5.  The applicant was born in 1987 and lived in St Petersburg before his arrest. 6.  On 27 June 2013 D., an investigator at the Main Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee in St Petersburg (Главное следственное управление Следственного комитета РФ по г. Санкт‑Петербургу – “St Petersburg Investigative Committee”), instituted criminal proceedings into fraud against Ms R. allegedly committed by the applicant. 7.  At 4.30 p.m. on 4 July 2013 the applicant was arrested near his car on a street in St Petersburg by masked police officers of the special rapid response unit of the Main Directorate of Internal Affairs (GUVD) of St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region (СОБР ГУ МВД РФ по Санкт‑Петербургу и Ленинградской области­), and operational police officers of unit no. 7 of the operative‑search division of criminal investigation department no. 3 of the GUVD (оперуполномоченные 7 отдела ОРЧ (УР) №3 ГУ МВД РФ по Санкт‑Петербургу и Ленинградской области – “the criminal investigation department”). The applicant was dressed in a polo shirt and shorts. He lay on the ground until D.’s arrival at the scene. 8.  The following investigative measures were carried out that day:
(i)  from 5.25 to 6.30 p.m. the applicant’s car was searched;
(ii)  at 7 p.m. he was arrested as a suspect and searched by D. at police station no. 59 in St Petersburg (a record of the arrest was drawn up at 8.50 p.m.);
(iii)  from 10 to 11.58 p.m. his apartment (which he rented from S.) was searched by D.;
(iv)  shortly after midnight his wife’s garage was searched, after which he was taken to D.’s office at the St Petersburg Investigative Committee. 9.  According to the applicant, he did not resist his arrest. From the time he was taken to police station no. 59 on 4 July 2013 until about 6 a.m. on 5 July 2013 operational police officers Ch., K. and P. of the criminal investigation department, in D.’s presence, allegedly subjected him to ill‑treatment in order to force him to confess to crimes. In particular, he was allegedly punched and kicked in the head and abdomen (by Ch. and K. at police station no. 59); struck with a book to the head, ears and back of the head and made to kneel on small objects spread out on the floor (by Ch., K. and P. during the search in his apartment); punched, kicked and dragged to the ground and spat upon in the face (during the search in the garage); punched in the head, abdomen and chest, nearly suffocated with a plastic bag placed over his head, struck several times in the torso and kicked in the left kidney (by Ch., K. and P. from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. in D.’s office at the St Petersburg Investigative Committee), and threatened with a gun by Ch. D. allegedly refused to contact the applicant’s family and lawyer. 10.  From 7 to 8.30 a.m. on 5 July 2013 at the St Petersburg Investigative Committee D. questioned the applicant as a suspect in the presence of A.D., a State‑appointed lawyer invited by D. According to the applicant, he asked A.D. to inform the Internal Security Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of his alleged ill‑treatment, but he did not do so. 11.  At around midday on 5 July 2013 police officers took the applicant to Aleksandrovskaya Hospital in St Petersburg, where the injuries on him were recorded. The applicant denied being physically assaulted. According to the applicant, he denied the assault because he had been threatened with violence by those who had ill-treated him if he “open[ed] [his] mouth”. 12.  From 5.10 to 6.05 p.m. that day the Vyborgskiy District Court of St Petersburg held a hearing in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer. It granted a request by D. for the applicant’s detention and remanded him in custody. 13.  After the court hearing, the applicant was taken to a different police station (no. 57) in St Petersburg, where his injuries were also recorded. The police records contain an explanation by the applicant stating that his injuries were caused from 4 to 5 July 2013 during his questioning at the Investigative Committee. 14.  At around 9 a.m. on 6 July 2013 the applicant was taken to hospital for a second time, where he remained until 9 July 2013. 15.  On 9 July 2013 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention facility IZ 47/4 in St Petersburg. 16.  According to medical records from Aleksandrovskaya Hospital in St Petersburg, the applicant was admitted as an emergency and underwent inpatient treatment in the urology unit from 5 to 9 July 2013. He complained, in particular, of pain in the left side of his lumbar region and in his abdomen and knee joints. He was diagnosed with a contusion of the left kidney. He also had a superficial abrasion on his upper abdomen, abrasions on both his knee joints (measuring from 0.5 x 1 cm to 1 x 1.5 cm) and bruising on his abdomen, chest and arms. After his hospitalisation the applicant was discharged for further supervision and outpatient treatment by a urologist. 17.  According to records from police station no. 57 in St Petersburg of 5 July 2013, where the applicant was examined by an on‑duty officer, the applicant had: (i) a bruise on his forehead; (ii) abrasions on his right elbow; (iii) bruising on his chest and abdomen and (iv) abrasions on both his knees. 18.  On 9 July 2013 the applicant was examined by a doctor at pre-trial detention facility IZ 47/4. He complained of pain in the left side of his lumbar region. The doctor recorded abrasions on the applicant’s knee joints and bruising on his abdomen and noted that the injuries had been received on or around 5 July 2013. 19.  On 2 September 2013 Sh., an investigator at the St Petersburg Investigative Committee in charge of a pre-investigation inquiry into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by the police, ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant’s medical documents, stating that he was in custody and could not therefore appear for the examination in person. The investigator summarised the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment as follows. After his arrest in the course of his questioning he had been repeatedly punched and kicked to the ears, back of the head and abdomen. 20.  According to forensic medical report no. 3575 P, which was carried out in the absence of the applicant from 13 to 18 September 2013 on the basis of the investigator’s order of 2 September 2013, and which comprised an analysis of the applicant’s medical records, the applicant had the following injuries: (i) bruising on his forehead; (ii) bruising on his chest and abdomen; (iii) an abrasion on his abdomen; (iv) abrasions on his right elbow joint and both knee joints, recorded on 5 July 2013; and (v) bruising on his arms, recorded on 8 July 2013. The expert concluded that the applicant’s injuries, as recorded on 5 and 8 July 2013, had been caused within the last fourteen to fifteen days. The expert did not exclude the possibility that the applicant’s injuries had been caused on 4 July 2013 and concluded that the injuries had originated from impact with a hard, blunt object or objects as a result of a blow or pressure (bruising), friction or a blow with friction (abrasions), and had not caused any “health damage” to the applicant. The expert did not exclude the possibility that the applicant’s injuries to his abdomen could have been caused by being kicked in that area, as was alleged by the applicant. The expert further defined no less than seven areas on the applicant’s body where there was evidence that force had been used. The expert considered that in view of the available medical data it was impossible to confirm for certain a contusion of the applicant’s left kidney, therefore it was not subject to expert assessment. 21.  On 15 October 2013 Sh. ordered an additional forensic medical examination of the applicant’s medical documents, stating again that the applicant was in custody and could not therefore appear for the examination in person. The investigator stated that it had been established based on the video recording of the applicant’s arrest that in the course of his arrest the applicant had been “knocked down” (повален) to the ground, where had remained lying for some time, face down and motionless. The investigator further stated that, according to explanations gathered during the pre‑investigation inquiry, upon the arrival of the officers of the special rapid response unit the applicant had attempted to flee by spinning his car around (огибания). However, the officers had surrounded the vehicle from both sides. Since the applicant had further resisted arrest, the officers had used sambo techniques, as a result of which the applicant had been “knocked down” (повален) from behind, face down on the ground and handcuffed. According to eyewitnesses, there had been light fresh abrasions on the applicant’s elbows and knees, which must have been caused by his falling to the ground. There had been no other injuries on him. The investigator ordered the expert to determine whether the applicant’s injuries could have been caused as a result of his falling down onto hard asphalt ground. 22.  On 15 November 2013 an additional forensic medical report (no. 4414 P) was issued by the same expert. It was carried out in the absence of the applicant on the basis of the investigator’s order of 15 October 2013, and comprised an analysis of the applicant’s medical documents and photographs in which he could be seen lying on the ground face down after his arrest in the presence of several police officers of the special rapid response unit. In reply to the investigator’s question, the expert stated that the bruising on the applicant’s forehead and abdomen and abrasions on his abdomen, elbow and knees could possibly have been caused as a result of a fall (при падении) onto hard asphalt. The expert further reiterated the conclusions made in the previous report about the other possible causes of the injuries such as being struck and, in particular, that he did not exclude the possibility that the applicant’s injuries to his abdomen, taking into account their nature and localisation, could have equally been caused by being kicked in that area one or more times, as was alleged by the applicant. 23.  On 7 August 2013 the applicant lodged a formal criminal complaint concerning his alleged ill-treatment (see paragraph 9 above) with the St Petersburg Investigative Committee. 24.  Sh. at the St Petersburg Investigative Committee carried out a pre‑investigation inquiry under Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”). 25.  On the dates specified below, and pursuant to Article 24 § 1 (2) of the CCrP, Sh. refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers and D. owing to the absence of the elements of an offence under Article 286 of the Criminal Code (abuse of powers) in their actions. Four of those refusals were overruled by a higher authority within the Investigative Committee as unsubstantiated and/or unlawful, and the investigating authorities were ordered to carry out additional pre‑investigation inquiries:
(i)  10 September 2013 (overruled on 16 September 2013);
(ii)  15 October 2013 (overruled on 8 November 2013);
(iii)  9 December 2013 (overruled on 7 October 2014);
(iv)  18 December 2014 (overruled on 7 August 2015);
(v)  5 September 2015. 26.  Sh. based his refusals to initiate criminal proceedings on the following explanations and other material collected during the pre‑investigation inquiry, as well as the forensic medical reports. 27.  A. and S.B., police officers of the special rapid response unit, assisted Ch., K. and P. during the applicant’s arrest. They stated that the applicant had attempted to abscond by spinning his car around; they had surrounded the vehicle and used the following techniques on the applicant: they had held him in a hammerlock (загиб руки за спину) and “struck him with their feet” (подсечка). Afterwards, they had laid (уложили) him on the ground face down. He had then been handcuffed. They did not state that they had knocked the applicant down to the ground. Nor did they state that the applicant had fallen to the ground. L., a driver of the special rapid response unit, filmed the arrest. His account of the way the arrest had been carried out was identical to that of A. and S.B. 28.  Ch., K. and P., the police officers of the criminal investigation department who participated in the applicant’s arrest, stated that they had not seen the precise moment of his arrest, that is to say when he had been apprehended and laid face down on the ground by A. and B.S. According to Ch. and D. (who arrived after the arrest), the applicant had had fresh abrasions on his elbows and knees, which had probably been caused as a result of a fall to the ground. K. and P. had not noticed any visible injuries on him after his arrest. They stated that the applicant had “possibly” had abrasions on his arms and forehead. He had not had any other injuries. No threats or physical force had been used against him after his arrest on the street, during the search of his car, at police station no. 59 in St Petersburg, during the searches of his home and his wife’s garage, or at the St Petersburg Investigative Committee. The police officers denied subjecting the applicant to any form of threats or ill-treatment to extract a confession of fraud. 29.  A.B. participated in the search of the applicant’s car after his arrest as an attesting witness, together with M. According to A.B., the applicant had behaved calmly and not made any complaints. The police officers had not insulted or threatened him. A.B. had not noticed any injuries on the applicant. According to A.B., the neighbours from the building nearby (whose names are not indicated in the investigators’ decisions) had allegedly seen the applicant attempting to run away from the police officers in the direction of his car; however, he had then been apprehended by the police officers of the special rapid response unit. 30.  O. participated in the search of the applicant’s apartment and the garage as an attesting witness, together with Sch. According to O., the applicant had behaved quietly and not made any complaints. The police officers had neither threatened nor physically assaulted him. O. had not seen any visible injuries on him. 31.  S., the owner of the apartment rented by the applicant, stated that she had seen the applicant during the search of the apartment. She had not noticed any visible injuries on him. According to S., the applicant had been calm and had not complained of being assaulted by the police. S. further stated that the police officers had behaved politely. After the search of the apartment, the applicant had gone downstairs without protest. He had been in handcuffs. 32.  The applicant’s case file contained an undated internal memorandum by Ch. notifying D. of the applicant’s arrest at 4.30 p.m. on 4 July 2013 on suspicion of fraud. The report indicates that “during the arrest, A.V. Samesov failed to obey and attempted to abscond. Sambo combat techniques and special devices – handcuffs – were therefore used on him” (“При задержании Самесов А.В. оказал неповиновение, пытался скрыться, в результате чего в отношении него были применены приемы самбо и спец. средства – наручники”). 33.  The video recording made by the special response unit showed the applicant after his arrest lying face down on the ground. According to Sh.’s observations, injuries resembling abrasions were visible on the applicant’s forehead and right elbow. 34.  In the most recent refusal (5 September 2015) to open a criminal case – owing to the absence of the elements of offences under Articles 286 (abuse of powers) and 302 (forced extraction of confession) of the Criminal Code in the actions of Ch., K., P. and D. – Sh. considered that the applicant’s allegations of police ill-treatment contained unresolved contradictions, evidencing his attempts to avoid criminal liability and provide false information to the investigating authorities. In particular, the applicant indicated that he had been physically assaulted many times, receiving injuries to his head, abdomen and extremities. However, according to his medical records, he had not had any head injuries, and the alleged contusion of his left kidney had not been confirmed. As to the abrasions on his limbs, head and abdomen, the investigator concluded that they had most probably been caused during the arrest as a result of the use of combat techniques on the applicant by the officers of the special rapid response unit and the applicant’s position (нахождение) on the ground. The investigator further indicated seven areas where force could have been used against the applicant on the forehead, chest, abdomen, arms and knees. The investigator noted that the applicant’s injuries, as recorded on 5 and 8 July 2013, had been caused within the last fourteen to fifteen days. Accordingly, they could have been caused on a day other than 4 July 2013. 35.  The applicant challenged the refusals (of 9 December 2013, 18 December 2014 and 5 September 2015) to open a criminal case against the police officers under Article 125 of the CCrP. 36.  On 25 June 2014 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the refusal of 9 December 2013. On 7 October 2014 the St Petersburg City Court quashed that decision on appeal and found the refusal in question unlawful and unsubstantiated; it ordered the investigating authorities to rectify the deficiencies. In particular, the appellate court noted that the investigator had taken the decision to refuse to open a criminal case without identifying all the officers responsible, in breach of the criminal procedural law requirements. Moreover, the appellate court found that the pre‑investigation inquiry was incomplete, as not all of the applicant’s arguments had been addressed. 37.  On 26 June 2015 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg found the refusal of 18 December 2014 unlawful and unsubstantiated, and the investigating authorities were ordered to rectify the deficiencies. In particular, the court found that the investigator had not addressed the applicant’s arguments concerning the alleged threats and incidents of physical assault by the police during the search of the garage, and had not substantiated its refusal to open a criminal case. 38.  On 6 May 2016 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the refusal of 5 September 2015 which it considered lawful and well founded. On 2 August 2016 the St Petersburg City Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the District Court’s judgment.