5.  The applicant was born in 1990 and lives in Stalowa Wola. 6.  On the night of 23 June 2013 the applicant was drinking alcohol with a group of friends in a public square in Stalowa Wola. At around 11 p.m. a police patrol arrived, reminded them to keep quiet during night hours, checked their documents and ordered them to disperse. Part of the group, including the applicant, moved on to a different spot. Subsequently, following a message received at around 11.50 p.m., two police officers, K.P. and D.Z., found those members of the group and proceeded to arrest them. The officers used truncheons in order to put the applicant and his six friends into a police car. 7.  According to the applicant, he was also punched in the face by one of the police officers during the arrest. 8.  According to the Government, this allegation was not confirmed during the investigation. A doctor who examined the applicant in Stalowa Wola District Hospital noted that he had no facial injuries. 9.  The arrested persons were taken to the Stalowa Wola district police station, where they underwent breathalyser tests. With respect to the applicant, the test revealed an alcohol level of 0.76 mg/l in his breath. 10.  According to the applicant, at the Stalowa Wola district police station he asked to go to the toilet, but instead was taken to a room without closed-circuit television (CCTV). Once there, he was thrown to the ground. One of the officers kicked him on his left knee. He was subsequently beaten by another officer with a truncheon. When leaving the room, one of the officers slammed the door in the applicant’s face. As a result, the applicant injured his nose, broke his tooth and damaged his dental braces. 11.  According to the Government, the applicant was taken to a separate room without CCTV in order for a body search to be carried out. However, he continued to resist, and was aggressive and vulgar towards the officers. The allegations that he had been kicked on his knee and had had the door slammed in his face were not confirmed in the course of the subsequent investigation. 12.  Subsequently, the applicant was examined by a doctor, who found no reasons why he could not be detained. 13.  On 25 June 2013 the applicant was seen by a dentist, who confirmed that he had a broken tooth and damaged dental braces. 14.  On the night of 26 June 2013 the applicant was admitted to Stalowa Wola District Hospital. He was released on the same day. The doctor noted that the applicant had bruising on his left thigh and had twisted his left knee. 15.  On 24 June 2013 the applicant and two of his friends, K.W. and J.B., were charged with resisting lawful arrest and insulting police officers in the performance of their duty. On 22 November 2013 an act of indictment was lodged with the Stalowa Wola District Court. 16.  On 28 May 2014 the Stalowa Wola District Court gave its judgment. The applicant was convicted of insulting and using violence against the two police officers, K.P and D.Z. 17.  The judgment was upheld by the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court on 28 October 2014. 18.  On 27 June 2013 the Stalowa Wola District Prosecutor severed complaints against the two police officers who had arrested the applicant and J.B. from the proceedings described in paragraphs 15-17 above. 19.  On 30 July 2013 the Mielec District Prosecutor instituted an investigation into the police officers’ alleged abuse of power on the night of 23-24 June 2013. 20.  During the proceedings the prosecutor heard evidence from witnesses (people who had been involved in the incident, police officers and medical staff) and also obtained expert reports. 21.  On 8 October 2013 an expert surgeon prepared a forensic medical report on the basis of medical documents in the applicant’s file. The expert referred to a certificate from the dentist dated 25 June 2013, the applicant’s medical files from Stalowa Wola District Hospital and two medical certificates of 24 June 2013. He confirmed that the applicant had experienced bruising and swelling to his left knee. While, in his opinion, the injury had occurred earlier than the applicant had alleged, there was no medical documentation in this respect. In addition, the applicant had had bruises on his lower legs and thighs, bruising and abrasions on his nose, a broken tooth and damaged dental braces. As to the origins of these injuries, the expert confirmed that the bruising had been typical of the kind caused by truncheons, while the knee injury could have occurred when the applicant had resisted getting into the police car or going to another room. 22.  On 31 October 2013 a visual technology expert prepared a report. In that report, he confirmed in particular that CCTV footage demonstrated that the applicant had begun to limp after he had left the room without CCTV. There was no footage of him limping before entering the room. 23.  On 12 November 2013 the prosecutor questioned Dr M.B., one of the doctors who had treated the applicant in Stalowa Wola District Hospital on 26 June 2013. The doctor stated that he had diagnosed the applicant with chronic instability of the knee. In his view, the instability had not been acute, and could have occurred earlier due to an injury or illness. The joint had not been swollen and there had been no accumulation of fluid. 24.  On 12 December 2013 the prosecutor questioned Dr H.L., another doctor who had treated the applicant in Stalowa Wola District Hospital on 26 June 2013. The doctor stated that the applicant had had several bruises on his thighs and chest. He had not had any visible injuries on his face or hands. In his view, the applicant had been simulating some of the symptoms, as they had not been confirmed by a medical examination. 25.  Meanwhile, on 21 November 2013 a formal face‑to‑face confrontation had been held between the applicant and the two police officers, K.P and D.Z. 26.  On 23 December 2013 the Mielec District Prosecutor discontinued the proceedings regarding the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. The prosecutor established that, during the police intervention on the night of 23 June 2013, the applicant and his friends had behaved aggressively, insulted the officers and resisted arrest. Since the applicant had refused to get into the police car, the officers had warned him that they would use direct restraint measures (środki przymusu bezpośredniego), and eventually they had hit him with truncheons on his lower legs, thighs and forearms. During the intervention the police had arrested seven people, including the applicant. At the police station he had undergone a breathalyser test, which had shown an alcohol level of 0.76 mg/l in his breath. Subsequently, the applicant had been taken to another room in order to undergo a body search. He had resisted the officers while leaving his cell and had continued to behave aggressively towards them. Eventually, four of the people who had been arrested had been released, while the applicant, K.W. and J.B. had been detained on charges of resisting lawful arrest and insulting police officers. 27.  The prosecutor also established that on 26 June 2013 the applicant had been admitted to Stalowa Wola District Hospital, where he had complained of bruising to his thigh and a knee sprain. He had been discharged on the following day. The doctor on duty had diagnosed him with chronic instability of the knee, with no swelling or fluid accumulation in the joint. 28.  The prosecutor further referred to the expert’s report of 8 October 2013 (see paragraph 21 above). 29.  The prosecutor acknowledged that the police officers had used force against the applicant as he had been aggressive during the arrest, but he had not been beaten by the police officers whilst at Stalowa Wola district police station. The prosecutor was of the view that the evidence given by the applicant’s friends was not consistent. On the other hand the officers had clearly and in detail described the course of the events and their statements were coherent and logical. He concluded that the use of force against the applicant had been necessary, in view of his aggressive behaviour. 30.  The applicant appealed, alleging that the prosecution service had failed to correctly establish the course of events. He submitted that the statements of five witnesses, who had all confirmed that he and his friends had not resisted arrest on 23 June 2013, had been ignored. He further relied on the report prepared by the visual technology expert who had analysed the CCTV footage and noted that his injury could have occurred in the room without CCTV (while he had been searched). Lastly, he stated that the discrepancies between the versions presented by the officers and the participants had not been clarified. 31.  On 3 July 2014 the Stalowa Wola District Court upheld the prosecutor’s decision. The court held that the statements of the applicant’s friends who had been involved in the incident were not coherent. Although they all agreed that the applicant had been beaten by police officers in the car and at the police station, they had not been able to give a consistent version of events. Furthermore, none of the witnesses had seen the incident at the police station. They had only heard noises and noticed the applicant’s bruises and that he had begun to limp. On the other hand, the court considered that the evidence given by the police officers was logical, coherent and consistent. Consequently, the court agreed with the prosecutor that the applicant’s aggressive and provocative behaviour during his arrest had justified the use of force by the police. Furthermore, there were no indications that the police officers had abused their powers or used disproportionate force against the applicant. In so far as the applicant had referred to the visual technology expert’s report, the court noted that, even if the applicant had begun limping after leaving the room where the body search had taken place, the possibility that his knee injury had occurred earlier on and that he had only begun to feel pain in that leg at a later stage could not be excluded. Also, the medical opinion had not been explicit in this respect, since the applicant suffered from chronic instability of the knee, and the swelling might have resulted from the resistance he had demonstrated while getting into the police car.