5.  The applicant was born in 2001 and lives in St Petersburg. 6.  In August 2004 the applicant started attending public pre-school educational institution no. 42 (“the nursery school”). His teachers were Ms K., Ms P. and an assistant teacher, Ms Ch. 7.  In the spring of 2005 the applicant’s parents noticed a change in his behaviour. In particular, he became nervous and unwilling to go to nursery school. During the summer holidays of that year the applicant’s physiological state significantly ameliorated and his mood returned to normal. However, as soon as he resumed nursery school in September 2005 he again became nervous and frightened of the dark and noises. He resisted going to school and refused to discuss school with his parents or sisters. 8.  On 7 November 2005, when picking him up from the nursery school, the applicant’s mother noticed that his eyes were twitching and that he had a bruise on his left temple. The applicant complained that his neck and eyes were aching. The teacher, Ms P., told the applicant’s mother that the children had been given eye drops containing an antibiotic. According to her, one of the children in the class had an eye infection and it was necessary to take preventive measures against its spreading among the children. 9.  On 8 November 2005 the applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist, who noted a bruise on his temple. She found no symptoms of any eye infection or disease. She recommended a consultation with a neurologist in order to verify whether the eye tics could have neurological causes. 10.  On the same day the applicant started to display mouth tics. 11.  On 14 November 2005 the applicant’s mother lodged a complaint with the local department of the Federal Authority for Consumer Protection and the Supervision of Public Well-being. She complained that the teachers at nursery school no. 42 had administered eye treatment to her son without her consent and had used physical force against him. Her son had developed nervous tics as a result. 12.  On 15 November 2005 the applicant was examined by a neurologist and was diagnosed with hyperkinesia (a state of excessive restlessness which is manifested in a wide variety of disorders that affect the ability to control motor movement and which is mainly psychological in nature). 13.  On 16 November 2005 the applicant’s mother complained to the local department of education about the incident of 7 November 2005 and asked that the applicant be transferred to another nursery school. 14.  By a letter of 23 November 2005 the local department of the Federal Authority for Consumer Protection and the Supervision of Public Well‑being informed the applicant’s mother that the director of nursery school no. 42 had been disciplined for breaching sanitary standards. 15.  By a letter of 29 November 2005 the local department of education replied to the applicant’s mother, stating that the facts described in her complaint had been confirmed in part and that the director of the nursery school, teachers Ms K. and Ms P. and medical nurse Ms Pt. had been disciplined. It had been decided to transfer the applicant to another public nursery school. 16.  When the applicant learnt that he would not have to return to nursery school no. 42, he was happy and told his parents that he had been mistreated by Ms K. and Ms P. In particular, he had been punished for a failure to sleep during the afternoon sleeping hours. Sometimes he had been made to lie on a folding bed in the toilets. The lights in the toilets had been switched off and the teachers had told him that he would be eaten by rats. The applicant had felt very frightened as he had once seen a rat in the toilets. On other occasions he had been forced to stand in the entrance hall, barefoot and wearing only his underpants, for the entire duration of the sleeping hours. He had been very cold. The applicant had also on occasions been hit on the back with a fist. On one occasion the teachers had taped his mouth shut with sellotape. After he had started to suffocate, he had tried to remove the sellotape. The teachers had then taped his hands behind his back. Some other children had also been subjected to similar punishments. They had been threatened that if they complained to their parents about the teachers they would be punished. 17.  The applicant also told his parents in detail about what had happened on 7 November 2005. He had been given eye drops twice. In the morning Ms K. had bent his head back with such force that his neck had ached. In the afternoon, she had sat on the applicant’s legs and tried to force his eyes open with her hands. Frightened, the applicant had resisted. Ms K. had then slapped his face. 18.  On 23 November 2005 the applicant’s father was questioned by the police in connection with a complaint lodged by Ms K. and Ms Pt. that he had assaulted them. The applicant’s father stated to the police that his conflict with Ms K. and Ms Pt. had arisen because his four-year-old son had been mistreated by the staff of the nursery school. He denied assaulting them. The criminal proceedings against the applicant’s father were discontinued after one of the nursery school staff members stated in writing that Ms Pt. had attempted to convince her and other staff members to falsely accuse the applicant’s father of assaulting Ms K. and Ms Pt. 19.  On 21 December 2005 the local department of education informed the applicant’s mother that the director of nursery school no. 42 had been dismissed. 20.  By a letter of 13 March 2006 the local department of education informed the applicant’s father that an internal inquiry had established that teachers Ms K. and Ms P. had made some of the children sleep outside the sleeping quarters. That fact, although denied by Ms K. and Ms P., had been confirmed by assistant teacher Ms Ch. and by the grandmother of one of the children. Ms K. and Ms P. had been disciplined. 21.  By a letter of 17 July 2006 the Vice-Governor of St Petersburg informed the applicant’s mother that medical nurse Ms Pt. had been disciplined. 22.  On 21 February 2006 the applicant’s mother sued nursery school no. 42 for compensation for the damage sustained by the applicant to his health. 23.  On 30 June 2006 the Kirovskiy District Court of St Petersburg approved a friendly settlement agreement between the applicant’s mother and nursery school no. 42. Under that agreement, the nursery school was to pay the applicant’s mother 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately 150 euros (EUR)) in compensation for medical expenses. 24.  On 29 September 2006 the applicant’s mother complained to the Kirovskiy district prosecutor’s office about her son’s ill-treatment by the staff of nursery school no. 42. She described the incident of 7 November 2005, complained that during the sleeping hours her son had been occasionally locked in the toilets with the lights off, and submitted that as a result of such treatment he had developed nervous tics. She also submitted that she had not received an adequate response to her complaints to the local department of education and the local department of the Federal Authority for Consumer Protection and the Supervision of Public Well-being. 25.  By letter of 27 October 2006 the Kirovskiy district prosecutor’s office informed the applicant’s mother that an inquiry had been opened into her allegations of ill-treatment. It also noted that the local department of education had failed in its obligation under section 9 of the Minors Act to inform the district prosecutor’s office of the applicant’s ill-treatment (see paragraph 134 below). 26.  On 2 November 2006 the investigator questioned several of the parents of the children who had attended nursery school no. 42 with the applicant. Some of them stated that their children had never complained about being mistreated by teachers Ms P. or Ms K. Others stated that their children had told them about being locked in the entrance hall or in the toilets, where they had on occasion seen rats. They also confirmed that on 7 November 2005 eye drops had been given to the children without the parents’ consent. 27.  Assistant teacher Ms Ch. stated to the investigator that on 7 November 2005 two children had shown symptoms of eye infection. Teacher Ms K. had consulted medical nurse Ms Pt., who had decided to give eye drops to all children in order to prevent the spread of the infection. The parents’ consent had not been obtained. The drops had been given by the teacher herself rather than by the medical nurse. Ms K. had used physical force against those children who had resisted. Many of them had been frightened and had cried. Immediately after that the applicant’s eyes had started twitching. Ms Ch. also stated that both Ms K. and Ms P. had many times made certain children, including the applicant, sleep on folding beds in the toilets or in the entrance hall. Ms K. and Ms P. had often shouted at the children and had punished them by sending them to the toilets. She had once seen a child tied with string to his chair. 28.  The investigator also questioned Ms K., who denied mistreating the applicant or other children. She stated that on 7 November 2005 the children had been given eye drops by the medical nurse. The children had submitted to the treatment without any resistance or stress. No physical force had been used against the applicant or other children. The applicant had already had nervous tics before 7 November 2005. 29.  On an unspecified date at the beginning of November 2006 the applicant was questioned by the investigator. The applicant’s mother and a psychologist were present during the questioning. The applicant described the incident of 7 November 2005. He also stated that he and some other children had often been made to sleep on a folding bed in the entrance hall or in the toilets with the lights turned off or left standing in the entrance hall with few clothes on. They had been frightened and cold. 30.  On 8 November 2006 the Kirovskiy district prosecutor’s office refused to open a criminal investigation against the teachers of nursery school no. 42, finding no evidence of a criminal offence. The applicant’s parents were not given a copy of that decision. 31.  On 12 January 2007 the Kirovskiy district prosecutor’s office cancelled its decision of 8 November 2006 and resumed the pre‑investigation inquiry. 32.  The investigator then questioned Ms P. and medical nurse Ms Pt., who gave the same testimony as Ms K. 33.  During the following year the Kirovskiy district prosecutor’s office issued two more decisions (on 22 January and 6 July 2007 respectively) refusing to open a criminal investigation against the teachers of nursery school no. 42 on the ground that there was no evidence of a criminal offence having been committed. 34.  The applicant’s mother challenged those decisions before the Kirovskiy District Court. However, before the District Court could examine her complaints against the decisions, the Kirovskiy district prosecutor’s office annulled them (on 20 June and 24 December 2007 respectively) and resumed the pre-investigation inquiry. No investigative measures were performed during this one-year period. 35.  On 27 September 2007 the applicant’s medical documents were examined by a child psychiatrist at the request of the applicant’s mother. The psychiatrist found that before November 2005 the applicant had not suffered from any neurological or psychiatric disorders. He had, however, on occasions suffered allergic reactions. The psychiatrist further noted that in 2005 the applicant had been subjected to a prolonged, psychologically traumatic experience at the nursery school. Against the background of that prolonged, traumatic experience, the incident of 7 November 2005 involving the use of violence had served as a trigger for his present neurological disorder. An allergic reaction to the eye drops could have also contributed to the development of the disorder. The psychiatrist concluded that there had been a causal link between the traumatic experience suffered by the applicant in the nursery school from September 2005 to November 2005 and his persistent neurological disorder. 36.  On 24 December 2007 the Kirovskiy district prosecutor’s office noted that the pre-investigation inquiry was incomplete and that it was necessary to question the children who had attended the nursery school with the applicant and their parents, to obtain an expert opinion on the contra‑indications and side-effects of the eye drops given to the children, and to question other teachers at the nursery school. 37.  On 17 January 2008 the case was transferred to the Kirovskiy district police department for further pre-investigation inquiry. 38.  In February 2008 the investigator questioned the parents of some of the children who had attended the nursery school with the applicant. They stated that they did not have any complaints against teachers Ms P. and Ms K. None of them gave the investigator permission to question their children. 39.  The investigator also questioned one of the teachers at nursery school no. 42. The teacher stated that she could not give any useful information. 40.  On 29 February 2008 the Kirovskiy district police department refused to open a criminal investigation against Ms P. and Ms K., having found no evidence of a criminal offence. The applicant’s parents were informed about that decision on 4 May 2008 and received a copy of it on an unspecified later date. 41.  On 23 May 2008, after being criticised by the St Petersburg prosecutor’s office for delays in the conduct of the pre-investigation inquiry and for its ineffectiveness, the Kirovskiy district police department cancelled the decision of 29 February 2008 and resumed the pre‑investigation inquiry. 42.  On 11 June 2008, in reply to a complaint by the applicant’s mother, the St Petersburg prosecutor’s office again criticised the Kirovskiy district prosecutor’s office for delays in the conduct of the pre-investigation inquiry and for its ineffectiveness. 43.  On 26 June 2008 the Kirovskiy district police department informed the staff of nursery school no. 42 that criminal proceedings into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment would not be opened because the prosecution had become time-barred. 44.  On 30 June 2008 the Kirovskiy district police department refused to open a criminal investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment, finding no evidence of a criminal offence. On 4 July 2008 the Kirovskiy district prosecutor’s office quashed that decision and ordered a further inquiry. 45.  On 11 July 2008 the Kirovskiy district police department refused to open a criminal investigation against Ms K. It found that, although there was evidence that Ms K.’s actions amounted to cruel treatment of minors, an offence under Article 156 of the Criminal Code, the criminal proceedings had become time-barred. 46.  On 29 July 2008 the St Petersburg prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 11 July 2008, finding that the inquiry had been incomplete. It noted that it was necessary to question the children who had attended the nursery school with the applicant and with their parents; to establish the seriousness of the damage sustained by the applicant to his health; to obtain and analyse the documents regulating the actions of the staff of public nursery schools; and to investigate Ms P.’s actions. 47.  On 9 August 2008 the investigator questioned the father of a child who had attended the nursery school with the applicant. He stated that his son had never complained of being ill-treated by the nursery school teachers. 48.  On 11 August and then again on 11 September 2008 the Kirovskiy district police department refused to open a criminal investigation against Ms K. on the ground that there was no evidence of a criminal offence having been committed. Those decisions were cancelled on unspecified dates. 49.  In reply to new complaints lodged by the applicant’s mother, on 21 November 2008 the St Petersburg prosecutor’s office again criticised the Kirovskiy district prosecutor’s office for the delays in the conduct of the pre-investigation inquiry and for its ineffectiveness. 50.  On 1 December 2008 the investigator questioned the mother of another child who had attended the nursery school with the applicant. She stated that her daughter had never been mistreated by the staff of the nursery school. 51.  On 19 January 2009 the Kirovskiy district police department opened a criminal investigation against Ms K. and Ms P. 52.  On 4 March 2009 the applicant was granted the procedural status of victim. The applicant’s mother was recognised as his representative.
(a)  Evidence collected during the investigation 53.  In the course of the criminal investigation, which lasted at least until December 2014, the police department collected the following evidence.
(i)  Statements by the applicant 54.  On 4 March 2009 the applicant was questioned by the investigator in the presence of his counsel, his mother and a teacher. The applicant stated that Ms K. and Ms P. had often punished him and some other children. In particular, on many occasions they had made him sleep in the toilets and had threatened that he would be eaten by rats. Ms K. had once taped his mouth and hands with sellotape. She had also slapped him on the face when he had refused to open his eyes to receive eye drops. On another occasion Ms K. had splashed paint over his friend’s face because she had not liked his drawings. The applicant also stated that Ms K. and Ms P. had forbidden him from telling his parents about those punishments. 55.  On 24 March 2009 the applicant was taken by the investigator to nursery school no. 42, where he repeated his previous statements. In particular, he showed the investigator the spot in the toilets where his folding bed had been placed and the place in the entrance hall where he and other children had been forced to stand wearing only their underwear and T‑shirts and keeping their arms up and apart during the entire duration of the sleeping hours. He further showed the investigator where and how he had been bound with sellotape and where and how he had been given eye drops. He also showed the investigator a closet in which he had been locked in the dark. Lastly, he told the investigator that if he did not sleep during the sleeping hours Ms K. and Ms P. would hold his head against the bed until it started to ache. The applicant’s lawyer, the applicant’s mother, a psychologist and a teacher were present during the questioning. 56.  On 9 June 2009 the applicant was questioned again. He repeated his previous statements. He also added that Ms K. had hit him on the back.
(ii)  Statements by the suspects 57.  Ms P. was questioned by the investigator on 6 February and 21 May 2009, 23 August 2011 and 13 March 2014. She initially cited her right to remain silent and refused to testify. She then denied ill-treating the applicant or other children. She stated that the applicant had had nervous tics since September 2005. During the last round of questioning she asked that the criminal proceedings be discontinued as time-barred. 58.  Ms K. was questioned on 5 February and 22 June 2009 and 13 March 2014. She also initially refused to testify. She then denied ill‑treating the applicant or other children. She stated that the applicant had had nervous tics since the summer of 2005 and that assistant teacher Ms Ch. had given false testimony against her in revenge for critical remarks she had made in respect of Ms Ch.’s unsatisfactory work. During the last round of questioning she again refused to testify and asked that the criminal proceedings be discontinued as time-barred.
(iii)  Witness statements 59.  On 10 April 2009 medical nurse Ms Pt. was questioned. She stated that she had been the one who had administered eye drops to the children on 7 November 2005 because one of them had had an eye infection. When she had learned from the applicant’s mother that the applicant had eye tics, she had talked to Ms K. and Ms P., who had affirmed that the applicant had had nervous tics before 7 November 2005. She had never seen Ms K. and Ms P. mistreating the children. However, when questioned on 24 October 2011 and 24 July 2012 Ms Pt. stated that she had lied during the previous rounds of questioning about having given the eye drops to the children on 7 November 2005. In fact the eye drops had been given by Ms K. without her (that is to say Ms Pt.’s) permission. She had lied about that fact because she had had felt sorry for Ms K. and had not wanted her to be punished. 60.  On 19 June 2009 and 21 October 2010 assistant teacher Ms Ch. was questioned. She stated that on 7 November 2005 Ms K. had given eye drops to the children on the advice of the medical nurse. Ms K. had used physical force against those children who had resisted. Many of them had been frightened and had cried. Immediately after that the applicant’s eyes had started twitching. Ms Ch. also stated that on many occasions she had seen Ms K. and Ms P. make the applicant and some other children sleep on folding beds in the toilets or in the entrance hall. Ms K. and Ms P. had often shouted at the children and had punished them by locking them up in the toilets. She had once seen a child tied with string to his chair. She added that she had never talked to the applicant’s parents except at the nursery school. 61.  On 30 June 2009, 24 and 30 August 2011, and 12 and 13 March 2014 the investigator held confrontations between Ms Ch. and Ms P., between Ms Ch. and Ms K., and between Ms Pt. and Ms Ch. They all reiterated their previous statements. 62.  In April and May 2009, October and November 2011 and July 2012 the investigator questioned six teachers from nursery school no. 42. They stated that they had never seen Ms K. or Ms P. mistreating the children. Some of them also stated that the applicant had already had nervous tics before the incident of 7 November 2005. One of them stated that assistant teacher Ms Ch. had sometimes taken the applicant home in the evenings because she lived in the same block of flats as the applicant. Ms Ch. had often shouted at the children in the nursery school and the children had been afraid of her. 63.  On 21 September 2009 the investigator questioned the former director of nursery school no. 42. She stated that Ms K. and Ms P. had been competent and affectionate teachers who had been appreciated by the children and their parents. She had never received any complaints about them. 64.  On 12 December 2011 and 16 July 2012 the investigator questioned the then director of nursery school no. 42, who had taken up that position in December 2005. She gave positive references for Ms P. and Ms K. She stated that she had never seen them mistreating the children or received any complaints from the parents in respect of her. 65.  In April, May and September 2009, September and November 2011, and July 2012 the investigator questioned the parents of several children who had attended the nursery school with the applicant. Most of them stated that their children had never complained of having been mistreated by Ms K. or Ms P. One of them stated that her son had on occasions been punished by the teachers; in particular he had been made to sleep outside the sleeping quarters, in the changing room. Her son had also told her that he had seen a rat in the toilets. She had, moreover, seen some children carrying heavy folding beds from one place to another upon the instruction of the teachers. Lastly, she stated that her son had told her on 7 November 2005 that Ms K. had used force against the applicant (who had resisted and cried) when administering eye drops to him. Another parent stated that Ms K. had locked her son up in the toilets on two occasions and had once made him sleep outside the sleeping quarters, near the toilets. Another parent stated that her daughter had told her about the applicant and another boy being made to sleep separately from the others. She however did not know the details. 66.  Between 16 November and 2 December 2011 the investigator questioned four of the children who had attended the nursery school with the applicant. They all stated that Ms K. and Ms P. had been kind to them and had never mistreated them or other children. 67.  The applicant’s mother was questioned on 10 March and 9 April 2009 and on 14 October 2010. She described the applicant’s change in behaviour and mood after he had started to attend nursery school. She described the incident of 7 November 2005 and her son’s subsequent development of nervous tics. She also related a conversation she had had with her son during which he had for the first time told her about being mistreated by Ms K. and Ms P. She also stated that her son continued to suffer from nervous tics and to undergo treatment for them. Lastly, she told the investigator that although Ms Ch.’s sister was her neighbour she did not have any friendly relationship with her. 68.  On 24 November 2011 and 28 February 2014 the applicant’s father was questioned. He made similar submissions as the applicant’s mother. 69.  On 7 December 2011 and 28 February 2014 the investigator held confrontations between the applicant’s mother and one of those teachers at the nursery school who had already been questioned in November 2011. They both reiterated their previous submissions. 70.  On 13 December 2011 and 12 March 2014 the investigator held confrontations between Ms Ch. and one of the teachers of the nursery school. Ms Ch. confirmed her previous submissions, while the teacher stated that Ms P. and Ms K. had never mistreated the children, that Ms Ch. had shouted at the children, that Ms. Ch. had sometimes babysat the applicant and that the applicant had had nervous tics before November 2005. 71.  On 17 March 2014 the investigator questioned the applicant’s neighbour who lived on the same landing, who stated that the applicant’s tics had started in November 2005. She also stated that the applicant’s parents were on good terms with Ms Ch.’s sister but that she had not noticed any kind of relationship between the applicant’s parents and Ms Ch. herself. 72.  On 12 March 2014 the applicant’s mother produced material from the civil case file and asked that it be included in the criminal case file. In particular, she asked for the inclusion of the written statement by one of the staff members of nursery school no. 42 (see paragraph 18 above) that medical nurse Ms Pt. had attempted to convince her and other staff members to give false testimony against the applicant’s family. On 17 March 2014 the investigator refused the requests, finding that the documents from the civil case file were irrelevant to the criminal case.
(iv)  Expert opinions 73.  On 10 April 2009 a panel of psychiatrists and psychologists examined the applicant and issued an expert opinion. They found that the applicant continued to suffer from nervous tics. Given that such tics could have had both organic and neurological causes, it was impossible to establish a causal link between the events of November 2005 and the applicant’s current neurological disorder. Given the applicant’s age at the material time and the time that had passed since the events in question, the applicant could not accurately recall those events. He was therefore psychologically incapable of testifying within the framework of the criminal proceedings. 74.  On 9 October 2009 a panel of medical experts examined the applicant’s medical records and issued an expert opinion. They noted that his nervous tics could have had both organic and neurological causes. It was therefore impossible to establish a causal link between the events of September-November 2005 and the applicant’s current neurologic disorder. 75.  On 14 January 2011 a panel of experts in psychiatry and psychology examined the applicant and analysed his medical records. When interviewed by the experts, the applicant stated that he wanted to forget about what had happened to him in the nursery school but he was constantly being reminded of those events because of the investigation. He affirmed that his tics were aggravated each time that he remembered, or had to discuss, the treatment to which he had been subjected in the nursery school. The experts confirmed that the aggravation of the tics was indeed related to the applicant’s memories of the nursery school. The experts found that before November 2005 the applicant had not suffered from any psychiatric disorder. There had been a causal link between his nervous disorder and the prolonged, psychologically traumatic experience to which he had been subjected in the nursery school from September to November 2005. Many years later he still continued to suffer from nervous tics. He had therefore suffered damage of medium severity to his health. The experts further noted that the applicant did not suffer from any memory or intellectual disorder and that his intellectual development corresponded to his age; he was therefore capable of understanding and relating the relevant events accurately. However, his ability to remember the events had decreased with time. If in 2006 he had been still capable of remembering the events in question accurately, with the passage of time his memory of the events had become unrealistic and distorted. His statements – both in 2009 and at that current moment – could not therefore be relied upon in the criminal proceedings. Moreover, given that each discussion of the relevant events revived his memories of the traumatic experience and prevented him from moving on, his further participation in investigative measures was inadvisable. 76.  On 6 April and 2 November 2011 the investigator questioned a psychiatric expert chosen by the applicant’s mother. The expert stated that she disagreed in part with the expert opinion of 14 January 2011. In her opinion, the applicant had suffered severe damage (rather than damage of medium severity) to his health. 77.  On 25 and 26 October and 23 December 2011 and 28 February 2014 the investigator questioned some of the experts who had participated in the expert examinations mentioned above. They confirmed the findings contained in the respective expert opinions.
(v)  Other medical evidence 78.  On 11 March 2009 the psychologist treating the applicant stated to the investigator that the applicant had been suffering from a neurological disorder since November 2005. His health had improved as a result of the treatment. 79.  On 17 July 2009 the applicant’s mother submitted to the investigator a copy of a medical certificate showing that the applicant did not have any anomalies in the brain. She argued that the certificate proved that the applicant’s neurological disorder was psychological rather than organic in nature. 80.  On 11 November 2009 the investigator questioned a child psychiatrist who, after examining the applicant’s medical records, stated that there was a causal link between the traumatic experience suffered by the applicant in the nursery school from September until November 2005 and his persistent neurological disorder. 81.  On 22 April 2010 a psychiatrist and a psychologist analysed the applicant’s medical records at the applicant’s mother’s request. They found that in the absence of any anomalies in the applicant’s brain, his neurological disorder could not be organic in nature. It was highly probable that they had been caused by psychological trauma. Given that the nervous tics had appeared for the first time in November 2005, there was a causal link between the ill-treatment in the nursery school to which the applicant had been subjected from September until November 2005 and his nervous tics. Finally, the experts noted that the applicant was of normal intellectual development and did not suffer from any memory or intellectual disorders. His statements to the investigator had been detailed and consistent. There were therefore no reasons to consider that the applicant could not remember the relevant events accurately and was psychologically incapable of testifying within the framework of the criminal proceedings.
(b)  The course of the investigation 82.  The investigation was suspended from 2 until 16 September, from 23 until 30 September, from 9 until 12 October, from 15 October until 5 November and from 6 until 11 November 2009; from 15 September until 11 October, and from 22 October until 28 November 2010; from 15 December 2010 until 11 January 2011, from 15 January until 28 March, from 28 until 29 July, from 16 June until 4 August, and from 5 until 6 September 2011; and from 30 December 2011 until 9 July 2012. The decisions to suspend the investigation were taken by the investigator on the basis of medical certificates showing that Ms K. was on maternity leave and could not therefore participate in investigative measures. All those decisions were annulled by the investigators’ superior as unlawful. 83.  On 17 July 2009 the Kirovskiy district police department discontinued the criminal proceedings against Ms K. and Ms. P., finding that their actions in the period from September to November 2005 amounted to battery or other violent acts causing physical pain and cruel treatment of minors, offences under Article 116 § 1 and 156 § 1 of the Criminal Code. The prosecution of those offences was time-barred. There was insufficient evidence of premeditated infliction of damage of medium severity to health, an offence under Article 112 of the Criminal Code. Moreover, according to the experts, the applicant could not remember the relevant events accurately and was psychologically incapable of testifying within the framework of the criminal proceedings. 84.  On 27 July 2009 the Kirovskiy district prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 17 July 2009, finding that the investigation was incomplete, and ordered further investigative measures. 85.  On 29 August 2009 the applicant’s mother complained to the Kirovskiy district prosecutor’s office that, despite her having lodged numerous requests, she had still not been given copies of the decisions of 17 and 27 July 2009. 86.  On 11 November 2009 the Kirovskiy district police department discontinued the criminal proceedings against Ms K. and Ms. P. for the same reasons as those set out in the decision of 17 July 2009. 87.  On 25 June 2010 the Kirovskiy District Court found that the decision of 11 November 2009 had been unlawful because the findings contained in that decision had been contradictory. It held, in particular, that in order to resolve those contradictions it was necessary to perform a new psychiatric examination of the applicant. 88.  On 19 July 2010 the Kirovskiy district prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 11 November 2009 and ordered further investigative measures. 89.  By a letter of 26 August 2010 the St Petersburg prosecutor’s office criticised the Kirovskiy district prosecutor’s office for the delays and the ineffectiveness of the investigation. On the same day the Kirovskiy district prosecutor’s office gave instructions to the Kirovskiy district police department as regards further investigative measures to be performed. 90.  On 5 December 2011 Ms K. asked the investigator to discontinue the proceedings. She was suspected of inflicting damage to health of medium severity, an offence under Article 112 of the Criminal Code. The statutory limitation period for that offence was six years. The proceedings had therefore become time-barred. On the same day the prosecutor refused Ms K.’s request, finding that the previous expert examinations had yielded contradictory results. It was therefore necessary for a new expert examination to be performed in order to establish the severity of the damage sustained to the health of the applicant. The investigation could not therefore be discontinued. 91.  On 15 December 2011 Ms P. also asked the investigator to discontinue investigations as time-barred. On the same day the prosecutor refused the request for the same reasons as those for which Ms K.’s similar request had been refused. 92.  On 8 February 2012 the Kirovskiy District Court examined Ms K.’s complaint against the decision of 5 December 2011 and dismissed it. It found that it was necessary for an additional expert examination to be performed in order to establish the severity of the damage sustained by the applicant to his health. If experts were to find that the applicant had sustained severe damage to his health, the limitation period would be ten years and the proceedings would not have become time-barred. 93.  On 13 July 2012 Ms K. again asked the investigator to discontinue the investigation because the proceedings had become time-barred. On the same day the investigator refused the request for the same reasons as those above. 94.  On 7 August 2012 the investigator found that after 16 June 2011 the investigation had been extended in breach of the procedure and time-limits provided by law. The investigative measures carried out between 16 June 2011 and 9 July 2012 had therefore been unlawful and all evidence collected during that period was inadmissible. 95.  On 10 August 2012 the Kirovskiy district police department discontinued the criminal proceedings against Ms K. and Ms P., finding that there was insufficient evidence of a criminal offence under Article 112 of the Criminal Code. It noted that only four witnesses had confirmed that ill‑treatment had occurred: the applicant, the applicant’s mother, Ms Ch. and Ms Pt. (in her statements of 24 July 2012). The experts had found that, because of his young age at the material time, the applicant’s description of the events was unreliable and his further participation in investigative measures was inadvisable. There were therefore doubts about the credibility of his statements. The applicant’s mother’s statements were equally unreliable because she had learned about the events from the applicant. Ms Pt.’s statements of 24 July 2012 contradicted her previous statements and statements by other witnesses. They could not therefore be considered reliable either. The expert opinions establishing a causal link between the alleged ill-treatment and the applicant’s neurological disorder could not serve as evidence of ill-treatment because it was not within the experts’ remit to establish whether or not ill-treatment had occurred. The expert opinions had been made on the assumption that such ill-treatment had indeed taken place. Ms Ch.’s statements therefore constituted the only evidence of such ill-treatment. The investigator considered that those statements were insufficient to prove that ill-treatment had indeed taken place. The investigator further noted that all evidence collected between 16 June 2011 and 9 July 2012 had been declared inadmissible. Given that that evidence did not contain any proof of ill-treatment, it was not necessary to collect it again. 96.  The applicant’s parents learned about that decision on 24 August 2012 and received a copy of it on 27 August 2012. 97.  On 9 October 2012 the applicant’s mother challenged the Kirovskiy district police department’s decision of 10 August 2012 to discontinue the criminal proceedings before the Kirovskiy District Court against Ms K. and Ms P. On 23 October 2012 the applicant’s mother also challenged that decision before the St Petersburg prosecutor’s office. 98.  On 23 November 2012 the St Petersburg prosecutor’s office found that the decision of 10 August 2012 had been lawful. 99.  On 2 August 2013 the Kirovskiy District Court rejected the complaint lodged by the applicant’s mother on 9 October 2012. It found that the investigation had been thorough and effective. The breaches of procedure committed during the investigation – such as the failure to promptly notify the applicant’s mother about certain procedural decisions taken by the investigator or the investigator’s failure to comply with the prosecutor’s instructions – were insufficiently serious as to warrant the quashing of the decision of 10 August 2012. 100.  On 24 December 2013 the St Petersburg City Court quashed the decision of 2 August 2013 on appeal and found that the decision of 10 August 2012 to discontinue the investigation had been unlawful. It found that the investigation had been ineffective. In particular, given that all evidence collected between 16 June 2011 and 9 July 2012 had been declared inadmissible, it was necessary to undertake anew the investigative measures carried out during that period and to carry out further investigative measures. The court also noted that although, according to the experts, the statements that the applicant had given after 2006 were unreliable, the statements that he had given before then could be taken into account in the assessment of evidence. The City Court also criticised the District Court for the delays in the examination of the complaint lodged by the applicant’s mother on 9 October 2012 and the resulting excessive length of the judicial proceedings. 101.  On 5 March 2014 the applicant’s mother applied to the investigator, asking that Ms P. and Ms K. be charged with the premeditated infliction of severe damage to health. The investigator refused her request, finding that there was no evidence of the premeditated infliction of severe damage to health. 102.  On 18 March 2014 the Kirovskiy district police department discontinued the criminal proceedings against Ms P. and Ms K., finding that their actions did not amount to a criminal offence under Article 112 of the Criminal Code. 103.  On 20 March 2014 the applicant’s mother challenged that decision before the St Petersburg prosecutor’s office, submitting that the investigation had been incomplete. On 18 April 2014 the St Petersburg prosecutor’s office found that the decision of 18 March 2014 to discontinue the criminal proceedings had been lawful. 104.  On 23 May 2014 the Kirovskiy District Court held that the decision of 18 March 2014 had been unlawful, finding that the investigator’s assessment of evidence had been selective and that he had disregarded some facts and evidence (such as a bruise on the applicant’s face), some witness statements, and expert opinions. It also found that the investigation had been excessively long. 105.  On 9 June 2014 the Kirovskiy district police department annulled the decision of 18 March 2014 and resumed the investigation. After two written requests for a copy of that decision, the applicant eventually received it on 30 June 2014. 106.  On 19 July 2014 the Kirovskiy district police department discontinued the criminal proceedings against Ms P. and Ms K. The investigator found that although they had indeed given eye drops to the applicant, thereby causing damage of medium severity to his health, there was no evidence of intent to cause such damage. The infliction of damage to health had not therefore been intentional or premeditated. The police department further added that although the applicant had indeed had a bruise on his face, it was not possible to establish how he had received that bruise. The applicant’s testimony was unreliable due to his young age and mental development at the time of his giving it, while the allegations of ill‑treatment made by the applicant’s mother and by Ms Ch. had been countered by the statements of all other witnesses – namely the staff of the nursery school and the parents of other children – that Ms P. and Ms K. had never mistreated the applicant or other children. The investigator concluded that the evidence collected was contradictory and that it was not possible to resolve that contradiction. Any further investigative measures would be useless. Given that suspects should benefit from any doubt, it could not be found that Ms P.’s and Ms K.’s actions amounted to a criminal offence under Article 112 of the Criminal Code. 107.  On 29 August 2014 the St Petersburg prosecutor’s office annulled the decision of 19 July 2014, finding that the investigation had been ineffective and incomplete. In particular, the criminal proceedings had been unlawfully discontinued even though it had been established that Ms P. and Ms K. had mistreated the applicant and had caused damage to his health. 108.  On 12 September 2014 the Kirovskiy district police department discontinued the criminal proceedings against Ms P. and Ms K. for the same reasons as those given in the decision of 19 July 2014. 109.  On 15 October 2014 the St Petersburg prosecutor’s office annulled the decision of 12 September 2014, finding that the investigator had not complied with the prosecutor’s decision of 29 August 2014. 110.  On 10 November 2014 the Kirovskiy district police department discontinued the criminal proceedings against Ms P. and Ms K., repeating verbatim the decision of 12 September 2014. 111.  On 4 December 2014 the Kirovskiy district police department again refused to open criminal proceedings against Ms P. and Ms K. under Article 156 of the Criminal Code (cruel treatment of minors), finding that the prosecution had become time-barred.
(c)  The applicant’s complaints about the ineffectiveness of the investigation 112.  The applicant’s mother several times asked the investigator to declare the expert opinions of 10 April 2009 and 9 October 2009 inadmissible as evidence. She argued in particular that the panel of experts of 10 April 2009 had not included an expert in child psychiatry. The investigator refused the requests made by the applicant’s mother, finding that the expert opinions of 10 April 2009 and 9 October 2009 had been obtained in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and had contained clear findings. 113.  The applicant’s mother lodged numerous complaints about the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation with the Kirovskiy district police department, the Kirovskiy district prosecutor’s office, the St Petersburg prosecutor’s office, the Prosecutor General and the Kirovskiy and Krasnogvardeyskiy District Courts of St Petersburg. She complained that the investigation had been flawed by delays, in particular on account of the numerous unlawful suspensions of the investigation, and that she had often been denied access to the case file. She also complained that, although sufficient evidence of ill-treatment had been gathered, Ms P. and Ms K. had still not been charged with a criminal offence. She further argued that the applicant had sustained severe damage to his health (rather than damage of medium severity) as a result of the ill-treatment he had suffered. She also challenged the investigator’s refusals to declare the expert opinions of 10 April 2009 and 9 October 2009 inadmissible as evidence. 114.  By letters of 16 and 18 November 2011 the St Petersburg prosecutor’s office informed the applicant’s mother that the investigator and the officials of the Kirovskiy district prosecutor’s office responsible for supervising the case had been disciplined for the delays during the investigation and its ineffectiveness. 115.  On 2 December 2011 the Kirovskiy district prosecutor’s office noted that the investigation had been conducted with serious delays and shortcomings. In particular, the investigator had not performed all requisite investigative measures, such as an additional medical examination of the applicant. 116.  On 12 January 2012 the Kirovskiy District Court found that it had no authority to assess whether the evidence was sufficient for charges to be brought. It was for the investigator to assess the collected evidence and to decide whether charges were to be brought. 117.  On 3 February 2012 the Kirovskiy district prosecutor’s office found that the investigator’s refusals (see paragraph 112 above) to declare the expert opinions of 10 April and 9 October 2009 inadmissible as evidence had been lawful. 118.  On 7 February 2012 the Kirovskiy District Court found that the rights of the applicant’s mother had indeed been breached by the failure to provide her with copies of the numerous decisions to suspend the investigation. However, given that all of those decisions had been annulled, it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint relating to those decisions. Moreover, given that the decisions had been annulled by the investigator’s superiors, the court concluded that those superiors had exercised effective supervision over the course of the investigation. On 18 April 2012 the St Petersburg City Court quashed that decision on appeal for procedural defects. 119.  On 13 August 2012 the Kirovskiy District Court found that the investigator had still not organised an additional expert examination of the applicant, even though he had been instructed to do so in August 2010 and again in August 2011. It also found that the applicant’s mother had been unlawfully denied access to some documents in the case file. On 16 October 2012 the St Petersburg City Court quashed that decision on appeal for procedural defects. 120.  On 24 August 2012 the Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of St Petersburg found that the complaints lodged by the applicant’s mother about the delays and the ineffectiveness of the investigation were well‑founded. However, given that on 10 August 2012 the investigation had been discontinued for lack of evidence of a criminal offence, they had to be dismissed. On 15 November 2012 the St Petersburg City Court quashed that decision on appeal. It found that some of the complaints lodged by the applicant’s mother had not been examined, that the decision had been based on certain documents that had not been examined during the hearing and that the court, even though it had found some of the complaints to be well‑founded, had nevertheless dismissed them. 121.  On 14 February 2013 the Kirovskiy District Court found that the investigator’s decisions issued between 15 September 2010 and 6 October 2011 to suspend the investigation had been unlawful. The rights of the applicant’s mother had, moreover, been breached by the investigator’s failure to inform her about the suspensions of the investigation. Her complaint that the investigator had intentionally delayed the investigation with the aim of rendering the proceedings time-barred was, however, unsubstantiated. The investigation had been discontinued for lack of evidence of a criminal offence rather than on the ground that the proceedings had become time-barred. 122.  On 24 April 2013 the Kirovskiy District Court found that the applicant’s mother had been unlawfully denied access to certain documents in the case file. It however rejected the remainder of her complaints relating to the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation. In particular, the court established that the investigator had not complied with the prosecutor’s instructions as to additional investigative measures to be performed. However, the prosecutor had later confirmed the investigator’s decision to discontinue the investigation, thereby agreeing that it was no longer necessary to comply with his previous instructions and to undertake the investigative measures in question. The investigator’s actions had therefore been lawful. On 6 August 2013 the St Petersburg City Court upheld that decision on appeal, finding it lawful, well-reasoned and justified. 123.  On 17 March 2014 the Kirovskiy district police department replied to the applicant’s mother that all necessary investigative measures had been performed and that all relevant facts had been established. It was therefore not necessary to carry out any further investigative measures. On the same day the Kirovskiy district prosecutor’s office also replied to the applicant’s mother that the investigation had been thorough and complete and that there was no need for any further investigative measures. 124.  The applicant is regularly examined by a neurologist. After the initial diagnosis of hyperkinesia on 15 November 2005 (see paragraph 12 above), he was examined by a neurologist on 2 February, 24 April and 10 October 2006 and 26 January, 25 April, and 18 and 22 May 2007. He complained of nervous tics, sleeping difficulties, nervousness and fears. The neurologist noted that the symptoms had been caused by a prolonged, psychologically traumatic experience at the nursery school in 2005. The applicant was prescribed treatment. 125.  From September 2007 until June 2008 the applicant followed a course of treatment for nervous tics. 126.  On 22 October 2008 the applicant’s medical documents were examined by a child psychiatrist, who found that the applicant continued to suffer from a neurological disorder of medium severity. 127.  From March until June 2009 the applicant underwent a new course of treatment for nervous tics. He underwent a further course of treatment between January and April 2010. 128.  Further medical certificates stated that in 2014 the applicant was still suffering from a neurological disorder and was following treatment for it.