FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 1160/05
by Melik Anatolyevich BEDIKYAN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 16 September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
	Christos Rozakis, President,
	Nina Vajić,
	Anatoly Kovler,
	Elisabeth Steiner,
	Khanlar Hajiyev,
	Dean Spielmann,
	Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 December 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Melik Anatolyevich Bedikyan, is a Russian national who was born in 1980 and lives in the town of Ulyanovsk. At present the applicant is serving a sentence of imprisonment in penitentiary establishment IK-8. The respondent Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 4 March 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of a multiple car theft.
Over the next two days the applicant was questioned by police investigators. The applicant alleges that they used physical force to extract a confession from him, including the use of beatings and electricity. It appears that the applicant eventually admitted his guilt.
The certificate issued by the administration of pre-trial detention centre IZ-73/1 states that upon the applicant's admission to pre-trial detention centre IZ-73/1 on 6 March 2004, his medical condition was examined and the following injuries were detected:
“... a bruise of yellow-violet colour in the area of the right eye. Bruises of greenish colour in the area of the groin on both sides. Scratches covered with a crust on both cheek bones.”
The outcome of the criminal proceedings against the applicant is not entirely clear. It appears that by now he has already been convicted by the courts at two instances and is serving his sentence of imprisonment in penitentiary establishment IK-8 in Chelyabinsk.
On an unspecified date the applicant applied to the prosecutor's office in respect of the injuries allegedly inflicted on him on 4 March 2004.
It appears that initially his application remained without response.
After the applicant's multiple requests to serve on him a full written version of the answer, the prosecutor's office briefly responded that on 3 June 2004 it was decided not to grant the application.
After the applicant's complaints dated 16 and 20 July 2004, on 29 July 2004 the prosecutor's office responded by informing him that an additional inquiry was pending.
On 6 August 2004 an investigator of the prosecutor's office of the Leninskiy District of the town of Ulyanovsk decided to reject the applicant's request to bring criminal proceedings in respect of the incident. The investigator questioned two police officers, V. and U., who flatly denied the ill-treatment and studied some case file materials from the applicant's criminal case, having then concluded that the applicant's allegations were unsubstantiated. It appears that a medical examination dated 3 August 2004 essentially confirmed the results of the examination of 6 March 2004.
The applicant appealed against this decision to the courts.
The appeal was rejected by the courts at two instances on 29 September and 3 November 2004.
In the proceedings the applicant alleged that in the course of an unrelated criminal case the search conducted at the premises of the police station in question on 18 May 2004 revealed a car charger with sets of wires as well as gas masks in all offices. He alleges that these were precisely the devices used to torture him. The appeal court mentioned the allegation in its decision of 3 November 2004 and discarded it as irrelevant without refuting it.
It appears that the applicant's domestic counsel tried to gain access to the materials of the prosecution inquiry upon the applicant's complaints and was refused.
The refusal was upheld as lawful by the Leninskiy District Court and the Ulyanovsk Regional Court on 14 January and 16 February 2005 respectively. The courts decided that the domestic law did not provide for such an opportunity.
COMPLAINTS
1.  Under Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complained about ill-treatment at the hands of police officers and the authorities' refusal to properly investigate the incident. He was also dissatisfied with his inability to gain access to the materials of the inquiry, claiming that the refusal was discriminatory and unfair.
2.  Without relying on any Convention provisions, he also seemed to be dissatisfied with the criminal proceedings against him on account of the confession allegedly extracted through torture.
THE LAW
On 7 May 2009 the President of the Court gave notice of the application to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (c) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 14 September 2009.
By letter of 17 September 2009 the applicant was requested to submit, by 19 November 2009, his comments on the Government's observations.
As the applicant had not replied, by letter of 27 January 2010, sent by registered mail, his attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court can strike a case out of its list where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that an applicant does not intend to pursue the application.
The Court notes that, despite the Court's letters of 17 September 2009 and 27 January 2010, the applicant has not submitted his observations in reply to those of the Government. Nor has he made any other submissions to the Court.
Against this background, the Court considers that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the application. The Court finds no reasons concerning respect for human rights warranting the further examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
	Søren Nielsen	Christos Rozakis
	Registrar	President