SELMOUNI v. FRANCE JUDGMENT 14 49. On 21 October 1996 the investigating judge officially informed the five police officers implicated by the applicant that they were being placed under investigation. 50. The five police officers against whom Mr Selmouni and Mr Madi had lodged their complaints, namely Mr Hervé, Mr Staebler, Mr Gautier, Mr Leclercq and Mr Hurault, were questioned on their first appearance on 10, 24 and 31 January, 28 February and 7 March 1997. They were placed under investigation for assault by public servants occasioning total unfitness for work for more than eight days. Mr Hervé, Mr Staebler, Mr Gautier and Mr Hurault were also placed under investigation for sexual assault committed by a number of assailants or accomplices. 51. On 24 April 1998, in view of the denials by the police officers, who maintained that a “struggle” had ensued when Mr Selmouni was arrested, the investigating judge appointed Dr Garnier as expert again, instructing him to examine all Mr Selmouni’s medical files and certificates and give his opinion as to whether the injuries found could have been caused in a “struggle” when he was arrested at approximately 8.30 p.m. on 25 November 1991 or whether they supported the applicant’s allegations. 52. On the same day the applicant requested that a number of investigative measures be carried out, including a further confrontation between witnesses and further medical reports in order to determine the damage he had suffered, and an inspection by the judge of the premises on which he had been held in police custody. In an order of 7 May 1998 the investigating judge dismissed the requests, on the ground that some of them had been partly satisfied. 53. On 4 June 1998 a confrontation was held between the applicant and the four police officers. He described the part each of them had played while he had been in their custody. 54. Dr Garnier’s report was filed on 3 July 1998. The expert concluded his report in the following terms: “An examination of the medical file shows that doctors found a progression of injury marks on the patient’s body during the period in police custody. A number of them could certainly have been caused during a ‘struggle’ when the patient was arrested at approximately 8.30 p.m. on 25 November 1991, as described by the CID officers in question. The injuries, particularly those on the lower limbs and buttocks, which were not seen on the first examination, would certainly have been sustained after that arrest and support the patient’s statements. As regards the acts of sodomy described by the patient, the negative result of the test carried out on 9 June 1993, that is one and a half years after the initial facts, neither disproves nor proves that they occurred.”