4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and was detained in LPU-3, Chelyabinsk. 5.  On 14 November 2003 the Saint Petersburg City Court found the applicant guilty of aggravated murder and possession of firearms, and sentenced him to twenty-one years’ imprisonment. On 1 November 2004 the conviction was upheld on appeal. 6.  On 28 September 2007 the applicant arrived at medical detention facility no. LPU-3 in Chelyabinsk, where he stayed until 30 October 2007. 7.  On 2 October 2007 the applicant was ordered to leave his cell. He entered the corridor, turned to face the wall and took up a spread-eagle position leaning against the wall. Having refused to strip naked for a body search, he was immediately subjected to beatings. A warder hit him a number of times on the buttocks with a rubber truncheon. At the same time another warder started kicking and hitting the applicant on the back and head. Trying to protect himself from more serious harm, the applicant turned and faced his assailants. He raised his arm and inadvertently hit the warder’s face. The beatings intensified and the applicant was pushed to the floor. The warders continued kicking and punching him and hitting him with truncheons. The applicant lost consciousness. A warder dragged him back to the cell and the applicant was left there on the floor. 8.  On the same date the applicant was examined by a prison doctor. The doctor found hematomas on his buttocks and documented them in the applicant’s medical records as follows:
“Skin hyperaemia on both buttocks, traces of blunt injury, blue hematomas. Moderate pain on palpation.” 9.  On 5 October 2007 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of assault on a warder and disruption of order in the detention facility. The prosecution’s case was that on 2 October 2007 the applicant had refused to be subjected to a body search and had waved his hands to prevent the search. Warder B. had warned the applicant about the intention to use force should he fail to comply with the order. In response, the applicant had punched another warder, Mr L., in the face, splitting his lip. 10.  On 2 September 2008 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court, by a jury verdict, acquitted the applicant. Having established that he had hit warder L. once and had split his lip, the jury nevertheless concluded that the applicant had caused the injury in an attempt to protect himself. The relevant part of the judgment read as follows:
“The jury has established in a verdict that two injuries to Mr L.’s lower lip were caused by [the applicant] with a single punch to Mr L.’s face. [The applicant] had refused to strip naked and to submit his clothes to a check-up, and had asked for a copy of a decision by the head or deputy head of the facility authorising a full body search. [The applicant] who had stayed with his face to the wall, had been subsequently kicked and punched, and hit with rubber truncheons a number of times, at least ten, on various parts of his body, head [and] limbs. [The beating] had been accompanied by verbal assaults. In an attempt to prevent further beatings and to protect himself, [the applicant], while falling down, had turned and taken an aimless swing in the direction of the persons who had continued hitting him.” 11.  On 18 November 2008 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment on appeal. 12.  After the acquittal had become final, the applicant lodged a complaint with the prosecutor’s office of the Chelyabinsk Region, providing his version of the events of 2 October 2007 and complaining of ill‑treatment. 13.  On 28 January 2009 the investigative department of the Metallurgicheskiy District of Chelyabinsk opened a criminal investigation into the events of 2 October 2007 on charges of abuse of power committed with violence. The investigators questioned the applicant along with fourteen witnesses and conducted three cross-examinations. 14.  On 28 September 2009 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the alleged perpetrators. 15.  On 18 November 2009 the investigation was reopened. 16.  On 22 December 2009 the criminal proceedings against the prison warders were discontinued and the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the alleged perpetrators. The investigators had questioned the warders B. and L. mentioned in the acquittal judgment of 2 September 2008, who had testified that they had indeed administered up to six truncheon blows to the applicant’s buttocks because he had refused to go through a body search and had hit warder L. in the face. 17.  On 8 November 2012 the criminal proceedings against the warders were reopened. 18.  On 19 November 2012 the investigation was suspended again for failure to identify the alleged perpetrators. The investigator analysed the depositions of warders and other witnesses, and the findings of the medical examination of 2 October 2007, and concluded that the applicant had not obeyed the warders’ lawful orders and had been aggressive. Therefore, the use of rubber truncheons had been justified. Moreover, the medical records contained a vague summary description of the applicant’s injuries, which were not life-threatening. Lastly, the jurors’ verdict did not contain any assessment of the warders’ actions or any proof of the warders’ guilt. 19.  On 14 November 2013 the prosecutor’s office of the Chelyabinsk Region quashed the decision of 19 November 2012 and reopened the investigation. 20.  On 28 February 2014 the criminal proceedings against the warders were terminated. The investigator found that the warders had not abused their powers and had acted in accordance with the law. 21.  The applicant’s representative challenged the decision of 28 September 2009, arguing that the jury verdict of 2 September 2008 had already identified the assailants and that there had therefore been no reason to adjourn the proceedings. 22.  On 10 February 2011 the Metallurgicheskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk dismissed the complaint, having found as follows:
“As follows from the case-file materials, on 28 September 2009 a senior investigator of the investigative department, Mr V., refused to open a criminal case against officers of [medical colony no. 3], Mr M., Mr B. and Mr L., who, as follows from that decision, had lawfully used force against [the applicant]. That decision remains in force.
In those circumstances, the decision by which the criminal proceedings were adjourned is lawful and well-founded; there are no grounds to consider it unlawful.” 23.  On 9 April 2012 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court quashed that decision on appeal and remitted the case for re-examination. 24.  On 1 June 2012 the Metallurgicheskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk held to discontinue the proceedings as the decision of 28 September 2008 had been quashed on 18 November 2009.
(b)  Challenging of the investigator’s decision of 22 December 2009 and other decisions 25.  On an unspecified date the applicant asked the court to declare unlawful the investigator’s decisions of 28 September 2008, 11 November 2008, 22 December 2009 and an opinion of 12 October 2009 justifying suspension of the investigation. He argued that those decisions contradicted each other and sought to conceal the warders’ crime. 26.  On 9 November 2012 the Metallurgicheskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk discontinued the proceedings on the applicant’s claim. 27.  On 21 March 2013 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court quashed that decision and remitted the case for fresh examination. 28.  On 18 April 2013 the District Court allowed the applicant’s claim. It held that the decisions of 28 September 2008 and 22 December 2009 lacked sufficient reasoning, did not contain any references to the jurors’ verdict, and were based only on the testimony of warders. It ordered that the violations found be remedied. 29.  The applicant brought a civil action against the prosecutor’s office of the Chelyabinsk Region, the Treasury and the Ministry of Finance, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the unlawful institution of criminal proceedings. He also sought apologies from the implicated officials. 30.  On 10 August 2011 the applicant and his lawyer asked the court to consider the case in their absence. 31.  On 11 August 2011 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Chelyabinsk awarded the applicant 15,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (353 euros (EUR)) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and dismissed the remaining claims. The District Court held the hearing in the applicant’s absence. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. 32.  On 6 February 2012 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld the decision of 11 August 2011 and rejected the applicant’s appeal. The appellate court also noted that as an inmate, the applicant had been duly notified of the court hearing but had failed to attend it.