5.  The applicants were born in 1988, 1982, 1984 and 1987 respectively. At the material time all four of them were serving their respective prison sentences in Rustavi Prison no. 1. 6.  At about 1 p.m. on 30 March 2009 the applicants were arrested in a yard behind the prison during an alleged attempt to flee. The applicants and the Government have submitted different accounts of the circumstances surrounding their arrest. 7.  According to the applicants, they left the confinement area through an open door. Then they climbed up a two-metre high wall with the assistance of scaffolding attached to it at the time and jumped down into the back yard. There, they were attacked by prison officers who severely beat them with wooden sticks and iron pipes. The second and third applicants, together with another prisoner, R.G., hid in a truck parked nearby to avoid the beatings, while the first and fourth applicants surrendered immediately. After the arrest the applicants were placed in a punishment cell where their beating continued. 8.  The Government admitted that the applicants had been injured on the day of the incident, but submitted that they had sustained all the injuries either as a result of falling from a prison wall that was under construction at the time or as a result of the necessary physical force to which the prison officers had had to have recourse in order to effect their arrest. The Government further submitted that whereas the second and third applicants had resisted the prison officers during their arrest, the first and fourth applicants had immediately surrendered. 9.  On the day of the incident the Investigation Department of the then Ministry of Corrections and Legal Aid (“the Ministry of Prisons”) opened a criminal investigation into the circumstances of the applicants’ attempted escape. The investigator in charge of the case questioned the applicants, who blamed all their injuries on a fall from a prison wall. On the same date, the investigator commissioned an expert from the National Forensic Bureau who visually examined all those injured and issued reports in respect of the first, second and third applicants as well as the prison officers on 7 April 2009 and in respect of the fourth applicant on 16 April 2009. The examinations of the applicants were conducted in the presence of the investigator. 10.  The medical expert concluded, in respect of all the applicants, that the injuries could have been caused by blows with a hard blunt object(s) inflicted at the time of the escape attempt. He further concluded that the injuries concerned were of minor severity and had not caused the third and fourth applicants long-lasting effects on their health. The extent and nature of the injuries sustained by each of the applicants, as recorded by the expert, were as follows: 11.  It was observed that the first applicant had multiple abrasions on his chest, nose, forehead, cheeks, right ear, upper left arm, right shoulder and on both knees. His nose was bleeding and swollen. His lower left eyelid was bruised and swollen and he had a cut which was slightly bleeding on his tibia. The forensic expert further noted that during the examination, the applicant had complained of pain in the chest. 12.  It was observed that the second applicant had multiple haematomas from his shoulders to his back and on his right cheek; abrasions on the right shoulder and on the back of his right hand; multiple scratches on the right side of his neck; and a deep scratch on the left thigh, covered with scabbing. 13.  It was observed that the third applicant had multiple abrasions on the right forearm; an abrasion on the back of the fifth finger of his left hand; and cuts which were slightly bleeding on his head, on the left temple and crown. 14.  It was observed that the fourth applicant had multiple haematomas on the chest, right elbow, and below the left eye; abrasions on the forehead and knee; a scratch on the right thigh; and a laceration which was slightly bleeding on the crown of the head. 15.  According to the forensic expert reports issued on 7 April 2009 (as cited in the Court of Appeal judgment of 25 March 2010 against the applicants), it was observed that prison officer Z.Ch. had an abrasion on his forehead; V.M. had a haematoma on his face; and O.T. had multiple abrasions on his feet and hands. 16.  In October and November 2009 when the applicants were allowed to testify before the court in the criminal proceedings against them, they stated that they had been ill-treated during their arrest. All of them withdrew the statements they had given during the pre-trial investigation. The first and second applicants claimed in that connection that pre-typed texts of statements had been given to them by the investigator and that they had been forced to sign those statements without reading them. 17.  On 29 December 2009 the Rustavi City Court convicted all the applicants of attempted escape from prison (an offence under Article 379 of the Criminal Code of Georgia). The second and third applicants were also found guilty of resisting prison officers in the exercise of their duties (an offence under Article 378 of the Criminal Code of Georgia). Their conviction was upheld by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal on 25 March 2010. Before the courts of first and second instances, the applicants maintained their ill-treatment allegations, which were not, however, addressed by the courts. By a decision of 26 July 2010 the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected as inadmissible an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicants. 18.  On 10 November 2009 all the applicants, except for the fourth one, complained to the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia of ill-treatment on 30 March 2009 and requested the initiation of criminal proceedings in line with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. On 11 November 2009, the prosecutor forwarded the applicants’ complaint to the judge examining the case against the applicants, considering it relevant for the on-going trial proceedings. 19.  On 1 February 2010 the applicants enquired about the progress of the investigation, complaining that none of them had been questioned in connection with their allegations of ill-treatment. 20.  On 19 February 2010 a panel of independent forensic experts called by the second and third applicants issued forensic reports concluding that the two applicants suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder which could have been derived from the applicants’ ill-treatment. Based on the forensic reports issued by the National Bureau of Forensics on 7 April 2009 (see paragraph 9 above), the panel further concluded that the applicants concerned could have sustained the injuries described in those documents as a result of ill-treatment. The two applicants provided the Office of the Chief Prosecutor with the forensic reports in relation to their complaints. 21.  On 3 March 2010 the fourth applicant also lodged a criminal complaint of ill-treatment with the Office of the Chief Prosecutor. 22.  On 8 July 2010 the applicants, acting through the Office of the Public Defender of Georgia (“the PDO”), lodged yet another complaint. By a letter of 30 July 2010 they were informed that a preliminary enquiry had been opened on 22 July 2010 under Article 123 of the Criminal Code of Georgia (causing severe or minor injuries by use of excessive force). 23.  On 15 December 2010 and 13 January 2011 all four applicants, acting through their lawyer, wrote again to the Office of the Chief Prosecutor enquiring about the progress of their case. In their letter of 13 January 2011, they also denounced the fact that their ill-treatment allegations against the prison authorities were being investigated by the very same authorities – the Investigation Department of the Ministry of Prisons. On 31 March 2011 the applicants’ letter was forwarded to the Investigation Department of the Ministry of Prisons, but was left unanswered. 24.  In April 2011 the Investigation Department of the Ministry of Prisons conducted the first investigative interviews in connection with the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment. Throughout the subsequent months an investigator from the Ministry of Prisons interviewed the prison governor and four prison officers who had been involved in the incident, including those who had arrested the applicants. They all denied having beaten the applicants. Two of them claimed that all of the applicants had sustained their injuries by falling from the wall while they had been fleeing from the prison. One of the officers (O.G.) stated that the first and fourth applicants had surrendered without resistance or complications. The three prison officers who had been injured during the incident (V.M., O.T. and Z.Ch.) admitted that they had had recourse to physical force in order to arrest the second and third applicants, but they denied that the applicants had sustained any injury therefrom. Rather, they attributed all the applicants’ injuries to their alleged fall from the wall. 25.  As regards the details of the arrest of the second and third applicants, Z.Ch., V.M. and O.T. stated that the two, together with another prisoner, R.G., had attempted to escape in a truck that had been parked in the back yard of the prison. After driving a short distance, the truck had stopped all of a sudden. The prison officers had then approached them and ordered them to surrender. The three prisoners had resisted arrest while they had been in the truck cabin. According to O.T., R.G. had been trying to restart the vehicle. The officers had managed to capture the applicants only after receiving help from additional prison staff. 26.  The investigator also interviewed the four applicants, who confirmed the allegations of ill-treatment they had made in their criminal complaints. In particular, they stated that they had been severely beaten with wooden sticks and iron pipes immediately after their arrest and as a result, the first, second and fourth applicants had passed out several times. When they had regained consciousness, the beatings had resumed. The applicants also named those prison officers who had been involved in the beating. They denied that they had sustained their injuries as a result of falling from the wall. Only the fourth applicant admitted that he had slightly injured his leg when he had jumped from the wall, but said that he had received the remaining injuries from the beating. 27.  The second and third applicants further claimed that on the day of the incident pre-typed texts of statements had been given to them by the investigator and that they had been forced to sign these statements without reading them. The fourth applicant stated that he had felt sick after the ill‑treatment, so he had been unable to adequately judge reality and had signed the interview record without scrutinising it. He further stated that the next day after the incident he had been transferred to Ksani Prison no. 15, where, upon his arrival, he had been beaten by the Governor of the prison. Subsequently, he had been regularly threatened and warned not to lodge a complaint about his ill-treatment. The second and third applicants also claimed that D.Ch., head of the Prison Service of the Ministry of Prisons and other senior officials of the agency had promised them leniency in respect of their escape attempt in return for remaining silent about their ill‑treatment. 28.  The investigator also interviewed R.G., who was arrested together with the applicants while fleeing. He essentially confirmed the applicants’ account of the events and further claimed that the prison governor, D.S., while physically and verbally abusing the applicants, had called a guard to shoot them, but the latter had not complied with the order. 29.  The forensic medical examination reports of April 2009 obtained as part of the investigation conducted against the applicants in the prison escape case were included in the investigation file concerning the applicants’ alleged ill‑treatment. 30.  On 17 September 2011 in response to a complaint lodged by the applicants about the ineffectiveness of the investigation, the prosecutor informed them that they were just witnesses in the matter and had no standing to lodge a complaint. 31.  On 13 March 2012, the PDO, acting on behalf of the applicants, requested the Office of the Chief Prosecutor information about the status of the investigation. The PDO was notified that several witnesses had been interviewed and that the investigation was on-going. 32.  On 20 August 2012 the prosecutor decided to discontinue the proceedings for lack of evidence of a crime. The prosecutor fully accepted the version of events put forward by the prison officers, concluding that the applicants could have been injured when they had jumped down from a wall whilst fleeing from the prison. The prosecutor also noted that the prison officers had been forced to use physical force against the applicants to effect their arrest, but made no conclusion as to whether the applicants had sustained their injuries therefrom. The applicants were not informed about the decision. 33.  On 21 October 2013 the applicants wrote yet another letter to the Office of the Chief Prosecutor enquiring about the status of the investigation, but received no reply. Hence, on 19 June 2014 the applicants’ lawyer sent an additional complaint. 34.  By a letter of 21 July 2014, the applicants were informed that a decision had been taken on 20 August 2012 to discontinue the relevant proceedings.