5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and is currently in detention in Daugavpils. 6.  On 8 May 2006 the applicant was transferred from the Central Prison (Centrālcietums) to Riga Regional Court, where he was placed in a holding cell. 7.  At 11.25 a.m. the applicant asked the detainee escort officers from the State Police to call an ambulance. He had pain around the waist area and was nauseous. The ambulance arrived at 11.35 a.m. It was established that the applicant was suffering from kidney stones and renal colic. He was given painkillers. 8.  The Government submitted that the pain in the area of the applicant’s waist had later returned, and that at approximately 1 p.m. he had once again asked his escort officers to call an ambulance, shouting and cursing whilst so doing. One of the escort officers, M.P., had entered the cell in order to calm him down. The applicant had attempted to hit M.P. In order to prevent the attack, M.P. had forced the applicant onto the floor, using physical force and a restraint technique in accordance with section 13(1)5) and 6) of the Law on Police (likums “Par Policiju”). 9.  The applicant submitted that at approximately 1.30 p.m. he had asked the officers to call an ambulance. They had refused to do so. As he had been in pain, he had continued to ask for medical assistance. At some point, one of the officers had entered the holding cell and had kicked him in the chest, as a result of which the applicant had fallen to the floor. Whilst the applicant was trying to stand up, he had received several more kicks. The applicant’s screaming was heard by two other escort officers, who had rushed to the cell. One of the officers had forced him onto the floor and had kicked him several times in the back in order to keep him quiet. Then the officers had left. 10.  At 1.48 p.m. the escort officers called the ambulance for the second time. The ambulance arrived at 2.04 p.m. The applicant informed the ambulance staff that the officers had hit him on his left side. He also told them that following an injury in 2005 he had suffered a right kidney rupture. In the ambulance log it was noted that he had no visible injuries. The applicant was taken to the prison hospital in Olaine, where he was diagnosed with a fracture to the third lumbar vertebra and contusion of the left kidney. 11.  On the same day the escort officers M.P. and A.P. submitted reports to their superior regarding the incident. 12.  On 19 May 2006 the applicant was discharged from the hospital. 13.  The Government referred to an extract from the applicant’s medical file at the prison hospital in Olaine. It stated that on 6 May 2006 (two days prior to the incident at issue) the applicant underwent an X-ray examination which revealed a fracture to his lumbar vertebrae. His condition was described as “similar” following an X-ray on 9 May 2006 (sic) (the day after the incident at issue). 14.  According to a letter from the prison in Olaine the applicant was treated at the prison hospital in Olaine between 8 and 19 May 2006. He was diagnosed with a transverse process fracture and a left kidney contusion. There were no injuries such as bruises or scratches on the applicant’s body. The prison was unable to provide information as regards the applicant’s medical care prior to 8 May 2006. 15.  On 17 May 2006 the applicant’s complaint of 10 May 2006 regarding the incident was received by the Internal Security Office of the State Police (Valsts policijas Iekšējās drošības birojs). The applicant alleged that he had been beaten by the escort officers. 16.  On 2 June 2006 the Internal Security Office of the State Police commenced criminal proceedings for the offence of exceeding official authority. 17.  On 30 June 2006 the Internal Security Office of the State Police requested an expert medical report in respect of the applicant’s injuries.
On 10 July 2006 an expert from the State Forensic Centre (Valsts tiesu medicīnas ekspertīzes centrs) examined the applicant’s medical records. The expert noted his medical history, including the fact that he had been treated for polycystic kidney disease and a urinary tract infection between 1 and 10 March 2006. She requested the applicant’s X-ray from the prison hospital in Olaine. On 19 September 2006 the expert concluded that the applicant had sustained a fracture of the third lumbar vertebra which was classified as a moderately severe injury. The injury could have been caused by a blunt solid object on 8 May 2006. However, the possibility that the injury had been caused by the applicant’s falling against a solid object could not be excluded. 18.  In the meantime, a senior inspector questioned the applicant on 5 July 2006. During the interview he had been unable to identify, from numerous photographs, the officers who had allegedly used excessive force against him. 19.  On 22 and 23 August 2006 the senior inspector questioned detainee escort officers M.P., R.T. and A.P., who denied that excessive force had been used against the applicant. 20.  The applicant referred to the evidence of S.Š., who stated that the applicant and two other individuals had been placed in the same cell as him. After the applicant’s condition deteriorated, the officers had placed him in another cell opposite their cell. S.Š. could see what was happening in the corridor by looking through the peephole in the door. He had seen two or three officers entering the applicant’s cell and then kicking “something”. He had heard the applicant groan. 21.  On 26 October 2006 the senior inspector closed the investigation. 22.  She found that at approximately 1.30 p.m. on 8 May 2006 the applicant had been swearing and banging on the door of the holding cell while asking the escort officers to call an ambulance for the second time. One of the officers, M.P., had entered the cell in order to calm him down and the applicant had attempted to hit him. In order to prevent the attack, M.P. had forced the applicant onto the floor, using physical force and a restraint technique in accordance with section 13(1)5) and 6) of the Law on Police. 23.  The senior inspector also noted that the applicant had at first been placed in the holding cell together with the witness S.Š. and two other individuals. According to S.Š. the applicant had been taken to another cell and S.Š. had heard the applicant groan. Thereafter the ambulance had arrived. 24.  While the expert report of 19 September 2006 indicated that the applicant had been diagnosed with a moderately severe injury in the form of a fracture of a lumbar vertebra, the possibility could not be excluded that this injury had been caused by the applicant’s falling against a hard object, which corresponded to the escort officers’ account of the incident. 25.  The senior inspector concluded that the constituent elements of an offence under section 317(2) of the Criminal Law (Krimināllikums) (exceeding official authority) were lacking in the officers’ actions.
(ii)  Prosecution service 26.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the aforementioned decision with two levels of the prosecution service. On 22 December 2006 a prosecutor upheld the impugned decision. 27.  On 29 January 2007 the deputy chief prosecutor quashed that decision. She found that the investigation had been superficial and that the decision concerned had lacked “sufficient justification”. 28.  There was no evidence that the applicant had fallen against a hard object. According to witness statements, he had fallen to the floor. It was therefore necessary to inspect the holding cell in which force had been used against the applicant and to verify the statements of both the applicant and of M.P. and A.P. at the scene to establish how the applicant had fallen and whether there had been any object against which he could have fallen. It was also necessary to obtain an expert report to find out whether or not the applicant could have sustained the injury prior to 8 May 2006. 29.  The deputy chief prosecutor referred the case back to the Internal Security Office of the State Police.
(b)  Second round of investigation
(i)  The Internal Security Office of the State Police 30.  On 28 February 2007 the Internal Security Office of the State Police ordered a further expert report. 31.  Between 21 and 26 March 2007 the senior inspector questioned A.P. and M.P. and verified the applicant’s evidence at the scene. A.P. and M.P. stated that they could not recall in which holding cell the applicant had been placed. Neither could they recall or demonstrate how force had been used against him. 32.  On 26 March 2007 the senior inspector closed the investigation. 33.  She noted that the ambulance had arrived for the second time at 2.06 p.m. on 8 May 2006. The applicant had complained of a pain in the area of his left kidney, alleging that the officers had kicked him there. During the investigation, however, he had alleged that the officers had kicked him on the right side of his body. Furthermore, he had stated that the officers had kicked him in the chest, as well as hitting him with a truncheon. At the same time, he had had no visible injuries. 34.  According to the expert report dated 12 March 2007, the applicant could have remained mobile even after sustaining a lumbar vertebral fracture, and the possibility could not be excluded that the applicant had sustained this injury prior to 8 May 2006. 35.  It could not therefore be established when the applicant had sustained the injuries. The senior inspector concluded that the constituent elements of an offence under section 317(2) of the Criminal Law (exceeding official authority) were lacking in the officers’ actions.
(ii)  Prosecution service 36.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the aforementioned decision with two levels of the prosecution service. On 11 May 2007 the prosecutor upheld that decision. 37.  On 12 June 2007 the chief prosecutor quashed the impugned decision. He found that the investigation had not been thorough and that the decision had been made without assessing all the evidence in the case. 38.  The senior inspector had not verified the evidence of A.P. and M.P. at the scene. Their questioning had been merely formal. The escort officers had previously stated that they had used force against the applicant. It was therefore necessary to establish whether or not the applicant had sustained injuries as a result thereof. In addition, the evidence of S.Š. had not been considered. According to S.Š. there had been two other individuals in the holding cell but these individuals had not been questioned. 39.  The chief prosecutor referred the case back to the Internal Security Office of the State Police for the second time.
(c)  Third round of investigation
(i)  The Internal Security Office of the State Police 40.  On 28 June 2007 the senior inspector visited the scene together with M.P. and A.P. to verify their evidence. The latter could no longer recall in which cells the various detainees, including the applicant, had been held, nor were they able to show how force had been used against him. They maintained their previous statements. 41.  The senior inspector obtained an additional statement from S.Š. and questioned fourteen detainees who had been escorted by the officers on the day in question. Some of them had heard noise and shouted requests for a beating to be stopped. The whereabouts of other four detainees could not be established. The applicant referred to the evidence of M.R., who stated that S.Š. had been placed in the same cell as him. M.R. had not seen the incident but had heard some noise and a man shouting. He did not know the applicant. 42.  On 24 April 2009 the senior inspector closed the investigation. 43.  She noted that the applicant had given different accounts as to how force had been used against him. There were several other discrepancies. The applicant had stated that an officer had beaten him in his cell, whereas S.Š. had stated that three to four officers had beaten him in the corridor. Another detainee, V.J., had given evidence that the applicant had told him that he had been kicked once on the leg. 44.  Furthermore, the applicant’s allegation that he had been kicked in the chest and hit on the head with a truncheon was not corroborated by the expert report, which had not recorded injuries to those areas of his body. 45.  As regards the lumbar vertebral fracture, according to the expert report, this injury could have been caused by the applicant’s falling against a hard object. This corresponded to the accounts given by M.P. and A.P. 46.  The senior inspector concluded that the applicant had not sustained the injuries as a result of unlawful conduct by the escort officers. It could not be established that the use of force had been unjustified.
(ii)  Prosecution service 47.  On 29 May 2009 the prosecutor, in response to a complaint from the applicant, upheld the aforementioned decision. 48.  He noted that force had been used against the applicant in compliance with section 13(1)6) of the Law on Police. It was impossible to determine when the applicant’s injuries had been caused. The constituent elements of an offence under section 317(2) of the Criminal Law (exceeding official authority) were lacking in the officers’ actions. 49.  Lastly, the prosecutor found that the senior inspector had taken all the investigative steps requested by the prosecution service. The duration of the investigation had been lengthy because many of the individuals who had been escorted on the day in question had been released and their whereabouts were unknown. 50.  An appeal lay to a higher prosecutor against the aforementioned decision. According to information from the prosecution service dated 11 and 19 February 2015, furnished by the Government, the applicant did not appeal. 51.  On 20 November 2013 the applicant wrote to the prosecution service asking for a final decision in the criminal proceedings. On 28 November 2013 the prosecution service replied that an appeal against the prosecutor’s decision should have been lodged within ten days. Although the applicant had been notified of the decision, he had not appealed against it within the statutory time-limit. The prosecution service could therefore not exercise its powers in respect of the criminal proceedings. 52.  In the meantime, on 16 June 2006 the State Police instigated an internal inquiry into the events of 8 May 2006. 53.  The applicant alleged that he had been kicked on various parts of his body, including his head, chest and spine, as well as in the kidney area. He said he had also been hit with a truncheon. 54.  Between 26 and 29 June 2006 the escort officers gave their explanations (paskaidrojumi). M.P. and A.P. stated that M.P. had used force against the applicant as the latter had attempted to hit him. A.P. had helped to restrain the applicant. 55.  On 30 June 2006 the State Police found that without carrying out procedural acts it was impossible to establish the circumstances in which the applicant had sustained the injuries and whether the force used against him by M.P. or A.P. had been in compliance with section 13 of the Law on Police.