6 RUDYAK v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT 19 April 2006 the court had ordered that his complaints be investigated, so he should have enquired about the progress of the proceedings in his case (see Gabibullayev, cited above). 36. The Government maintained that the applicant’s situation differed from other Ukrainian cases where the decisions not to institute criminal proceedings had been repeatedly quashed, with the result that after a certain lapse of time such appeals had became devoid of any prospect of success (see Kobets v. Ukraine, 16437/04, § 54, 14 February 2008). In the present case the applicant had never challenged the decision not to institute criminal proceedings. Therefore, in the present case there were no reasons to consider an appeal to a court against such a decision as an ineffective remedy. 37. The applicant submitted that on 12 May 2005 he had asked the investigating officer to record the severity of his injuries. However, this request had been ignored. He had also complained to various prosecutors of the unlawful actions of the police officers but to no avail. 38. The applicant further submitted that he had only learned about the decision of 27 June 2006 when he had been studying the case-file materials after his sentencing on 11 August 2006. 39. The Court notes that the Government’s objection is closely linked to the applicant’s complaint under the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention. In these circumstances, it joins the objection to the merits of the applicant’s complaint (see Lotarev v. Ukraine, no. 29447/04, § 74, 8 April 2010). 40. The Court further notes that the applicant’s complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. 2. Medical assistance in detention 41. The Government submitted that the applicant had not complained at the national level of a lack of adequate medical assistance in detention: neither to a prosecutor, nor to a court. He had also not raised this issue before the detention facility’s administration (see Vinokurov v. Russia and Ukraine (dec.), no. 2937/04, 16 October 2007). 42. Moreover, the Government considered that the applicant’s complaints in this respect were unsubstantiated. The Government noted that the applicant had been diagnosed with optic subatrophy in the left eye in November 2004. The applicant submitted that he had planned to have eye surgery. However, the Government submitted that there was no evidence that the applicant had ever been recommended for or prescribed such surgery. In detention, the applicant’s state of health had been periodically supervised by an ophthalmologist. On no occasion had any deterioration of