusal to open a criminal case against the police officers dated 24 February 2009, the investigative committee briefly noted the outcome of the applicant’s criminal case and concluded that there was no objective information showing that any crimes had been committed against the applicant by the police officers. 31.  In December 2006 and May 2008 respectively the applicant lodged two more complaints with the Prosecutor General’s Office and the investigative committee against the police officers, investigators and other State officials, requesting that they be prosecuted for unlawful arrest, detention and abuse of power in connection with the events of 13 to 16 May 2006 and his criminal case. 32.  On 16 January 2007, 12 April 2007 and 26 May 2008, officials at the Zheleznodorozhnyy prosecutor’s office and the Zheleznodorozhnyy inter‑district investigative committee issued refusals to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers. 33.  The two earlier refusals were overruled by the higher authority within the investigative committee on an unspecified date and 14 May 2008 respectively, and the investigation authorities were ordered to carry out additional inquiries. The most recent refusal of 26 May 2008 was issued in accordance with Article 24 § 1 (2) of the CCrP, because none of the elements of crimes under Articles 285, 286 and 301 of the Criminal Code (abuse of powers and unlawful arrest and detention respectively) were present in respect of the police officers’ actions, as the applicant’s allegations had not been confirmed in the course of the inquiry.
(b)  Judicial review of the investigators’ decisions 34.  Under Article 125 of the CCrP, the applicant appealed against all three of the refusals mentioned above. 35.  On 2 April 2007 the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Ryazan examined the applicant’s appeal against the refusal of 16 January 2007 and concluded that it had been unlawful and unsubstantiated because not all of the applicant’s arguments had been examined concerning, in particular, his allegedly unlawful arrest and detention. The investigation authority was ordered to rectify those deficiencies. It appears that the refusal was subsequently overruled by the investigative committee, and an additional inquiry was ordered. 36.  On 14 May 2008 the same court ruled that the applicant’s appeal against the investigator’s refusal of 12 April 2007 should not be examined, and terminated the proceedings on the grounds that on 14 May 2008 the investigative committee had already overruled it. 37.  On 10 December 2008 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, holding that the refusal of 26 May 2008 was lawful and well-grounded. It also endorsed the findings of the trial and appellate courts in the applicant’s criminal case. On 22 January 2009 the Ryazan Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal. 38.  On 28 April 2008 the Ryazan Regional Court convicted the applicant of organised banditry, illegal possession of firearms and armed robbery, and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment and a fine. 39.  At trial, the applicant complained that the investigative measures carried out during the preliminary investigation of his criminal case had been unlawful, and that he had been coerced into making a confession. 40.  The trial court dismissed the applicant’s allegations as unconfirmed. It referred mainly to the results of the pre-investigation inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of ill‑treatment, which had resulted in the (subsequently overruled) refusal of 20 December 2006 to open a criminal case against the police officers. 41.  On 7 August 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld that judgment on appeal, finding the conclusions of the trial court duly reasoned.