5.  The applicant was born in 1987 and lives in Perm. 6.  On 9 April 2007 at about 11 p.m. the applicant was stopped by the police and taken to the Dzerzhinskiy District Department of the Interior of the town of Perm (Дзержинский РОВД г. Перми – “the police station”) for an identity check. 7.  After the applicant’s identity was established the applicant was informed that he was wanted on suspicion of having committed a crime. 8.  On 10 April 2007 at 1 a.m. the applicant was placed in the cell for administrative detainees at the police station. At 9 a.m. he was handed over to a police officer, P. According to the applicant, P. subjected him to ill‑treatment by administering several blows to his chest, abdomen and face. 9.  Subsequently the applicant was interrogated by an investigator, B., in the presence of N. (the head of the police station), P., and Zh. (another police officer), as a witness in criminal case no. 1470 instituted on 8 March 2007 under Article 161 § 2 of the Criminal Code (robbery). After his questioning the applicant was released. 10.  Immediately after his release on 10 April 2007 the applicant complained at the police station of having been beaten by P. 11.  On the same day the applicant went to a traumatology centre, where he was diagnosed with bruising on the left side of his forehead. 12.  On 11 April 2007 the applicant complained of the beatings to the prosecutor’s office. He was made to undergo an expert examination, which revealed the following injuries: bruises on the left side of his forehead, at the outer corner of his left eye and on the left side of his neck, and an abrasion behind his left ear. The expert concluded that the above-mentioned injuries could have been caused by his being hit by a hard blunt object(s) or by that object being drawn across the applicant’s skin, possibly at the time and under the circumstances indicated by the applicant. 13.  On 9 June 2007 the investigator of the Dzerzhinskiy district prosecutor’s office of the town of Perm decided not to institute criminal proceedings against P., in the absence of any indication that a criminal act had been committed. Having questioned the applicant and others involved in the incident and having examined the medical evidence, the investigator found that there were no objective data confirming that the injuries had been inflicted by the police officer. The investigator noted, in particular, the discrepancies between the applicant’s description of the alleged beatings and the injuries that he had actually sustained. 14.  On 27 June 2007 the applicant challenged the above-mentioned decision before the court. 15.  On 2 July 2007 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Perm (“the District Court”) declined to examine the applicant’s challenge. 16.  Following an appeal by the applicant, on 24 July 2007 the Perm Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) quashed the decision of 2 July 2007. 17.  On 24 August 2007 the District Court held that the decision of 9 June 2007 not to institute criminal proceedings against P. had been unlawful and unjustified. The court held that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment had been substantiated by medical evidence. 18.  On 20 September 2007 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 24 August 2007 (since it had been delivered in the absence of P.), and remitted the matter for fresh examination by a different bench. 19.  On 9 October 2007 the District Court held that the decision of 9 June 2007 not to institute criminal proceedings against P. had been unlawful and unjustified. The court pointed out that the decision in question had been based on the submissions of the police officers, without due assessment of the fact that the applicant, who had had no bodily injuries prior to his arrest by the police (as confirmed by I., A. and Pan.), had been diagnosed as having such injuries immediately after his release from the police station. 20.  On 13 November 2007 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 9 October 2007 on appeal and remitted the matter for fresh examination by a different bench. 21.  On 29 November 2007 the District Court again held that the decision of 9 June 2007 not to institute criminal proceedings against P. had been unlawful and unjustified. The court’s reasoning was similar to that in respect of the judgment of 9 October 2007. 22.  Following an appeal by the district prosecutor on 20 December 2007 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 29 November 2007 on appeal and referred the matter again for fresh examination by a different bench. 23.  On 30 January 2008 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court found that the investigator had rightly come to the conclusion that there had been no objective information confirming the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment by the police officer, P., and that the above-mentioned conclusion had been reached on the basis of comprehensive evidence. 24.  Following an appeal by the applicant, on 19 February 2008 the Regional Court upheld the above-mentioned judgment on appeal.