7.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is serving a sentence of imprisonment in Tavda, Sverdlovsk Region. 8.  On 22 September 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted in connection with a murder and a robbery committed in March 1999. 9.  On 2 October 2000 investigator B. of the Dzerzhinskiy District Prosecutor’s Office of Nizhniy Tagil (“the District Prosecutor’s Office”) took a decision to summon the applicant to the proceedings as a defendant and to remand him in custody. Regard was had to the gravity of the charges and the risk that the applicant might obstruct the establishment of the truth. The detention order, approved by the prosecutor, did not indicate a specific time-limit, but contained a reference to Article 97 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, which provided that the initial period of detention during a criminal investigation was not to exceed two months (see paragraph 73 below). 10.  On the same day the applicant’s name was put on the list of wanted persons, as his whereabouts could not be established. 11.  During the night of 18-19 March 2006 the applicant was arrested. 12.  On 19 March 2006 he was taken to a police station, where he was informed that he was on the wanted list as a suspect in connection with a murder committed in Nizhniy Tagil. 13.  On 27 April 2006 the investigator informed the applicant of the decision of 2 October 2000 and appointed legal-aid counsel N. to secure his defence. Under questioning the same day the applicant confirmed that he understood the charges against him. 14.  Meanwhile, on 25 April 2006 the applicant brought a complaint against the investigator under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (which provides for judicial review of decisions of investigators that might infringe the constitutional rights of participants in the proceedings or prevent a person’s access to court) challenging the lawfulness of his arrest, which had not been based on a judicial decision, and the investigator’s failure to bring charges against him within the required time-limit. 15.  On 23 May 2006 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Nizhniy Tagil (“the District Court”) rejected the applicant’s complaint. The court found that the applicant had been arrested in accordance with the law and had been informed of the charges against him as soon as he had been brought before the investigator on 27 April 2006. 16.  On 7 July 2006 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) discontinued the appeal proceedings in respect of the decision of 23 May 2006. The Regional Court held that Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation did not allow for judicial review of issues related to arrest or detention. 17.  In the meantime, on 18 May 2006 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 18 July 2006. The District Court found that the grounds for the applicant’s detention persisted and that there existed a risk that the applicant might abscond during the investigation or trial, as he had been on the wanted list for several years prior to his arrest. 18.  On 16 June 2006 the Regional Court upheld the order on an appeal by the applicant. 19.  On 17 July 2006 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 24 August 2006 on the same grounds. 20.  On 16 August 2006 the Regional Court upheld the above extension order, noting that it was of no importance that the initial detention order had been issued by the investigator in 2000. It referred to the fact that before the entry into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation in July 2002, it had been lawful for a prosecutor to issue detention orders in a criminal case. 21.  On 24 August 2006 the District Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 18 September 2006. The District Court considered that the grounds for detention were still valid. 22.  Meanwhile, on 4 August 2006 the revised charges were brought against the applicant. Under questioning on the same day the applicant confirmed that the substance of the charges was clear to him. 23.  On 31 August 2006 the applicant studied the case file, which comprised three volumes. 24.  On 5 September 2006 the applicant was served with a bill of indictment and the case was submitted to the Regional Court for trial. 25.  On 2 November 2006 the Regional Court convicted the applicant of robbery and murder and sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment. 26.  On 16 April 2007 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the conviction on appeal. 27.  On 18 March 2006 the applicant’s partner T. told the police that the applicant had been on the wanted list since 2000, and informed them of the latter’s whereabouts. She gave them the keys to the applicant’s flat and warned that he usually carried a knife and a razor blade on him. 28.  On the same day officers of the special police force of the Chief Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior of Russia for Perm Region (“the OMON”) and investigators from the Department of the Interior of the Sverdlovskiy District of Perm planned the applicant’s arrest. 29.  At 11.30 p.m. officers and investigators (nine officers in total) entered the applicant’s flat in order to arrest him. According to them, when they shouted that they were the police the applicant tried to reach for a bag containing a razor blade. The officers forced him to the floor and handcuffed him. According to the applicant, when the officers entered the room where he was sleeping they immediately dragged him on to the floor and started kicking and beating him with their gun stocks. 30.  On 19 March 2006 the applicant was taken to the police station and from there to Perm remand prison no. 59/1 (“Perm SIZO-1”). The record of the applicant’s medical examination in the remand prison indicates that the applicant complained of severe pain in the left side of his chest area. He was observed to have small abrasions and haematomas up to four cm in diameter in the area of his face, on his head, chest, back, and hips, and morbidity on palpation of the left ribs. A preliminary diagnosis of broken ribs was given. 31.  At 4.25 a.m. on the same day the applicant was examined by doctors at the first-aid station of the Perm City Hospital No. 1 and was found to have an injured chest and a broken rib on his left side. The first-aid station report sent to the police on the same date read that the applicant had sustained the injuries at the hands of the police during his arrest. The applicant was referred to the Perm Regional Hospital. 32.  At 5.10 a.m. on the same day the applicant was taken to the Perm Regional Hospital, where an X-ray was carried out which revealed fractures to his eighth and ninth ribs on the left side. The applicant explained at the hospital that he had received those injuries on 18 March 2006 when he fell on the street. The fractures were bound and the applicant was found fit for detention. 33.  On 20 March 2006 the applicant was transferred to SIZO-3 in Nizhniy Tagil via Yekaterinburg remand prison no. 66/1 (“Yekaterinburg SIZO-1”). 34.  Between 19 March and 4 April 2006 the OMON conducted an internal check in respect of the incident. The use of force and special means (handcuffs) on the applicant was found lawful. 35.  On 21 March 2006, during his medical examination at Yekaterinburg SIZO-1, the applicant was diagnosed with fractures to the eighth and ninth ribs on his left side. He made a written submission to the head of SIZO-1 to the effect that those injuries had been inflicted by police officers during his arrest in Perm. 36.  On 29 March 2006 the applicant complained to a prosecutor in Nizhniy Tagil that he had been ill-treated during his arrest. On 31 March 2006 his complaint was forwarded to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Sverdlovskiy District of Perm (“the District Prosecutor’s Office”). 37.  On 17 April 2006 an investigator of the District Prosecutor’s Office refused to open a criminal case against the officers who had participated in the applicant’s arrest, stating that the existence of constituent elements of a crime in their actions had not been made out. The investigator relied mainly on the statements made by those officers. He concluded that the officers’ conduct during the arrest had been lawful. The investigator referred in this respect to sections 13 and 14 of the Federal Law on the Militia, which provided that police officers could apply physical force when arresting a person who had committed an offence and resisted the lawful demands of the police. The text of this decision contained the applicant’s submission to the effect that after his arrest he had been taken to the police station on 19 March 2006, where he had been informed that he was on the wanted list on suspicion of a murder committed in Nizhniy Tagil. 38.  Following the communication of the complaint of ill-treatment to the Government (see paragraph 4 above), on 5 December 2012 the acting prosecutor of the Perm Region quashed the decision of 17 April 2006, finding that the pre-investigation inquiry had been incomplete. 39.  On 12 December 2012 an investigator of the Sverdlovskiy District Investigation Department of the Investigation Committee in Perm instituted criminal proceedings into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment during his arrest. 40.  On 12 February 2013 the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings. He was questioned the following day. 41.  The investigators identified and questioned witnesses, including the applicant’s neighbours in Perm and the doctors involved in his medical examination on 19 March 2006 at the Perm Regional Hospital. The police officers insisted that they had not beaten the applicant. They suggested that he could have hurt himself when he tried to get hold of a razor blade during the arrest. Two doctors of the Perm Regional Hospital submitted that during the applicant’s examination he explained that his injuries had been the result of a fall the day before the arrest. A forensic medical examination was ordered. 42.  In their report of 15 February 2013 the medical experts concluded that on the basis of the available documents they could not determine the time when the applicant’s ribs had been broken. 43.  Witness T. (one of the police officers) further submitted that during the arrest the applicant did not obey the lawful demands of the police and tried instead to get hold of the razor blade in his bag. T. then had used a foot sweep to put the applicant on to the floor. As he fell, the applicant hit his left side on a chair. When the applicant fell on to the floor he landed on his left side and started using foul language. At that moment the officers pressed him on to the floor and rolled him on to his abdomen. 44.  The additional expert report dated 30 April 2013 also stated that the time when the injuries had been inflicted could not be established. The applicant’s ribs could have been fractured either as a result of the impact of a hard blunt object or objects or in the circumstances indicated by T. 45.  On 12 June 2013 the investigator discontinued the criminal proceedings for lack of constituent elements of a crime in the actions of police officers. The investigator concluded that the applicant could have been injured either by the police during his arrest or under other circumstances prior to the arrest. He noted, in particular, that at the regional hospital the applicant had explained that he had received his injuries when he had fallen in the street on 18 March 2006. The investigator relied on the findings of the medical experts that the time of the injuries could not be established. The investigator further found that the use of force and special means against the applicant had been lawful and justified: the applicant was known to have a knife and a razor blade on him and, when told to surrender, had tried to reach for the bag containing them. Therefore, if the applicant had received his injuries at the moment of his arrest, there would have been no constituent elements of the crime in the actions of the police officers. 46.  On 26 June 2013 a senior supervisor at the Department for Investigation of High-Priority Cases at the Investigation Committee for Perm Region found the decision of 12 June 2013 lawful and justified. He concluded that the applicant’s injuries had most probably been inflicted on the applicant by the police officers during the arrest. However, as the applicant had shown resistance to the officers and they had had information that he had a knife and a razor blade on him, the use of force (a foot-sweep wrestling move) and handcuffs by the police had been lawful, and there were no constituent elements of a crime in the acts of the officers. 47.  According to the applicant, he found out about the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings from the Government’s observations. On 6 July 2016 he wrote to the Perm Region Prosecutor asking for the criminal investigation to be resumed. In August 2016 his request was dismissed. 48.  On 23 March 2006 the applicant was taken by train from Perm SIZO-1 to Yekaterinburg SIZO-1. 49.  According to the applicant, while he was later being transferred, from Yekaterinburg SIZO-1 to Nizhniy Tagil SIZO-3 on 27 March 2006, he was beaten up by two convoy officers, which led him to attempt suicide by cutting his right wrist with a razor blade. 50.  After his arrival in Nizhniy Tagil on 28 March 2006, the applicant was taken to medical facility LIU-51. A medical certificate issued by LIU‑51 on the same day indicates that the applicant had a cut on the right forearm, haematomas on the chest and left hip, and fractures of the eighth and ninth ribs, all received on 19 March 2006. 51.  On 31 March 2006 an investigator in Nizhniy Tagil issued a decision to refuse to institute criminal proceedings. During the pre-investigation inquiry the applicant explained that he had attempted to cut the veins on his right wrist to protest against his brutal arrest, and that he had no complaints against the officers accompanying him on the train. On the basis of that statement and the explanation by the officers and other arrested persons, the investigator concluded that there was no indication of ill-treatment. 52.  On 5 April 2006 the applicant was transferred to Nizhniy Tagil SIZO-3. 53.  According to the applicant, on numerous occasions between 14 April and 6 September 2006 he was taken from SIZO-3 to the Dzerzhinskiy police station in Nizhniy Tagil, where he was threatened in order to make him cooperate with the investigating authority. 54.  On 5 June 2006 the applicant was transferred to the medical unit of SIZO-3 because of chronic bronchitis. He was discharged from the medical unit on 25 September 2006. 55.  According to the applicant, while he was in the medical unit of SIZO-3, on 11 July, 15 and 23 August 2006 he was exposed to some kind of nerve gas, which was intended to extract a confession. The applicant alleges that as a result of gas exposure, his bronchial asthma had been aggravated to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 56.  From 2007 to 2012 the applicant received regular treatment in detention for chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 57.  On 25 February 2009 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office that he had been ill-treated between 14 April and 6 September 2006. 58.  On 18 April 2009 an investigator from the Dzerzhinskiy District investigative division of Nizhniy Tagil of the Investigation Department of the Investigation Committee at the Russian Federation’s Prosecutor’s Office for the Sverdlovsk Region (“the Dzerzhinskiy District investigation division”) refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of investigator B. in charge of the applicant’s criminal case. It had not been established that investigator B. intimidated the applicant or used any other illegal means to extract his confession. 59.  On 29 November 2012, following the communication of the complaint to the Government, the Head of the Investigation Department of the Investigation Committee at the Russian Federation’s Prosecutor’s Office for the Sverdlovsk Region quashed the decision of 18 April 2009 as premature. An additional pre-investigation inquiry was ordered. 60.  On 9 January 2013 a chief investigator of the Dzerzhinskiy District investigation division took a decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings. On the basis of the available documents and testimonies, the investigator concluded that throughout his stay at Nizhniy Tagil SIZO-3 the applicant had had access to medical assistance and had received treatment for his bronchial asthma. Apart from complaints of a cough and shortness of breath no other complaints were raised by the applicant. 61.  On 4 February 2013 the Head of the Investigation Department of the Investigation Committee at the Russian Federation’s Prosecutor’s Office for the Sverdlovsk Region set aside the above decision and ordered an additional pre-investigation inquiry. 62.  On 6 March 2013 a chief investigator of the Dzerzhinskiy District investigation division again took a decision to refuse to institute criminal proceedings. The investigator noted that there had been no evidence of ill‑treatment, and that the applicant had never mentioned the alleged ill‑treatment during the criminal proceedings against him. 63.  On 15 April 2015 a chief investigator of the Dzerzhinskiy District investigation division rejected another request for a criminal investigation in respect of B., on account of alleged ill-treatment of the applicant during detention. 64.  On 10 March 2016 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint in connection with the above decision not to open a criminal case. The court found that the decision of 15 April 2015 was well reasoned. 65.  On 24 June 2016 the Regional Court upheld the above decision on appeal. 66.  On 17 June 2013 the Court sent the applicant a letter containing the Government’s comments on the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction and their further observations on the case. It was sent to the applicant for information purposes, and he was asked not to reply. 67.  According to the applicant he received that letter only on 30 August 2013, despite the fact that it was delivered to the local post office on 17 August 2013. The envelope was already open and certain pages were missing.