Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture);Violation of Article 13+P1-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

According to the applicant , he experiences difficulties in reconstructing the events during and following his detention coherently and chronologically . On account of his ill - treatment in custody , the applicant suffers from memory lapses . He also finds it psychologically difficult to recall the details of the abusive treatment he was subjected to in detention .

The applicant owned real estate consisting of a house and outhouses at CARDINAL FAC , LOC . At the material time he lived there alone , since his relatives had left GPE after the renewal of hostilities in DATE . The applicant remained in PERSON to look after the house and other possessions . The latter comprised personal belongings of the applicant and his relatives , furniture , an audio system , a satellite dish , CARDINAL ORG vehicles and an ORG car . DATE the applicant lived in the house only occasionally because of frequent attacks . From DATE onwards he lived there permanently .

At the material time the applicant , a school teacher by profession , was working in a “ burial group ” ( группа захоронения ) for ORG of GPE ( Министерство Чеченской PERSON по делам гражданской обороны и чрезвычайным ситуация ) . He was also helping the residents of LOC to obtain drinking water and food .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was distributing drinking water among the residents of LOC when a group of federal servicemen in CARDINAL ORG vehicles arrived and enquired as to how they could get to a certain street . The applicant and some other residents explained to them how to find that street , but the commander of the group asked the applicant to come with them and show them the way . The applicant agreed . The applicant submitted eyewitness statements by CARDINAL residents of LOC confirming the above - mentioned episode .

When the servicemen arrived at the street they were looking for , the applicant asked them to let him out . Instead , the military hit the applicant in the kidneys and put a bag over his head . They ordered him to be silent and delivered him to ORG ( “ the Oktyabrskiy VOVD ” , временный отдел внутренних дел Октябрьского района г. Грозного ) . According to the applicant , the officers who apprehended him could not know his identity because they did not check his identity papers .

At LOC the officers intimidated and ill - treated the applicant for TIME . In particular , they severely beat him , cut his hair and forced him to chew and swallow it , pressed a red - hot nail into his hands , forehead , nostrils and tongue and carved a derogatory word “ Chichik ” on his forehead with a nail or knife .

NORP The officers also questioned the applicant , but made no written record of the interrogation . They asked the applicant where he had fought as a rebel fighter and why there was a list of names in his pocket . The applicant replied that he was a teacher , had never fought and that the list included the residents of LOC to whom he distributed water . It appears that the officers did not believe him . They told him that he would not leave the LOC of FAC alive .

The officers then took the applicant down to a basement , stood him against the wall and started shooting around him . They told him that he should “ wait a little longer to die ” and that they had not “ [ had ] enough of mocking him yet ” and took a break .

NORP Some time later they returned to the basement with several other officers and started “ playing football ” with the applicant . They spent TIME knocking him off his feet , kicking him and throwing him onto the concrete floor . From time to time the applicant lost consciousness , but the officers brought him round . According to the applicant , he lost most of his teeth and his ribs , jaw , arm and leg were broken as a result of this treatment .

At TIME of the officers suggested that they go to the applicant 's place of residence and “ seize his firearms ” whereupon a group of CARDINAL officers in CARDINAL ORG vehicles went there . The applicant was put into the boot of one of the cars .

When they arrived the police ordered the applicant to unlock all the doors in the house and started searching . The search lasted for TIME . The officers entered all the rooms , the basement and the garage and climbed up onto the roof . The applicant maintained that he was unable to keep an eye on all the officers at the same time . At some point during the search CARDINAL of the officers called the applicant into the corridor , showed him an object , which resembled a piece of soap and later turned out to be a ORG block , and asked what it was . The officer claimed that he had found the object on a shelf . The applicant replied that he was unable to identify the object , as it was the first time he had seen it .

After the search the applicant was put into the boot again and escorted to LOC . There he was chained to a heater .

The applicant spent DATE chained to the heater pending the construction of a new cell .

On DATE the investigator , PERSON , interviewed the applicant . He enquired as to where the applicant had obtained the ORG block . The applicant denied that he had ever possessed explosives and insisted that the ORG block had been planted in his house during the search on DATE . The investigator then called CARDINAL masked men , who beat the applicant until he lost consciousness . DATE the CARDINAL men returned and beat him again . The applicant said that during DATE he coughed up blood and was unable to get up .

On DATE the officers twice put the applicant into the boot of a police car and drove him around for some time .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to a newly constructed cell . Some time later another detainee , PERSON , was placed in the applicant 's cell and QUANTITY detainees in the adjacent one .

On DATE an investigator informed the applicant that an expert study of the object found in his house had confirmed that it contained explosives . The investigator did not show the expert examination report to the applicant .

On DATE , in the evening , CARDINAL servicemen approached the applicant 's cell and ordered a guard to open it . The guard , who appeared to be afraid of the men , complied with the order . According to the applicant , the men were drunk and QUANTITY of them was wearing a mask . They started beating the applicant . After a while CARDINAL of the men put his foot on the applicant , who was lying on the floor , took a knife and cut off his left ear . He also declared that he would cut off the applicant 's head and made a scratch on the applicant 's throat . In the applicant 's submission , the man had a horseshoe - shaped moustache . Then another man entered the cell and took pictures of the bleeding applicant and his cut ear . According to the applicant , the man who took pictures was of NORP origin , his first name was PERSON and he served as a guard at FAC .

The applicant submitted statements by his cellmate who had witnessed the applicant 's ill - treatment . The applicant further referred to a statement of the then Mayor of Grozny , PERSON , who claimed in an interview with a regional DATE newspaper PERSON ( DATE ) that he had “ a witness who had seen the deputy head of the PERSON cut off the ear of CARDINAL of the NORP detainees ” .

Then the officers left and entered the adjacent cell in which CARDINAL other detainees were being held . According to the applicant , he heard screams and moans which became fainter and then died out . The applicant never saw those detainees again .

Early on DATE , when the applicant and his cellmate were asleep , the guards forced them to get up , put bags over their heads and escorted them to a small room . TIME the applicant and his cellmate were returned to their cell which had been thoroughly cleaned . The applicant saw the other cell because its doors were wide open . It was also clean and there were no detainees there . In the applicant 's opinion , the Oktyabrskiy VOVD authorities were hiding him and other detainees from a commission that was visiting police stations to inspect the treatment of detainees .

On DATE an official from the ORG prosecutor 's office ( прокуратура г. ORG ) , PERSON , visited the applicant and warned him not to disclose the fact that he had lost his ear in detention . Instead , the applicant was told to state that his ear had been cut off by rebel fighters .

On DATE a medical officer , whose first name was PERSON , visited the applicant . He put some ointment on the applicant 's ear wound , but did not bandage it . Nether did he examine the applicant or treat his other injuries . According to the applicant , he was attended by medical officers on several occasions while in detention , but never underwent a medical examination or received proper treatment for his ear .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the basement of another building of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD , where he was kept until his release on DATE .

The basement was divided into CARDINAL rooms . CARDINAL of them , measuring QUANTITY ( QUANTITY x QUANTITY ) , was used as a torture chamber and contained various instruments , including an axe , a hammer , a sledgehammer , a shovel and scissors . According to the applicant , he was ordered to clean the room once and noticed bloodstains even on the ceiling which was QUANTITY high .

The other room , measuring QUANTITY ( MONEY QUANTITY ) , was a cell . During the applicant 's detention CARDINAL detainees were kept there . The applicant stated that on numerous occasions the detainees were taken to the adjacent room and tortured . He could hear them screaming . Sometimes the door between the QUANTITY rooms was left open and the applicant could see his cellmates being severely ill - treated . They returned to the cell severely beaten , CARDINAL of them had their fingers missing and another detainee was brought back unconscious .

On several occasions the investigator interrogated the applicant about the object allegedly found in his house on DATE . The applicant was forced to sign a confession stating that the object in question belonged to him . The investigator also questioned the applicant about the activities of his neighbours . No transcript of those interrogations was ever made .

From time to time the guards took the applicant out of his cell to another room for a short period of time , apparently when inspections occurred , and then brought him back .

At some point in DATE the applicant 's sister , PERSON , and his cousin , PERSON . PERSON , found out that the applicant had disappeared . They returned to PERSON and started searching for him .

They applied in person and in writing to a military commander 's office , LOC , the local administration , the detention centre in GPE , the federal military base in GPE and a morgue , but to no avail .

Some time later the applicant 's sister received information that he had been seen in LOC . In DATE the applicant 's sister and cousin unsuccessfully applied to the Oktyabrskiy VOVD with enquiries about the applicant .

At some point in DATE the applicant 's relatives finally managed to talk to the investigator in charge , who told them that the police had found explosives in the applicant 's house . PERSON answered that it was untrue and that her brother had never participated in military actions . The applicant 's relatives then requested permission to see the applicant , but this was refused . However , they were allowed to send him a note and fresh clothes . The applicant 's old clothes were returned to the applicant 's sister , who checked them and saw blood on the shoulder and back of the applicant 's shirt .

NORP In DATE the applicant 's relatives unsuccessfully requested authorisation to see the applicant .

On DATE new police officers arrived from ORG of GPE and replaced the staff of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD . DATE . Z. were allowed to see the applicant for TIME in the presence of an investigating officer . They were ordered to speak LANGUAGE only . According to them , the applicant was swollen , had lots of scars and one of his ears was missing .

On DATE an investigator of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD issued a decision to discontinue criminal proceedings in case no . PERSON instituted against the applicant for unlawful possession of explosives . The decision stated that the applicant had not lived in his house on a regular basis because of the hostilities and that for some time the house had been occupied by unknown armed men who might have brought the explosives which the applicant had then unintentionally kept . Besides this , the decision stated that “ having been kept in detention , the applicant ceased to pose a danger to society ” and could be released . It also explained the applicant 's right to appeal against that decision to a prosecutor or in court .

DATE the applicant was released and returned home . According to eyewitness statements , the applicant was in a very poor condition , being swollen , emaciated and pale , and with his left ear and teeth missing and his hip broken .

According to the Government , on DATE ORG of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD instituted criminal proceedings in case no . PERSON against the applicant on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence punishable under LAW ( unlawful possession of firearms and explosives ) of LAW .

During a search which was carried out in the applicant 's house pursuant to an investigator 's order of CARDINAL DATE an explosive was found and seized . According to an expert report , which was communicated to the applicant , the explosive was a CARDINAL ORG block .

On DATE the applicant was arrested pursuant to LAW .

On DATE the case was sent to another division of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD for further investigation .

On DATE the acting prosecutor of ORG ordered the applicant to be remanded in custody , in accordance with LAW .

DATE . On DATE formal charges were brought against the applicant under LAW . When questioned , the applicant was unable to give any explanation concerning the explosive found in his house .

On DATE the Oktyabrskiy VOVD discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant with reference to LAW , notably because he had ceased to pose a danger to society , and released him .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE ( прокуратура Чеченской PERSON ) set aside the decision of CARDINAL DATE and ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant be resumed .

By a decision of DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the ground that the constituent elements of a crime had not been made out . The decision stated , in particular , that the search carried out in the applicant 's house on DATE had not been duly authorised and had been conducted in breach of procedural law with the result that the ORG block allegedly found during that search could not be regarded as reliable evidence of the applicant 's involvement in the imputed offence , and that therefore there had been no grounds on which to bring criminal proceedings against him .

Shortly after his release , the applicant started complaining personally and in writing to various official bodies about his unlawful arrest and detention , ill - treatment in custody and the search of his house . Subsequently he complained to prosecutors offices at various levels of the ineffectiveness of the investigation , indicated the names of the perpetrators established during the investigation and requested that they be brought to justice . The applicant 's efforts were supported by the PERSON and his lawyer . According to the applicant , his complaints mostly remained unanswered , or only formal responses were given by which the respective requests were forwarded to various prosecutor 's offices “ for examination ” .

NORP In particular , on an unspecified date he applied in writing to ORG of GPE , the prosecutor 's office of GPE , the Minister of the Interior of GPE and CARDINAL other high - ranking officials . In his complaint the applicant described in detail the events of DATE to CARDINAL DATE and requested that those responsible be punished .

On DATE ORG in GPE ( ORG по правам человека в Российской PERSON ) declined to examine the applicant 's complaint on the ground that it was unclear and not supported by relevant documents .

On DATE ORG of GPE referred the applicant 's complaint to the prosecutor 's office of GPE .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the military prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL ( военная прокуратура DATE ) forwarded the applicant 's complaint , along with several other applications , to the prosecutor 's office of GPE .

On DATE and DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE transmitted the applicant 's complaints concerning his unlawful detention “ by unidentified servicemen ” to the PERSON prosecutor 's office .

On DATE and DATE respectively the applicant complained in writing to ORG and to the PERSON prosecutor 's office of the theft of his ORG car by police officers of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD .

On DATE ORG issued the applicant with a medical certificate which listed the after - effects of the injuries inflicted on him during his detention . It stated that a medical examination of the applicant on DATE had revealed the following :

“ – [ The applicant ] wears dentures which replace teeth DATE , DATE , DATE to DATE , DATE to CARDINAL . The original teeth were broken during his detention .

– The bridge of the nose is crooked , suggesting a possible set fracture .

– The left ear lobe is missing , and , while the auditory canal is not obstructed , the hearing capacity of the left ear is diminished . A shiny scar is visible , which extends QUANTITY from the external auditory canal towards the bottom part of the lower jaw and QUANTITY towards the mastoid bone and slightly beyond .

– A star - shaped scar is present on the palm of the right hand , suggesting a non - transfixiant burn or wound . It is located opposite the CARDINALth metacarpal .

– At the palpation of ribs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL facing the interior arc , are located still sensitive bone calluses , likely resulting from clean rib fractures .

– At the palpation of the top of the lower CARDINAL tibia of the right leg is a discrete bone callus which could be connected to a non - displaced fracture or an incomplete fracture of the tibia . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a written complaint with the ORG prosecutor 's office , describing the circumstances of his arrest , detention and ill - treatment , and the theft of his property , and requested that those responsible be punished .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor 's office forwarded the applicant 's complaints to the PERSON for investigation .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE forwarded the applicant 's complaint concerning his ill - treatment to the PERSON prosecutor 's office for examination .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the PERSON , acting on the applicant 's behalf , submitted similar complaints about the events of DATE to CARDINAL DATE to the prosecutor 's office of GPE .

In a letter of DATE , in reply to the ORG 's query , the prosecutor 's office of GPE stated that criminal proceedings had been instituted in connection with the applicant 's allegations of ill - treatment in LOC . The letter did not indicate the date on which the criminal proceedings had been instituted or the number assigned to the criminal case file .

On DATE the applicant made a written request to the prosecutor 's office of GPE for copies of a number of documents from his case file . It does not appear that this request was granted .

In letters of DATE and DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was informed that criminal proceedings had been instituted in cases opened in connection with his complaints ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .

DATE . According to the Government , on DATE the applicant complained to the ORG prosecutor 's office that he had been unlawfully apprehended on DATE , and ill - treated while in detention , by officers of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor 's office instituted criminal proceedings in the above connection under LAW ( aggravated abuse of power ) of LAW . The case file was given the number DATE .

In the ORG 's submission , the applicant was granted victim status on DATE and questioned on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE . He confirmed his version of events and stated that he had not applied to medical institutions after his release .

On DATE the investigating authorities suspended the criminal proceedings for failure to identify those responsible .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor 's office ordered that the investigation be resumed .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor 's office instituted criminal proceedings under LAW ( aggravated theft ) of LAW in connection with the theft by unidentified persons of an ORG car belonging to the applicant . The case file was assigned the number DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigator in charge joined criminal cases nos . DATE and DATE under the former number ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

DATE and DATE the criminal proceedings were stayed and resumed on CARDINAL occasions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . On DATE the deputy prosecutor of PERSON ordered that criminal case no . DATE be joined to CARDINAL other criminal cases concerning abduction by officers of LOC and the disappearance of several individuals .

DATE . On DATE the investigation was stayed for failure to identify the alleged perpetrators , and then resumed on DATE .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigator in charge brought charges under LAW ( aggravated negligence of official duties ) of LAW against PERSON , who at the relevant time was the head of the convoy group of the temporary holding facility of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD ( “ the ORG of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD ” ) . On DATE the investigator ordered that Mr Z. be banned from leaving the place and put on the federal wanted list .

On DATE the investigation was stayed pending the search for Mr Z. ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , and then resumed on DATE .

DATE and DATE the investigation was stayed owing to the failure to establish PERSON whereabouts and then reopened CARDINAL times ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and QUANTITY below ) .

On DATE the investigator brought charges under ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( c ) ( aggravated abuse of power ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( aggravated deliberate infliction of serious damage on another 's health ) of MONEY against Mr NORP , who at the material time had been the deputy commander of the special fire team ( специальная огневая группа ) of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD . Mr NORP was banned from leaving his place of residence and put on the wanted list .

On DATE , further to the decision of CARDINAL DATE , charges under LAW ( a ) and ( c ) ( aggravated abuse of power ) of LAW were brought against Mr Z.

By a decision of DATE the investigator in charge banned Mr Ya . , a suspect in the case , who at the material time had been the deputy head of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD , from leaving his place of residence and put him on the wanted list . On DATE a similar decision was taken in respect of PERSON , a suspect in the case , who at the relevant period had been the head of the ORG of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD .

DATE and DATE the proceedings were suspended for failure to establish the whereabouts of the suspects and accused and resumed on CARDINAL occasions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

According to the Government , on DATE PERSON was formally charged with abuse of power . On being questioned in that connection PERSON denied all the charges and expressed his wish to avail himself of LAW , following which the criminal proceedings against him were discontinued on DATE .

DATE and DATE the investigation was stayed , for failure to establish the whereabouts of the suspects and accused , and resumed CARDINAL times ( see paragraphs QUANTITY below ) .

On the latest occasion the investigation was stayed on DATE on grounds of the impossibility of continuing the investigation in the absence of PERSON , NORP and PERSON , whose whereabouts could not be established .

The Government submitted that a number of investigative measures had been taken during the investigation . In particular , the authorities had interviewed a number of police officers serving in LOC at the relevant time . The Government maintained that PERSON , who had been seconded to ORG as a senior inquiry officer , had stated that when being questioned during his detention the applicant had submitted that CARDINAL or CARDINAL unknown persons had cut off his ear DATE before he had been apprehended . PERSON also stated that the applicant had received the necessary medical aid during his detention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . According to the Government , PERSON . , who had been the acting head of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD at the relevant time , gave similar oral testimony about the existence of bodily injuries on the applicant at the time when he had been apprehended ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . PERSON . , who had been an officer of the ORG of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD at the relevant time , stated that he had learnt from the applicant that his ear had been cut off a DATE or CARDINAL prior to his detention by unknown members of illegal armed groups in reprisal for the applicant 's refusal to cooperate with them ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Similar submissions were made by PERSON . , the then deputy head of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . According to the Government , the latter had also been interviewed on DATE in connection with the theft of the applicant 's ORG car , but had denied his involvement in that offence .

The Government stated that the authorities had also questioned a number of other officers who had served in LOC , and individuals who had been detained there , in DATE . They all said that they had no information concerning the alleged perpetrators . On DATE and DATE and on DATE the investigating authorities also found and interviewed PERSON , who had shared a cell with the applicant . He stated that he had seen unknown individuals enter the cell in which he and the applicant were kept and cut off the applicant 's ear ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . According to the Government , when being shown photographs of the presumed perpetrators the applicant and PERSON had identified different persons .

The Government also stated , without indicating the date , that during the investigation the applicant had undergone a forensic medical examination . According to them , this recorded the presence of bodily injuries , including the loss of hearing in the left ear , which were classified as serious damage to health , and other injuries which were classified as moderately serious damage to health .

According to the applicant , upon his return home on DATE he saw that his dog had been shot , his house partly burnt and his property , comprising his personal belongings and those of his relatives , furniture , an audio system , a satellite dish , looted . Nothing of value remained in the house . The applicant 's CARDINAL ORG vehicles and his ORG car were missing . Later , he found out from his neighbours that while he had been in custody , masked men driving one of his ORG cars , an ORG truck and an armoured personnel carrier had come to his house on numerous occasions and taken away his property . The men had warned the applicant 's neighbours to stay away from his house , saying that they had mined it .

On an unspecified date the applicant drew up a report listing items of property that had been stolen during his detention and indicating that the pecuniary damage sustained amounted to MONEY ( ORG ) . The report was certified by the administration of LOC .

NORP Some time later the applicant found one of his ORG vehicles . The minivan was parked in a street close to the Oktyabrskiy VOVD . The car had been disassembled and burnt . According to the applicant , he also found his satellite dish on the territory of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD , and he saw some of items of his stolen property in the possession of some officers of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD .

Late in DATE the applicant found his ORG in the possession of a former officer of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD , PERSON . The latter claimed that he had purchased a share of the car , with several other officers of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD , whose names were GPE , PERSON . and PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , from federal servicemen for DATE . The officers stated that they would only return the car to the applicant in exchange for the same sum of money as they had paid for it . The applicant refused to pay and lodged complaints about the looting of his property and seizure of his ORG car with various official bodies . According to him , PERSON . eventually sold the vehicle .

On DATE the applicant obtained a certificate confirming that his house and outhouses had been burnt and destroyed .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG prosecutor 's office ordered the PERSON to transfer to it the materials in a criminal case instituted in connection with the theft of the applicant 's Oldsmobile vehicle for supervision by the prosecutor 's office in the course of the investigation . The letter did not indicate the date on which the criminal case had allegedly been opened .

On DATE the deputy head of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD forwarded to the PERSON prosecutor 's office the material concerning “ the unlawful seizure by officers of ORG of an ORG car from [ the applicant ] ” .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor 's office instituted criminal proceedings under LAW ) and ( d ) ( aggravated theft ) of LAW in connection with the theft of the applicant 's ORG vehicle . The case file was given the number DATE . The decision stated that “ there was information to the effect that the offence had been committed by officers of LOC .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the PERSON prosecutor 's office joined case no . DATE concerning the ill - treatment of the applicant and case no . DATE concerning the theft of his car under the former number , stating that the said CARDINAL offences had been committed by the same persons .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the PERSON prosecutor 's office informed the applicant that criminal proceedings had been brought in connection with his complaint about the theft of his ORG and that the investigation was under way . The prosecutor 's office did not specify the date on which the criminal proceedings had been instituted or the number assigned to the criminal case .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE instituted criminal proceedings under LAW ( a ) and ( c ) ( aggravated theft ) of LAW in connection with the theft of the applicant 's ORG car which had been established during the investigation in case no . DATE . The decision stated that the said vehicle had been stolen from the applicant 's courtyard in DATE by an unidentified group of police officers of the PERSON seconded to GPE from GPE . The case file was given the number CARDINAL and joined to case no . DATE on DATE .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE also instituted criminal proceedings under LAW ( aggravated theft ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( deliberate destruction of another 's property ) of FAC in connection with the theft and destruction by unidentified persons of the applicant 's possessions , including a ORG minivan . The case file was assigned DATE ( see paragraphs PERSON below ) .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigator ordered that the materials initially relating to cases nos . DATE and CARDINAL be disjoined from case no . DATE , stating that they contained evidence of offences punishable under LAW ( b ) ( aggravated theft ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( deliberate destruction of another 's property ) of FAC and that they were not related to the offences under investigation in case no . DATE . The decision ordered that a new set of criminal proceedings be instituted under the aforementioned ORG of LAW and that the case be assigned the number DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed a claim with ORG of PERSON against brothers PERSON . and PERSON . PERSON . and CARDINAL officers of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD , GPE , PERSON . , PERSON . and PERSON He stated that CARDINAL vehicles , an ORG and a ORG , had been stolen from him during his detention DATE and DATE , that he had later found his ORG vehicle disassembled in the street and that he had found his ORG car at PERSON . 's home address in ORG . According to the applicant , PERSON . had stated that he and the other co - defendants had purchased CARDINAL vehicles on DATE for CARDINAL from officers of LOC and that he had been prepared to return the vehicles to the applicant for the equivalent amount . The applicant thus sought to have his ORG car returned to him and to recover the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the damaged ORG vehicle . He also requested the court to issue an injunction order in respect of the ORG .

On DATE ORG refused to accept the applicant 's claim for examination , stating that the facts stated by the applicant contained elements of a criminal offence punishable under LAW ( aggravated theft ) of LAW and should be investigated in criminal proceedings and that the defendants resided in GPE . This decision was upheld on appeal by ORG of GPE on DATE .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to accept the applicant 's claim for examination , stating that the facts submitted by the applicant contained elements of a criminal offence punishable under LAW of LAW Criminal Code and should be investigated in criminal proceedings , and that in the context of such criminal proceedings the applicant could be granted the status of a civil claimant and seek compensation for the damage sustained . It does not appear that the applicant appealed against that decision .

On DATE the applicant filed a claim with ORG of PERSON against ORG of the Interior , ORG and ORG . He listed in detail the damage caused to his property and sought compensation for pecuniary damage in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and compensation for non - pecuniary damage in the amount of CARDINAL .

NORP In a decision of DATE ORG of PERSON refused to accept this claim for examination , stating that it should have been lodged with a court in the area of the defendants ' address in GPE .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the first - instance decision on appeal .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE returned the applicant 's claim on the ground that it did not fall within the territorial limits on its jurisdiction , and stating that the applicant should file his action with any district court in the area of the defendants ' address .

On DATE the Presnenskiy District Court of GPE again returned the applicant 's claim , invoking the same reasons .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE declined to consider the applicant 's claim and invited the applicant to indicate the defendants ' addresses by DATE . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the court returned the materials to the applicant , referring to his failure to rectify the shortcoming within the stated time - limit .

On DATE the applicant filed a claim against ORG with ORG of GPE . According to the applicant , on DATE the court returned his claim on the ground that it fell outside the territorial limits on its jurisdiction and invited the applicant to apply to a district court in the area of the defendant 's address .

On DATE the applicant filed a claim against ORG of the ORG and ORG with ORG of GPE . He claims that he did not receive any reply from the court .

In a letter of DATE ORG of GPE replied to the applicant 's complaint concerning the district courts ' refusal to accept his claim for examination . The letter stated that the applicant 's claim had to meet the relevant requirements of procedural law and , in particular , had to be filed with a court in the area of the defendant 's address , namely , ORG of GPE , which was the court having territorial jurisdiction for ORG . The applicant did not pursue that claim .

On DATE the applicant filed another claim for compensation for his property . He stated that during the military campaign in GPE in DATE his housing and other property had been destroyed during a shelling and that , in accordance with the relevant governmental decree , he had received from the ORG compensation in the amount of MONEY ( RUB , MONEY , ( ORG ) ) in that connection , which , however , had been much lower than the amount of the actual damage he had suffered .

By a judgment of DATE LOC dismissed the applicant 's claim , noting that the applicant had failed to submit any evidence to substantiate the amount of the actual damage which he had indicated in his claim . This judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG of GPE on DATE .

In DATE , at the communication stage , the Government were invited to indicate whether criminal proceedings had been instituted in respect of the applicant 's allegations of ill - treatment and looting of his property , and , if so , which numbers had been given to the respective criminal cases . They were also invited to produce documents pertaining to those criminal cases . Relying on the information obtained from ORG , the Government informed the ORG that the investigation in connection with the alleged ill - treatment of the applicant and damage to his property was under way and that the case file had been assigned the number DATE . The ORG refused , however , to submit any documents from the file , stating that their disclosure would be in violation of LAW of LAW because the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the participants in the criminal proceedings . At the same time , the Government suggested that a ORG delegation be given access to the file at the place where the preliminary investigation was being conducted , with the exception of “ the documents [ disclosing military information and personal data concerning the witnesses ] , and without the right to make copies of the case file and to transmit it to others ” .

In DATE the ORG reiterated its request and suggested that Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL of ORG be applied . In reply , the Government submitted documents running to CARDINAL pages but refused to produce the entire investigation file for the aforementioned reasons . The documents submitted by the Government included a list of documents in the case file , decisions to initiate criminal proceedings , a decision granting the applicant victim status , decisions to suspend and resume the investigation , various investigators ' decisions to take up the case , a decision to join cases , a decision ordering that the investigation be carried out by an investigative group and a decision extending the period of preliminary investigation .

The applicant , for his part , managed , with the assistance of ORG NORP NGO based in GPE DATE to obtain a substantial portion of the file in criminal case no . DATE for DATE . He enclosed CARDINAL pages from the file , running , as can be seen , to CARDINAL volumes with his comments on the ORG 's observations on the admissibility of the present application .

On DATE the application was declared partly admissible . At that stage the ORG invited the ORG to provide information on the progress after DATE made in investigating case no . DATE concerning the alleged ill - treatment of the applicant and the theft of his ORG and ORG vehicles , and to produce copies of all the documents from the investigation file pertaining to the period stated . The Government were also invited to provide information on the progress made , and to produce the entire copy of the file , in investigating case no . DATE concerning the theft and destruction of the applicant 's possessions , including his ORG minivan .

NORP In DATE the Government produced several documents running to CARDINAL pages from the files in criminal cases nos . DATE and DATE , including decisions to suspend and resume criminal proceedings , decisions to disjoin a criminal case concerning the theft of the applicant 's property , a decision granting the applicant victim status in case no . DATE , a transcript of the applicant 's witness interview , investigators ' decisions to take up the case , a decision ordering that the investigation be carried out by an investigative group , a decision extending the period of the preliminary investigation , and decisions to transfer the case from CARDINAL investigator to another . The ORG refused to produce any other materials , referring to LAW .

The documents submitted by the parties , in so far as relevant , may be summarised as follows .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG prosecutor 's office instituted criminal proceedings under LAW ( a ) ( aggravated abuse of power ) of LAW in connection with the applicant 's allegations of his unlawful detention and ill - treatment by officers of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD in his complaint of DATE . The case file was given the number DATE .

By similar decisions of CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE the investigation in case no . DATE was suspended . The very succinct decisions stated that it had been impossible to identify those responsible and instructed ORG of LOC ( eventually ORG of the Interior – “ the Oktyabrskiy ROVD ” ) to “ take measures ” to identify the alleged perpetrators .

In similar decisions of DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE supervising prosecutors set aside the decisions of CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE respectively , stating that the investigation had been incomplete , that the circumstances of the incident had not been established fully and objectively and that a number of necessary investigative measures had not been taken . The decisions ordered that the proceedings be resumed and listed the requisite investigative measures . The decisions of DATE and DATE and DATE also stated that the investigating authorities had failed to comply with the prosecutors ' earlier instructions and had not performed a number of investigative measures listed in the previous decisions .

A decision of DATE ordered that the investigation be suspended . It listed in detail the investigative measures that had been performed , including questioning the applicant and granting him victim status , questioning a number of officials who at the relevant time had been serving at LOC , PERSON , PERSON . , PERSON , B. , Ya . , GPE , PERSON . , ORG and PERSON being among their number , questioning PERSON the applicant 's cellmate , seizing photographs of officers of ORG of the ORG seconded for the relevant period to the Oktyabrskiy VOVD and identification – from DATE by the applicant and PERSON of the officers involved .

NORP The decision further stated that queries had been sent to competent bodies with a view to finding the cars stolen from the applicant and locating Mr GPE . , who had possibly been involved in stealing them . The decision went on to say that Mr PERSON , whom the applicant had identified from a photograph , had confirmed that he had let into the applicant 's cell officers from the special fire group of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD , who had cut off the applicant 's ear . It further stated that charges of aggravated negligence of official duties had been brought against PERSON , who had been put on the federal wanted list as he had absconded from the investigating authorities with the result that it had so far not been possible to show him photographs for identification of the officers of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD allegedly involved .

NORP The decision went on to state that the applicant and PERSON had also identified Mr Ab . as the person who had inflicted physical violence on detainees and photographed the applicant after his ear had been cut off . According to the decision , the investigator seconded to the Khanty - Maniysk Region had been unable to interview Mr Ab . , as the latter had been on DATE leave in GPE .

NORP The decision also mentioned that the applicant had identified , from a photograph , Mr N. as CARDINAL of the people who had inflicted bodily injuries on him and Mr D. as CARDINAL of the people who had also participated in inflicting bodily injuries on him , and that PERSON had identified , from a photograph , PERSON as a person resembling the one who had cut off the applicant 's ear .

The decision went on to note that , when carrying out investigative measures within the territory of ORG , the investigator had encountered reluctance on the part of a number of high - ranking officials of ORG of the ORG to allow him to have contact with their subordinates , with the result that he had been unable to interview a number of officers from ORG of the ORG who , under various pretexts , had ignored his summons to appear for questioning . , who had been summoned to appear at the prosecutor 's office of GPE by DATE . The decision concluded that all investigative measures which could have been carried out in the absence of the aforementioned officers had been performed and that therefore the proceedings should be suspended pending their arrival in PERSON and until PERSON whereabouts were established .

A decision of DATE ordered that the investigation in case no . DATE , which had most recently been suspended on DATE , be resumed . It stated that the decision to suspend the proceedings had been unlawful as the investigating authorities had not performed all investigative measures that could have been carried out in the absence of those responsible and , in particular , had failed to comply with the investigator 's instructions and with supervising prosecutors ' orders .

Decisions of CARDINAL May and DATE ordered that the proceedings in case no . DATE be stayed . The decisions were similar to that of DATE . In particular , they referred to the same measures carried out during the investigation as those listed in the decision of CARDINAL DATE . They also stated that , in reply to their relevant queries , the investigating authorities had received information to the effect that PERSON . had died on DATE ; they contained no indication , however , as to whether the actions prescribed by the decision of CARDINAL DATE , such as confrontations between the applicant , PERSON and officers ORG , LOC . and ORG . ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been performed , nor did they indicate whether , and if so which , measures had been taken with a view to establishing PERSON whereabouts . The decisions concluded that all possible investigative measures had been performed and that it was impossible , in the absence of PERSON , whose whereabouts remained unknown , to take measures to identify the persons who had inflicted bodily injuries on the applicant .

A decision of DATE set aside the decision of CARDINAL DATE and ordered that the investigation be resumed . According to that decision , the investigating authorities had not performed all investigative measures that could have been carried out in the absence of those responsible . It pointed out , in particular , that a number of the investigator 's instructions had not been complied with , the identities of witnesses of the theft of the applicant 's property had not been established and the relevant individuals interviewed . The decision stated that all other necessary investigative measures should be taken . It was signed by the investigator to the effect that “ the interested persons ” had been apprised of it on DATE .

A decision of CARDINAL DATE quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and ordered that the investigation be resumed . It then ordered that a number of investigative measures be carried out , and in particular , that the measures indicated in the decisions of DATE and DATE be complied with in full , that the search for Mr Z. be conducted more actively , that additional evidence be searched for to confirm the involvement of Mr N. , Mr NORP and Mr Ab . in the incident of CARDINAL DATE and , if such evidence was obtained , that relevant charges be brought against those responsible , that the applicant 's arguments advanced in his complaints of CARDINAL DATE and DATE be investigated , and that other necessary steps be taken .

A decision of DATE ordered the suspension of the criminal proceedings . It was similar to the decisions of CARDINAL May and CARDINAL DATE and listed the same investigative measures that had been carried out . The decision added that during an additional investigation Mr PERSON 's whereabouts had been established at the address of his permanent place of residence ; however , given that “ a preventive measure in the form of an undertaking not to leave his place of residence had been applied to him , it had been impossible to deliver him to PERSON ” . The decision concluded that all investigative measures that could have been conducted in the absence of PERSON had been performed and that the preliminary investigation should be stayed “ until there was a real possibility of participation in the criminal proceedings of the accused PERSON The decision was signed by the investigator to the effect that the accused PERSON and the applicant had been apprised of it .

A decision of CARDINAL DATE set aside the decision of DATE as unlawful and unfounded stating that a number of essential steps had not been taken , and , in particular , that no legal classification had been given to the actions of PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . , identified by the applicant as those involved in the incident of DATE , that the theft of the applicant 's property and PERSON . 's possible involvement in that offence had not been duly investigated , that an additional forensic medical examination of the applicant – necessary in view of the presence in the case file of CARDINAL conflicting reports on medical examinations conducted DATE had not been performed , and that other necessary measures had not been taken . The decision thus ordered that the proceedings be resumed .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the investigator informed the applicant and his lawyer that on DATE criminal proceedings in case no . DATE had been instituted in connection with the infliction of bodily injuries on the applicant by unidentified police officers of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD , that on DATE criminal proceedings in case no . DATE had been instituted in connection with the theft of the applicant 's ORG vehicle presumably by officers of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD , that on DATE those CARDINAL cases had been joined under number DATE , and that on DATE criminal proceedings had been instituted in case no . CARDINAL in connection with the theft of the applicant 's ORG vehicle by unidentified police officers of the PERSON seconded to GPE from GPE . The letter went on to say that during the period of the applicant 's detention DATE and DATE a group of unidentified persons had broken into his house and stolen his property including a ORG minivan , causing him pecuniary damage amounting to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and that during the same period unidentified persons had deliberately destroyed the applicant 's property – his house and outhouses – causing him considerable pecuniary damage . The letter stated that criminal proceedings had been brought in that connection and that the new case had been disjoined from case no . DATE and given the number CARDINAL . Lastly , the letter stated that the investigation in case no . DATE had been resumed and was in progress .

A decision of DATE ordered that the proceedings in case no . DATE be suspended as all investigative measures that it had been possible to perform in the absence of the accused had been carried out . It stated , briefly , that during an additional investigation Mr PERSON 's whereabouts had been established at his home address ; however , PERSON had then fled from the investigating authorities and , at present , his whereabouts remained unknown .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE informed the applicant 's lawyer of the criminal cases opened into the applicant 's allegations of ill - treatment and theft of his property and stated that at present the proceedings in case no . DATE had been stayed pending the search for the accused .

A decision of CARDINAL DATE set aside the decision of DATE as premature and ordered the resumption of the investigation . It stated , in particular , that although the case file contained evidence implicating officers PERSON and Ya . in the offences against the applicant , no procedural decision had yet been taken in their regard . It also noted that the investigating authorities had not yet decided on the question of whether to bring proceedings against Mr PERSON separately .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigation was suspended owing to the failure to establish PERSON whereabouts . The decision restated the circumstances of the offence imputed to PERSON and indicated that charges of aggravated negligence of official duties had been brought against him , that he had been banned from leaving his place of residence and eventually put on the wanted list in view of the fact that he had repeatedly failed to appear at the prosecutor 's office and had been absent from his place of residence for DATE . The decision concluded that it was impossible to continue the investigation in the absence of the accused and ordered ORG of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD to organise a search for him .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE a supervising prosecutor quashed the decision of DATE and ordered that the investigation be resumed . The decision of DATE was similar to that of CARDINAL DATE and stated , in particular , that until that time no procedural decisions had been taken against police officers PERSON and Ya . despite the evidence of their involvement in the offences against the applicant .

By a decision of DATE the investigator in charge stayed the proceedings . The decision was similar to that of DATE and stated , in addition , that charges had been brought against Mr NORP and that he and PERSON and PERSON . had been banned from leaving their place of residence and put on the wanted list ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) . It went on to say that it was impossible to continue the investigation in the absence of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON . And PERSON , whose whereabouts were unknown , and instructed ORG of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD to organise a search for them .

A decision of CARDINAL DATE set aside the decision of DATE as unlawful and unfounded and ordered that the proceedings be reopened . It stated , in particular , that the investigating authorities had not performed all investigative measures which could be carried out in the absence of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON . And PERSON , and that no steps had been taken with a view to establishing their whereabouts . The decision noted that , although the case file contained information regarding the identity and the duty station of the aforementioned CARDINAL officers , the investigation had failed to interview their relatives , neighbours and colleagues , or to conduct searches at the places of their service or residence with a view to finding relevant evidence and locating them .

By a decision of DATE , similar to that of DATE , the investigation was again suspended . The applicant was informed of that decision by a letter of the same date .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant complained to the prosecutor 's office of GPE about the decision of DATE and requested the prosecutor 's office to resume the investigation . He indicated the addresses of the individuals whose whereabouts , according to the decision of DATE , could not be established .

NORP In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE informed the applicant that his complaint of DATE had been examined and disallowed . The letter did not elaborate on the reasons .

A decision of CARDINAL DATE quashed the decision of DATE as unlawful and unfounded . It was noted that the investigating authorities had not performed all investigative measures which could be carried out in the absence of the suspects and accused , and that no measures had been taken with a view to establishing the whereabouts of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON . and PERSON and delivering them to GPE for investigative action although in the case file there was information concerning the place of their service and residence .

A decision of CARDINAL DATE ordered that the criminal proceedings be stayed . It listed investigative measures similar to those mentioned in the decisions of DATE and DATE taken in respect of Mr NORP , Mr PERSON and PERSON and concluded that it was impossible to continue the investigation in the absence of those CARDINAL officers .

A decision of CARDINAL DATE ordered that the criminal proceedings be resumed , with reference to the necessity to complete a forensic examination ordered on DATE .

Decisions of DATE , DATE and QUANTITY DATE , similar to that of CARDINAL DATE , ordered that the investigation be suspended pending the search for PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , whose whereabouts remained unknown .

A decision of DATE ordered that the criminal proceedings be resumed . It stated that the decision of CARDINAL DATE was unlawful and unfounded , as all versions of the incidents under investigation had not been checked and it was necessary to intensify the search for PERSON and Mr D.

A decision of DATE set aside the decision of DATE as unlawful and unfounded , stating that the investigating authorities had not taken all possible measures . It ordered , inter alia , identification by the applicant of PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , an interview of Mr M. as a witness in connection with thedetermination as to whether he had participated in inflicting bodily injuries on the applicant , an examination of the question whether the materials concerning the theft of the applicant 's property should be examined separately , as it had not been proven during the preliminary investigation that the offence in question had been committed by the same individuals who had inflicted bodily injuries on the applicant , an examination of the question whether to discontinue the prosecution of Mr B. , who had expressed his intention to avail himself of an LAW of DATE that had been passed in respect of perpetrators of criminal offences during counter - terrorist operations within the territory of ORG , and the performance of other investigative measures . The applicant was informed of the decision of DATE by a letter of CARDINAL DATE .

The materials in the ORG 's possession reveal that during the investigation the applicant underwent forensic medical examinations on CARDINAL occasions . It appears that the applicant was first examined by experts on DATE . The results of the examination are unclear because the relevant report is missing .

The case file contains a report on the applicant 's forensic medical examination dated DATE . The results of that examination are unclear because the relevant part of the document is illegible . The report referred , however , to the forensic medical examination which the applicant had undergone earlier . It stated , in particular :

“ A forensic medical examination was ordered on DATE in order to establish the degree of damage inflicted on the applicant 's health by unlawful actions of the ORG officers . According to expert report no . CARDINAL of DATE , it was established that [ the applicant ] had lost his hearing capacity , had a scar on his left ear , and had CARDINAL teeth missing from his upper jaw . The report does not indicate [ the applicant 's ] other injuries , nor does it evaluate the degree of damage caused to his health . It is therefore necessary at present to conduct an additional forensic medical examination in order to establish and evaluate all injuries inflicted on [ the applicant ] by unlawful actions of police officers . ”

A report of DATE attested to the closed fracture of the applicant 's CARDINAL ribs on the right side , the amputation of his left ear and the complete loss of hearing in the left ear , scars on the left side of the lower jaw and traumatic extraction of CARDINAL teeth from the upper jaw . The report indicated that the applicant 's ear could have been amputated by a sharp tool such as a knife or similar object and that the other injuries could have been sustained as a result of the repeated application of hard blunt object(s ) , possibly during the period and in the circumstances described by the applicant . It then stated that the total deafness in the left ear had entailed a considerable and lasting disability and that the ablation of the left ear had led to a facial defect necessitating plastic surgery . The report also mentioned that at present the applicant complained of deafness in his left ear and of discomfort caused by the absence of his left ear and that he was wearing his hair long in an attempt to hide his defect and avoided other people , including his friends and relatives , as he felt embarrassed about his appearance .

By an investigator 's decision of DATE the applicant was granted victim status . The decision did not refer to any case number and was signed by the applicant to the effect that he had been informed of that decision on the same date and his procedural rights had been explained to him .

The materials in the ORG 's possession reveal that in the period DATE and DATE the investigating authorities sent a number of queries and requests to law - enforcements bodies in GPE and in GPE . In particular , they sought and obtained a list of police officers of ORG of the ORG seconded to the Oktyabrskiy VOVD in DATE , photographs and transcripts of witness interviews of a number of those officers .

On an unspecified date the applicant identified Mr PERSON from a photograph as the guard of the IVS of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD who had let into the applicant 's cell CARDINAL individuals who had cut off his ear . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE PERSON also identified PERSON , stating that the latter had guarded the ORG of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD in DATE and that it was he who had let in QUANTITY individuals , CARDINAL of whom had then cut off the applicant 's ear .

On DATE the applicant identified Mr B. from a photograph as the officer who , upon the applicant 's delivery to the Oktyabrskiy VOVD on DATE , had beaten him , along with other officers , with an automatic rifle butt and then pressed a red - hot metal bar into the palm of his right hand , his face , forehead and tongue , and had cut the applicant 's hair and forced him to chew it . On DATE PERSON also identified PERSON from a photograph , stating that he had heard the latter , in the office of the head of the ORG of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD , order one of his subordinates to smash detainees ' fingers with a sledgehammer . PERSON also stated that PERSON had been aware of all unlawful actions that had taken place in the ORG of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD .

On DATE the applicant identified Mr M. from a photograph as the officer who , at the relevant period , had been seconded from ORG as head of ORG of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD and who , according to a relevant decision , had committed suicide on DATE . The applicant stated that PERSON had never committed any form of physical violence against him . On DATE PERSON identified PERSON from a photograph as an officer of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD and stated that the latter had not been involved in any incidents with him .

On DATE the applicant and PERSON identified Mr Ab . from a photograph as the guard at the ORG of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD who had photographed the applicant immediately after his ear had been cut off ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

NORP The decision of CARDINAL DATE by which Mr PERSON was charged under LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) stated that , on DATE , the latter had neglected his duties as a guard of the ORG of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD because , in breach of the relevant regulations , he had opened the applicant 's cell and let in unidentified officers of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD , one of whom had then cut off the applicant 's ear thus causing severe damage to the applicant 's health . The report went on to say that PERSON had further neglected his official duties by failing to report the incident to his superiors .

CARDINAL decisions of DATE stated that PERSON had failed to appear at the requests of the investigating authorities and that his whereabouts were unknown . CARDINAL of the decisions accordingly banned PERSON from leaving his place of residence and another one ordered that a search for him be organised .

On DATE the applicant identified Mr NORP from a photograph as the person who had cut off his ear at the ORG of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD on TIME . The applicant stated that he had never seen that individual before the incident of DATE and that he was certain that it was the man who had inflicted the said injury on him . The applicant added that at the time of the incident the identified person 's face had been thinner .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigator requested a prosecutor to authorise an extension of the period of the preliminary investigation . The decision listed the investigative measures that had been taken , including questioning the applicant and granting him victim status , questioning a number of officials of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD , including Mr P. , PERSON . , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON . , PERSON , PERSON . , PERSON and PERSON , questioning PERSON , seizing photographs of officers of ORG of the ORG seconded for the relevant period to the Oktyabrskiy VOVD and identification by the applicant and PERSON from photographs of officers allegedly implicated in the offence . The decision stated that given that the officers who had been serving at the PERSON during the relevant period lived in GPE , in DATE the investigator had been seconded there and had obtained evidence of the involvement of a number of those officers in the alleged offence . In particular , PERSON , who had been identified by the applicant from a photograph , and PERSON had confirmed that PERSON had let officers from the special fire group of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD into the applicant 's cell and that the officers had then cut off the applicant 's ear . The decision went on to say that charges of aggravated negligence of official duties had been brought against PERSON , who was at present on the federal wanted list as he was absconding from the investigating authorities . According to the decision , it had so far been impossible to interview Mr Ab . , identified by the applicant from a photograph , and PERSON , as he had been on DATE leave in GPE . The decision also mentioned that the applicant had identified Mr NORP from a photograph as the person who had cut off his ear and stated that measures were being taken with a view to establishing Mr NORP 's whereabouts and bringing charges against him . The decision then listed the investigative measures which should be taken , including , in particular , questioning PERSON , PERSON . , PERSON and carrying out an additional forensic medical examination of the applicant as the results of the previous CARDINAL examinations had been conflicting .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE requested ORG of GPE to investigate the alleged involvement of officers of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD in the theft of the applicant 's property , including CARDINAL foreign - made cars , as during the investigation in case no . DATE one of the cars had been found in ORG at the home address of PERSON . , a former officer of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD , and another car had been found in PERSON at the temporary address of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON . and PERSON . , officers of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD . In a letter of DATE ORG of GPE replied to the prosecutor 's office of GPE saying that an internal check carried out upon the latter 's request had established that the aforementioned officers had never lived at the address indicated . According to the letter , the implication of those officers in the theft of the applicant 's cars had therefore not been established .

On DATE the applicant identified Mr N. from a photograph as the person who had cut off his ear at the ORG of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD on DATE . On DATE PERSON also identified Mr DATE from a photograph , stating that he resembled the person who had cut off the applicant 's ear and that at the time of the incident the person had had a thinner face and shorter hair .

NORP By a summons of CARDINAL DATE the investigator ordered Mr NORP , Mr N. and Mr Ab . , all residing in GPE , to appear at the prosecutor 's office of GPE for questioning as witnesses . In a letter of the same date the investigator requested the head of ORG of the Interior to secure the appearance of the aforementioned CARDINAL officers at the prosecutor 's office of GPE .

By CARDINAL similar decisions of CARDINAL DATE the investigator ordered officers PERSON and Ya . to be compulsorily brought in for questioning on DATE . The decisions stated that on DATE Mr N. and PERSON . had been summoned as suspects in the applicant 's case ; however , during the investigative measures in their regard both suspects had left the investigator 's officer under a far - fetched pretext , with the result that it had been impossible to complete the investigative measures .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG of the ORG informed the Oktyabrskiy ROVD that Mr PERSON was registered and lived at his home address in GPE , that at present he was on leave outside the territory of GPE and that his wife had refused to disclose his current whereabouts with reference to her constitutional right not to testify against her relatives .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE inquired of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD whether their instruction of DATE to activate the search for PERSON had been complied with . In a letter of DATE the Oktyabrskiy ROVD replied that , in an attempt to locate PERSON , the Oktyabrskiy ROVD had made enquiries at his place of residence and duty station , sent a description of his appearance to places where he might be and had verified the relevant records to check whether he had ever bought railway tickets . The letter stated that , to date , PERSON whereabouts had not been established .

NORP In a letter of DATE the Oktyabrskiy ROVD informed the investigator that they had established the whereabouts of PERSON who was residing at his home address in GPE ; however , it was impossible to deliver Mr PERSON to the prosecutor 's office of GPE because he was under an undertaking not to leave his place of residence pending the criminal proceedings against him in the present case . In a letter of DATE the Oktyabrskiy ROVD further informed the investigating authorities that PERSON had been removed from the federal wanted list because his permanent place of residence had been established .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigator , upon a request by the applicant 's lawyer , ordered an additional forensic medical examination of the applicant , stating that the report of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) had been incomplete and had not addressed one of the questions by the investigating authorities .

By a decision of CARDINAL September CARDINAL the prosecutor 's office of GPE rejected a complaint by the applicant 's lawyer about the investigator 's refusal to grant the applicant and his counsel full access to the criminal investigation file . The decision stated that the investigator had allowed the applicant and his lawyer to study , without making copies , reports on investigative measures in which the applicant had taken part and decisions ordering expert examinations and reports on the results thereof , and to receive copies of decisions to institute and suspend criminal proceedings and a decision to declare the applicant a victim in the case . The decision went on to say that , under the relevant legal provision , a victim could have full access to the file and make copies of the materials only upon the completion of the investigation and that , given that the investigation in case no . DATE was still in progress , the investigator had rightly refused the applicant and his lawyer access to any other materials in the file .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigator requested a prosecutor to authorise the extension of the period of the preliminary investigation . The decision stated , in particular :

“ The preliminary investigation in the present case has established the following:-

“ Mr B. , performing the duties of head of the ORG of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD ... , on DATE ... clearly in excess of his authority , along with other unidentified persons , beat and kicked [ the applicant ] on various parts of his body , burnt the palm [ of the applicant 's hand ] with a metal bar , cut [ the applicant 's ] hair and forced the latter to eat it .

Mr PERSON , performing the duties of head of the convoy group ... , when on duty in the IVS of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD ... , on DATE at TIME let into a cell of the IVS Mr D. – the deputy head of the special fire group DATE and other unidentified persons . Mr NORP , being in the state of alcohol intoxication and having a knife , along with other unidentified persons , entered the cell where [ the applicant ] and PERSON were held , and , acting deliberately ... in clear excess of his authority , knocked [ the applicant ] down and started kicking him in various parts of his body . Thereafter an unidentified person held the applicant down whilst PERSON , using his knife , cut off [ the applicant 's ] left ear .

Mr Ya . , performing the duties of deputy head of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD ... , in the period from DATE until DATE , ... along with other unidentified persons stole from the applicant 's house ... an ORG car belonging to [ the applicant ] and sold it for ORG CARDINAL to PERSON . ”

The decision thus stated that the preliminary investigation should be extended because it was necessary to carry out numerous investigative measures and , in particular , to arrest PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . and to seek authorisation from court to place them in detention , bring charges against them and question them , conduct searches at their places of residence , organise , if necessary , confrontations between the CARDINAL individuals in question and the applicant and PERSON , prepare a bill of indictment , and so forth .

NORP In an application of CARDINAL DATE the applicant requested the investigator to interview PERSON . PERSON . , PERSON . and PERSON . DATE brothers of the deceased PERSON . DATE in connection with the circumstances of the theft of his property , including his cars , stating that they , together with officers from LOC , had been implicated in that offence , which could be confirmed by numerous eyewitness statements .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the investigator informed the applicant that his application of DATE had been granted and invited him to appear at the prosecutor 's office of GPE for questioning . The applicant states that he is unaware whether the aforementioned three persons were questioned .

The case file contains transcripts of the applicant 's interviews of CARDINAL and DATE in which he described the circumstances of his arrest by the police and submitted that during his detention his property had been stolen from him , including his cars in respect of which he had kept the papers .

It can be ascertained from the case - file materials that PERSON , the applicant 's cellmate ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , was questioned on several occasions .

When questioned on an unspecified date in DATE , PERSON stated that he had seen unknown military officers enter the cell in which he and the applicant had been kept and cut off the applicant 's ear . PERSON also described the officer who had done it and stated that he would be able to recognise him .

During a witness interview of DATE , PERSON made similar statements . In particular , he submitted that he had been apprehended on DATE and placed in the applicant 's cell . PERSON stated that he had not noticed any visible injuries on the applicant . He further stated that DATE CARDINAL unknown individuals of NORP ethnic origin had entered the cell ; they had been inebriated and CARDINAL of them had had a moustache . He confirmed that he would be able to recognize the person in question . According to PERSON , the ORG guard had told the intruders that they should not touch PERSON , but that they could do what they wanted with the applicant . The man with the moustache had ordered PERSON to step aside and turn his back ; the latter had slightly turned his head , however , and had been able to see one of the intruders knock the applicant down and hold him down whilst the man with the moustache took a knife and cut off the applicant 's ear . The latter had been shouting very loudly and both intruders had been cursing . They had then left . PERSON added that over DATE various officers had entered the cell and had severely beaten him and the applicant . Among those who had beaten them , PERSON remembered CARDINAL officers seconded from ORG .

NORP In an interview of DATE Mr PERSON gave oral evidence similar to that of DATE . In reply to the investigator 's question he also stated that PERSON , whom he had previously identified from a photograph ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , resembled the person who had cut off the applicant 's ear ; however , he could not affirm that it had definitely been the same person as the incident had taken place long before .

PERSON , who from DATE until DATE was seconded from ORG as a senior inquiry officer at FAC , stated during an interview of DATE that he had been investigating a criminal case against the applicant , that the latter 's head had been bandaged and that , when being questioned in the latter respect , the applicant had submitted that CARDINAL or CARDINAL unknown persons had cut off his ear DATE before he had been apprehended by officers of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD . PERSON also stated that neither the applicant nor he had known who had cut off the applicant 's ear and that the applicant had received the necessary medical aid during his detention .

During an interview of DATE PERSON stated that he did not remember what the applicant had looked like , whether the applicant had had any bodily injuries , whether his head had been bandaged , whether he had made any complaints about beatings in the ORG of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD and whether he had been provided with any medical assistance . According to PERSON , he had heard that somebody had cut off the applicant 's ear ; however , he did not remember who had told him about that incident and he did not know who could have done it .

NORP In an interview of DATE PERSON stated that he did not know which of the police officers could have inflicted bodily injuries on the applicant and denied stealing any items of the applicant 's property .

Mr B. , who DATE was seconded from ORG to GPE as the head of the IVS of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD , stated during questioning on DATE that , in practice , he had performed his duties as head of the ORG starting from DATE , as prior to that date the ORG had not existed , in the absence of necessary documentation . According to PERSON , when the applicant had been placed in the newly created ORG , he had had a fresh wound sustained as a result of amputation of his ear , which , as the applicant had said to PERSON , had been performed by an unknown man dressed in camouflage uniform . PERSON having known or seen the applicant before , or having known those who had cut off his ear or having let anyone into the applicant 's cell . He stated that he had reported the incident to the PERSON prosecutor 's office , which had conducted an inquiry in that connection and had refused to institute criminal proceedings . He also stated that he had been told by someone that the applicant had explained that his ear had been cut off a DATE or CARDINAL prior to his detention , by unknown members of illegal armed groups , for the applicant 's refusal to cooperate with them .

In an interview of CARDINAL DATE Mr B. stated that he had found out about the incident of DATE . In particular , he had been told that during that night several men , who had been drunk , had entered the applicant 's cell and that CARDINAL of them had cut off his ear . According to PERSON , they had probably been officers of the special fire group of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD . PERSON stated that he did not know why there had been no internal inquiry in the PERSON in connection with the infliction of injuries on the applicant . He insisted that he had performed his duties in strict compliance with the relevant regulations and had never used any form of physical violence against detainees or received any information that any violence had been used by his subordinates .

NORP In a witness interview of DATE Mr Z. confirmed that on several occasions he had been on duty as a guard of the ORG of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD . However , he denied knowing the applicant 's surname or the circumstances of the latter 's arrest . Mr PERSON also stated that he did not remember whether he had been on duty on any date between CARDINAL and DATE , whether he had let anyone into the cells , and whether “ anyone 's ear [ had been ] cut off in the cell ” . Mr PERSON also stated that initially visits to the ORG had not been registered at all , and that subsequently they had been noted down in a notebook .

During questioning on DATE Mr PERSON stated that he had a clear memory of the applicant who had been detained for having kept a ORG block and had been held in same cell as Mr PERSON then stated that on DATE which he no longer remembered DATE when he had been on duty , a group of officers from the special fire group of ORG had entered the ORG . According to PERSON , the officers had been drunk and told him to let them into the applicant 's cell as they intended to talk with the detainees . Mr PERSON had obeyed . He maintained that he had not watched what had been going on in the cell ; however , some time later he had heard a moan and looked into the cell . Mr PERSON had seen the applicant on his haunches with one of his ears missing . There had been a lot of blood on the floor . The officers of the special fire group had also been there ; however , PERSON could not remember which of them had been holding a knife or who had cut off the applicant 's ear . According to PERSON , he had “ expressed his discontent ” , following which the officers had left . Thereafter PERSON and another guard had provided the applicant with medical assistance . Mr PERSON also confirmed that an officer of NORP origin whose surname was ORG . had served in LOC at that time , but he did not remember whether Mr Ab . had been in the cell when the applicant 's ear had been cut off or whether PERSON ORG . had had a photographic camera .

In a witness interview of CARDINAL DATE PERSON made statements similar to those of DATE .

In a witness interview of DATE Mr PERSON . , who DATE had been an officer of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD , submitted that in DATE or DATE PERSON , a driver at the Oktyabrskiy VOVD , had told him that he had bought for ORG CARDINAL CARDINAL cars from police officers seconded from GPE . According to PERSON . , one of the cars had been left in PERSON and the other one had been conveyed to ORG and left in the courtyard of PERSON PERSON . 's house where it had remained for DATE . PERSON . further stated that at some point the applicant , who had come to ORG , had requested him to return the car , claiming to be its owner ; the applicant had allegedly also accused PERSON . of stealing his other property . PERSON . stated that on CARDINAL occasions he had proposed that the applicant take the car but that the latter had refused stating that PERSON . should also pay for the other stolen property . According to PERSON . , the car had then been taken away by federal servicemen .

Mr A. stated during a witness interview of CARDINAL DATE that in DATE or DATE he , along with CARDINAL other police officers – PERSON and PERSON . DATE had met a group of servicemen in camouflage uniform in an LOC truck and an armoured personnel carrier who had been towing CARDINAL foreign - made cars . According to PERSON , the officer in command of the convoy had said that they were officers of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD and then offered to purchase the CARDINAL cars from them for RUB CARDINAL . The CARDINAL men had agreed to buy the cars , although , in PERSON submission , they had not known where the cars had been taken from , and who had been their owner . PERSON further stated that he and PERSON . and PERSON . had hidden one of the cars in a nearby courtyard and taken the other one to their place of residence and then , DATE , to PERSON . 's courtyard in ORG . According to PERSON , DATE the applicant had expressed his intention to retrieve his cars and Mr A. had told him that CARDINAL of the vehicles was in GPE , but the applicant had not taken it ; however , he had taken the CARDINAL that had remained in PERSON . PERSON added that the applicant had not refunded them the money which they had paid for the cars . He also stated that he would be able to recognise the police officers who had sold them the vehicles .

In a witness interview of CARDINAL DATE PERSON made statements similar to those of PERSON

Mr PERSON stated during questioning on DATE that at some point he had noticed a car in the courtyard of the house in which he had lived with PERSON , PERSON . and PERSON . and that they had explained to him that they had purchased the vehicle from federal servicemen . According to PERSON ORG , DATE the car had been taken to the courtyard of PERSON . 's house in GPE , and some time later , upon PERSON . 's request , PERSON had told the applicant that he could retrieve the car . PERSON claimed that the applicant had not taken the car but had retrieved another one that had remained in PERSON .

The transcript of a witness interview on DATE with Mr Sul . is illegible .

NORP During questioning of DATE PERSON retracted his statements of DATE and stated that he had never participated in the purchase of the cars . He also submitted that he had heard from PERSON . that the latter had purchased the cars from PERSON . , the deputy head of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD .

In witness interviews of CARDINAL DATE PERSON , PERSON . And PERSON made statements somewhat similar to those of DATE . In particular , they stated that DATE they and PERSON . had met a convoy of an LOC vehicle and an armoured personnel carrier escorting CARDINAL foreign - made cars and that PERSON . had purchased the cars and taken one of them to ORG and left the other one in the courtyard of LOC . According to the CARDINAL men , the applicant had visited Mr Dhz . in GPE DATE and attempted to retrieve the car but Mr PERSON . had stated that he would return the car in exchange for money equal to the amount he had paid for it .

Mr Dub . , who DATE was seconded from ORG to GPE as head of LOC , stated during questioning on DATE that he remembered a detainee with an amputated ear who had been delivered to the Oktyabrskiy VOVD . PERSON . insisted that none of the police officers had cut off the detainee 's ear and that the Grozny prosecutor 's office had carried out an inquiry into the incident and had decided to dispense with criminal proceedings . PERSON . stated that the applicant had told him in conversation that his ear had been cut off before the detention and that it had been done by CARDINAL of several persons in camouflage uniform who had broken into the applicant 's house . In a witness interview of CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON . made similar statements . He also added that during the entire period of his secondment there had been no foreign - made cars or satellite dishes on the territory of LOC .

During questioning on DATE Mr S. , an officer who had carried out a search in the applicant 's house on DATE , denied seizing or stealing any items of the applicant 's property .

In a witness interview of DATE , PERSON . , seconded DATE from ORG to GPE as an officer of the IVS of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD , submitted that he had heard from his colleagues that the applicant had been delivered to the ORG with his ear cut off . According to PERSON . , none of the police officers had inflicted any injuries on the applicant in his presence and the latter had received regular medical assistance in respect of his ablated ear . PERSON . also stated that had learnt from the applicant that his ear had been cut off DATE prior to his detention .

Mr Ya . , who DATE had been seconded from ORG to GPE as the deputy head of PERSON , stated during a witness interview of DATE that he did not know how the applicant had received severe bodily injuries and that he had not conducted an inquiry in that respect as it had not fallen within his competence . PERSON . added that he had heard from other officers that the applicant 's ear had been cut off by unknown members of illegal armed groups in revenge for the applicant 's cooperation with federal forces . Mr Ya . denied stealing any property from the applicant or selling to anyone any cars belonging to the applicant . He said that he did not know Mr A. or PERSON . and could not explain why they had indicated that they had purchased the applicant 's cars from him . Mr Ya . also added that PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had informed him of the seizure during the search of CARDINAL March CARDINAL of the applicant 's satellite dish .

Mr S. , when questioned on DATE , again denied having seized any of the applicant 's property during the search and stated that it was unclear to him why PERSON . had made a statement to that effect . PERSON added that there had been a garage in the courtyard of the applicant 's house but it had been empty and that he had not seen any cars in the courtyard either . Mr S. also explained that the search of the applicant 's house had been carried out on the basis of operational information received from ORG to the effect that the applicant had provided food and water to illegal armed groups .

Mr NORP , identified by the applicant as the officer of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD who had cut off his ear ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , submitted during a witness interview of CARDINAL DATE that the applicant 's surname was unfamiliar to him . He stated , however , that the applicant might have been the person whom he had arrested in DATE following operational information received by the law - enforcement authorities to the effect that the applicant , who had been assisting ORG in distributing food and water to local residents , had given some of the provisions to illegal fighters . According to PERSON , a group of police officers , in CARDINAL vehicles , had arrived at the place where the applicant had been working DATE , and the decision had been taken to arrest the applicant without attracting the attention of local residents . Mr D. had approached the applicant and asked him to show the officers a certain street . After the applicant had got into CARDINAL of the vehicles , he had been delivered to the Oktyabrskiy VOVD and left there . Mr NORP stated that at the time of his arrest the applicant had had no visible injuries . He added that he had never met the applicant again and strongly denied inflicting any injuries on him . Mr NORP stated that could not explain why the applicant had identified him as the person who had cut off his ear .

The case file also contains transcripts of witness interviews of a number of police officers who had participated in the search of the applicant 's house on DATE and officers who had served in the PERSON during the relevant period . They all denied taking any property from the applicant 's house , including any vehicles , or knowledge of the origin of the applicant 's bodily injuries .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE instituted criminal proceedings under LAW ( aggravated theft ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( deliberate destruction of another 's property ) of FAC in connection with the theft of the applicant 's ORG minivan and property from his house and the destruction of his house and outhouses , which had been established during the investigation in case no . DATE . The decision stated that the applicant 's aforementioned property had been stolen and destroyed during his detention in the ORG of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD . It went on to say in that , so far as these offences were concerned , there was no objective evidence that they had been committed by officers from the Oktyabrskiy VOVD . Accordingly , the decision ordered that the relevant materials be disjoined from case no . DATE .

NORP In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor 's office of LOC forwarded the case file to FAC for investigation .

By a decision of DATE an investigator of ORG took up the case .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was granted victim status . The decision was signed by the applicant to the effect that he had been apprised of it on DATE .

In an interview of DATE the applicant made statements similar to his submissions to ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . He also claimed that a number of officers from the Oktyabrskiy VOVD , including Mr PERSON . , Mr Ya . and Mr Ab . , had been involved in looting his property .

NORP In CARDINAL similar decisions of DATE and DATE the investigation in case no . DATE was suspended . The very succinct decisions stated that it had been impossible to identify those responsible although “ all possible investigative measures had been carried out ” and instructed ORG of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD to search for the alleged perpetrators . The decisions did not indicate which measures had been taken during the investigation .

A decision of DATE set aside the decision of DATE as unlawful and unfounded and ordered that the investigation be recommenced . The decision pointed out that it was necessary to obtain , from the materials in case no . DATE , copies of relevant witness interviews with a view to taking necessary procedural decisions and carrying out other indispensable investigative measures .

By a decision of DATE the investigator took up the case .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the investigator requested the prosecutor 's office of GPE to send him copies of witness interviews relating to the alleged looting of the applicant 's property .

No documents concerning DATE have been submitted to ORG . According to the Government , the investigation in case no . DATE was most recently suspended on DATE ; and on DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE ordered that the proceedings be resumed .

Until DATE criminal - law matters were governed by LAW RSFSR . On DATE the old Code was replaced by LAW .

Article CARDINAL of the new Code provides that the decision of an investigator or prosecutor to dispense with criminal proceedings or to terminate criminal proceedings , and other decisions and acts or omissions which are liable to infringe the constitutional rights and freedoms of the parties to criminal proceedings or to impede citizens ' access to justice may be appealed against to a district court , which is empowered to check the lawfulness and grounds of the impugned decisions .

Article CARDINAL of the new Code enshrines the rule that data from the preliminary investigation may not be disclosed . Paragraph CARDINAL of the same LAW provides that information from the investigation file may be divulged with the permission of a prosecutor or investigator but only in so far as it does not infringe the rights and lawful interests of the participants in the criminal proceedings and does not prejudice the investigation . It is prohibited to divulge information about the private life of the participants in criminal proceedings without their permission .

Article CARDINAL of the new Code states , in its relevant part , that no investigative measures shall be taken after the suspension of the preliminary investigation .