“The Court notes, further, that the medical reports provided by the applicant refer to inflammation and bruising on the left hand following the first incident and to abdominal pain and bruising to the hand and knee regarding the incident of 23 July 2005. Neither investigating judge no. 9 nor no. 11 nor the Audiencia Provincial investigated that point further, but simply disregarded the reports on the grounds that they were undated or not conclusive as to the cause of the injuries. The Court considers that the information contained in those reports called for investigative measures to be carried out by the judicial authorities.”124 “Reference might also be made to a more recent preliminary inquiry, instigated on 2 June 2006 in respect of “B”. This prisoner was transferred to SIZO No. 1 on 23 May 2006 and the medical examination upon arrival revealed multiple bodily injuries which he alleged were the result of beatings by ORB-2 officers. A decision of refusal to initiate a criminal case was taken on the basis of the medical register of the IVS and the feldsher’s explanations to the effect that “B” had, on his arrival at the IVS on 13 May 2006, displayed injuries received at the time of apprehension; no forensic examination was ever requested.”125 ff appropriate witness statements, possibly including statements of other detainees, custodial staff, members of the public, law enforcement officers and other officials; Ill-treatment usually takes place out of sight. Nonetheless, investigations should involve genuine efforts to gather evidence from persons who may have witnessed the incident in question or be able to shed light on the circumstances surrounding it. This is reflected in the Istanbul Protocol, which requires that: “Information must be obtained from anyone present on the premises or in the area under investigation to determine whether they were witness to the incidents of alleged torture.”126 Equally, the Court has often identified failures to question the appropriate persons: “The investigator did not try to find and question individuals who had been detained with the applicant in Bogorodsk and Leninskiy police stations between 10 and 19 September 1998 and who could have possessed useful information about the applicant’s behaviour before the attempted suicide; and it is unclear whether V, one of the applicant’s ward-mates, was ever questioned by the investigator.”127 124. B.S. v. Spain, Judgment of 24 July 2012, application no. 47159/08 , para. 44. 125. Appendix I to the CPT’s Public Statement of 13 March 2007 concerning the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation, CPT/Inf (2007) 17, para. 48. 126. Istanbul Protocol, para.103. 127. Mikheev v. Russia, Judgment of 26 January 2006, application no. 77617/01, para. 112. See also Barabanshchikov v. Russia, Judgment of 8 January 2009, application no. 36220/02, para. 62; Grimalovs v. Latvia, Judgment of 25 June 2013, application no. 6087/03, para. 115. Explanatory note ► Page 49