6.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Belgorod. 7.  The applicant is a former employee of the Belgorod Customs Office (Белгородская таможня), where he occupied the post of Deputy Head of the Investigations Department (заместитель начальника отдела дознания). 8.  On 28 October 1999 the applicant was arrested and detained. Some time thereafter the investigating authority instituted criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of bribery, under the number 999161. 9.  On 14 July 2000 the Belgorod Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to four years' imprisonment. 10.   On 30 January 2001 the Supreme Court of Russia examined and dismissed the applicant's appeal against the judgment of 14 July 2000. 11.  The applicant was taken into custody on 28 October 1999. 12.  On 31 October 1999 the Belgorod Transport Prosecutor (Белгородский транспортный прокурор) authorised the applicant's detention on remand. 13.  The applicant contested the lawfulness of his detention on remand before the courts on 11 November 1999. 14.  By decision of 23 November 1999 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Belgorod (Октябрьский районный суд г. Белгорода) found the applicant's detention on remand to be lawful. 15.  On 29 November 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. 16.  On 29 December 1999 the Belgorod Regional Court (Белгородский областной суд) dismissed the applicant's appeal.
(b)  Detention order of 24 December 1999 and related proceedings 17.  On 24 December 1999 the Belgorod Transport Prosecutor and the South-Eastern Transport Prosecutor authorised the extension of the investigation and of the applicant's detention on remand for one month until 28 January 2000. 18.  On 30 December 1999 the applicant contested the lawfulness of the extension of his detention on remand before the courts. 19.  On 20 January 2000 the Western District Court of Belgorod (Федеральный суд Западного округа г. Белгорода) upheld the extension of the applicant's detention on remand. 20.  On 27 January 2000 the applicant and his defence counsel lodged an appeal against this decision, raising the same arguments. 21.  On 1 March 2000 the Belgorod Regional Court dismissed the appeal of the applicant and his defence counsel as groundless and upheld the order of 24 December 1999 and the decision of 20 January 2000.
(c)  Detention order of 24 January 2000 and related proceedings 22.  By order of 24 January 2000 the Belgorod Transport Prosecutor and the South-Eastern Transport Prosecutor authorised the extension of the applicant's detention on remand for a further month until 28 February 2000. 23.  On 8 February 2000 the applicant complained of the unlawfulness of the extension of his detention on remand before the courts. 24.  On 18 February 2000 the Western District Court of Belgorod confirmed the extension of the applicant's detention on remand. 25.  This decision was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 29 March 2000.
(d)  Detention order of 28 February 2000 and related proceedings 26.  On 28 February 2000 the Belgorod Transport Prosecutor and the South-Eastern Transport Prosecutor extended the applicant's detention until 28 March 2000. 27.  The applicant contested the decision in court. 28.  On 31 March 2000 the Western District Court of Belgorod rejected this appeal. 29.  The applicant, with the assistance of his defence counsel, appealed against these decisions. 30.  On 26 April 2000 the Belgorod Regional Court, ruling in final instance, dismissed the appeals of the applicant and his defence counsel and upheld the previous decisions.
(e)  Detention order of 21 March 2000 and related proceedings 31.  By order of 21 March 2000 the Belgorod Transport Prosecutor and the South-Eastern Transport Prosecutor authorised the extension of the applicant's detention on remand for a further month, until 28 April 2000. 32.  On 31 March 2000 the applicant contested the lawfulness of the extension of his detention on remand before the courts. 33.  On 10 April 2000, having heard the applicant and his counsel, the Western District Court of Belgorod rejected their arguments. 34.  The order of 21 March and the decision of 10 April 2000 were upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 10 May 2000.
(f)  Detention order of 21 April 2000 and the applicant's related complaint 35.  On 21 April 2000 a deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation (заместитель Генерального прокурора РФ) authorised the extension of the investigation and of the applicant's detention on remand until 28 May 2000. 36.  On 25 April 2000 the applicant contested the lawfulness of the extension of his detention on remand before the courts and requested his release. 37.  This complaint reached the District Court on 26 April 2000. 38.  On 25 May 2000 the South-Eastern Transport Prosecutor approved the bill of indictment, and the case was sent to the Belgorod Regional Court for trial. 39.  On 26 May 2000 the Western District Court of Belgorod rejected the applicant's application for release made on 25 April 2000. In doing so, the court stated that the applicant was charged with an offence for which he could be detained on the sole ground of the danger it represented. 40.  The court also added that relevant reasons and motives had been set out in the investigating authority's order of 21 April 2000, which had been authorised by the prosecutor. 41.  On 31 May 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision with the Regional Court. 42.  This appeal reached the Regional Court on 2 June 2000. According to the Government, it was joined to the applicant's case file and examined by the Regional Court on 20 June 2000 (see below). 43.  Throughout the period between 2000 and 2003 the applicant complained to various public authorities about the fact that no decision had been taken on his appeal lodged on 31 May 2000. 44.  By letter of 7 July 2003 the President of the Belgorod Regional Court informed the applicant that:
“Your statement that the appeal lodged against the decision of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Belgorod of 26 May 2000 was left without consideration is unconvincing. By the time the court received this appeal, on 2 June 2000, the criminal case against you had already been forwarded to the Regional Court and was no longer being processed by the investigating authority and the prosecutor whose decisions on detention you were contesting.
Taking this into account, your appeal was included in the case file ... as the arguments raised in it could be examined only when [the first] court hearing was being scheduled. Having decided to schedule a hearing and not to change the preventive measure imposed on you, the judge accordingly found your pre-trial detention to be lawful.”
(b)  Decision of 20 June 2000 and the applicant's related complaints 45.  On 30 May 2000, following transmission of the case to the court, the applicant lodged a motion with the Regional Court requesting that he be released because of his glaucoma. 46.  On 20 June 2000 the Belgorod Regional Court dismissed the applicant's motion and scheduled a hearing for 26 June 2000. In refusing to release the applicant, the court examined the lawfulness of the applicant's ongoing detention on remand. In particular, it found that the preventive measure in the form of detention had been imposed in accordance with the type and degree of danger to society of the offences with which the applicant was charged and that no substantial violations of the requirements of domestic law had occurred. It then decided to reject his request for release as groundless. 47.  On 21 June 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision, arguing for his release and raising a number of other arguments. 48.  On 13 September 2000 the Supreme Court of Russia, presided by judge G., dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 20 June 2000, finding this decision to be lawful and well-founded.
(c)  The applicant's release from custody 49.  On 6 September 2002 the applicant was released on parole. 50.  Prior to the institution of criminal proceedings on 28 October 1999, the applicant had twice suffered concussion for which he had received inpatient treatment in 1994 and 1997. 51.  On 23 June 1999 the applicant was diagnosed by an oculist with “incipient retinal angiopathy and essential hypertension of the right eye”. The oculist prescribed some eye drops and advised the applicant to undergo regular medical observation. 52.  It appears that the applicant underwent observation by an ophthalmologist, in the course of which the above diagnosis was confirmed, including a suspicion of glaucoma. He was advised to use the appropriate eye drops twice a day on an ongoing basis and to undergo surgery to the right eye. 53.  On 28 October 1999, at 10.10 p.m., the applicant was arrested in the entrance hall to his apartment building by officers of the Belgorod Regional Department for Combating Organised Crime (hereafter “the DFOC”, Управление по борьбе с организованной преступностью при УВД Белгородской области), when he was allegedly taking a bribe. 54.  The policemen, faced with resistance from the applicant, applied physical force to lay him down on the floor and then tied his hands with handcuffs. 55.  On 29 October 1999, at 4.05 p.m., the applicant was examined in the police station by a forensic medical expert from the Belgorod Regional Department of Forensic Medicine (Областное бюро судмедэкспертизы г. Белгорода) after he complained of dizziness and a slight feeling of nausea. The expert's report contained the following conclusions:
“There is hyperaemia of the skin, measuring 11 x 0.5 cm, on the rear of the right forearm in the area of the radiocarpal joint, between the interior and the exterior condyles. A similar one, measuring 3 x 0.4 cm, is evident in the area of the left radiocarpal joint next to the exterior condyle, and on the left side of the forehead (1 x 0.2 cm). There is a 2 x 1 cm abrasion on the front side of the left knee joint, covered by a dry red smooth surface at skin level. A similar abrasion of 0.3 x 0.3 cm is evident on the palmar surface of the lower part of the right forearm, surrounded by a 0.5 cm hyperaemia. A similar hyperaemia of soft tissue measuring 0.4 x 0.2 cm can be seen on the lateral surface of the proximal phalanx of the middle finger of the right hand. No other injuries have been detected.
... [the above injuries] may have been caused on 28 October 1999 by hard, blunt objects which had a surface liable to cause moderate trauma and did not cause damage to health.” 56.  The report did not mention any sign of, or complaint concerning, concussion. 57.  On 5 November 1999 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention centre IZ-26/1. 58.  On 11 November 1999 the applicant applied in writing to the head of the detention centre. He submitted that he had suffered concussion as a result of hitting his head against a concrete floor in the course of his arrest. He further submitted that he had been treated twice previously for concussion and was now experiencing the same symptoms: dizziness, lack of appetite, nausea, asthenia and a severe headache. 59.  On 15 November 1999, at the request of his relatives, the applicant was examined by an outside neurologist. The doctor, having heard the applicant's description of his symptoms, diagnosed him with the “after-effects of closed craniocerebral injuries”. He was prescribed injections of aminophylline, pyracetam and vitamin B6, and nootropil and vinpocetine in pill form. The applicant submitted that these drugs had been given to him by his wife, as they were not available in the detention centre. 60.  On 23 November 1999 the applicant applied to the Belgorod Transport Prosecutor, requesting a meeting with his wife to receive a delivery of medicines. He said that no medical assistance was being provided to him by the detention centre and that the supply of medicines there was inadequate. 61.  According to the information submitted by the Government, between 15 November and 13 December 1999 the applicant underwent inpatient treatment in the medical unit of IZ-26/1. The applicant was discharged in a satisfactory condition. 62.  On 1 and 14 December 1999 the applicant applied to the head of the detention centre stating that, despite the medication delivered to him by his wife, his health had deteriorated significantly; he was suffering from severe asthenia, his memory had deteriorated and he could not think clearly. He requested that measures, which he apparently did not specify, be taken. 63.  On 22 December 1999 the applicant was again examined by an outside neurologist whose report, prepared two days later, contained the following conclusions:
“[The applicant] has [previously] been examined by a neurologist and diagnosed with the after-effects of repeated closed craniocerebral injuries. He has received a full course of therapy. On 22 December 1999 [the applicant] was again examined by a neurologist and diagnosed with the after-effects of closed craniocerebral injuries coupled with asthenovegetative syndrome and disseminated neurological symptomatology. Treatment has been prescribed and a visit by an oculist recommended. Currently I find [the applicant's] general state of health to be satisfactory. He is receiving treatment and is under constant medical observation.” 64.  The extracts from the applicant's prison medical file submitted by the Government show that the entry in the file dated 22 December 1999 stated that the applicant's state of health had improved considerably following the course of medication. The doctor had prescribed a ten-day course of treatment. 65.  On 2 February 2000 the applicant again applied to the head of the detention centre. He submitted that, despite the course of treatment prescribed by the neurologist for his concussion, he was not getting better and was still feeling very unwell. Moreover, he had started suffering from unbearable pain in his eyes. He requested that he be examined by a neurologist and an oculist. 66.  On 15 March 2000 the applicant was examined in the pre-trial detention centre by an oculist invited at his wife's expense from a local clinic. The oculist's report contained the following conclusions:
“... [the applicant] has medium-degree myopia, retinal angiopathy and secondary glaucoma (essential hypertension).
Recommendations: (a) insertion of [eye drops], in a dose of 0.25%, into the right eye before going to bed and into the left eye twice a day; (b) an inpatient examination using special equipment; (c) surgical treatment in order to retain optic functions, as glaucoma causes atrophy of the optic nerves which leads to loss of eyesight to the point of blindness. The post-surgery period must include two to three weeks in a hospital, followed by medical observation for one to one and a half months. It is desirable to wait six months before operating on the second eye; (d) regular check-ups by an oculist not less than once every three months.” 67.  According to the applicant, the oculist did not prescribe any specific treatment against the pain in his eyes as this could be relieved only by means of surgery; he also warned the applicant that a delay in undergoing surgery might lead to blindness. The applicant also submitted that, according to the measurements carried out by the doctor, his intraocular pressure was 27 and 34 mmHg respectively. The applicant argued that the manifestly high pressure of 34 mmHg in one of his eyes provided proof of his medical condition. 68.  On 16 March 2000 the applicant complained to the head of the Department for the Execution of Sentences of the Ministry of Justice (начальник Управления исполнения наказаний МЮ РФ по Белгородской области) and the head of the detention centre that the authorities of the detention facility were not providing any surgical treatment for his glaucoma. 69.  On 17 March 2000 the head of the medical unit of the detention facility, upon an enquiry by the applicant's counsel, provided a medical certificate which indicated that the applicant was undergoing regular check‑ups in the medical unit in connection with his head trauma. It further repeated the recent findings of the oculist, stating that the applicant was suffering from first-degree retinal angiopathy and glaucoma of both eyes, and needed surgical treatment in order to retain his eyesight. It was noted that the applicant was currently undergoing conservative therapy. 70.  On 15 and 17 March 2000 the applicant allegedly discussed his state of health with the head of the medical unit, who told him that medical assistance was provided only to those patients who were in extreme need; the applicant did not fall into that category. He further said that he was not able to relieve the applicant's eye pain, call an oculist or perform surgery in the detention facility. He had the authority to transfer the applicant for surgery to the hospital for detainees in Voronezh, but only after the judgment against the applicant had become final. The applicant could not be transferred before then, as there was no instruction to that effect from the prosecutor or the court. 71.  On 27 and 28 March 2000 the applicant repeated his complaints of 16 March 2000, indicating that, despite the diagnosis of glaucoma recently confirmed by the oculist, he had received no treatment for this illness. He further indicated that his complaints about the unbearable pain in his eyes, from which he had been suffering for the past months, were being ignored, and requested that surgery, to which he did not object, be performed. These complaints apparently led to another discussion with the head of the medical unit, who again refused to arrange for surgery. 72.  On 28 March 2000 the applicant embarked on a hunger strike in protest against, inter alia, the lack of medical assistance. He was placed in solitary confinement where he stayed for 14 days, refusing to eat. 73.  The applicant's prison medical file shows an entry dated 31 March 2000 according to which the applicant was examined by the doctor in connection with his hunger strike. The conclusion was that the applicant's general condition was satisfactory, he was fully conscious and his hemodynamic indices were within the normal limits. 74.  On 12 April 2000 the applicant was taken, on the orders of the investigating authority, for a medical examination by a psychiatrist, a neurologist and an oculist in Polyclinic No. 1 in Belgorod. The applicant alleged that the oculist diagnosed him with “atrophy of the optic nerves of both eyes”, which could progressively deteriorate and result in blindness. There is, however, no documentary proof of such a conclusion. 75.  The applicant submitted that from April to 16 December 2000 (the date when he was transferred to another pre-trial detention centre), the head of the medical unit of detention centre IZ-26/1 had not been following the recommendation of the oculist made on 14 March 2000 to have the applicant examined at least once every three months, had not provided any treatment, had not taken any measures to relieve the applicant's eye pain and had not ordered surgery. The necessary medication was provided for the applicant by his wife. 76.  An entry of 16 May 2001 in the applicant's medical file states that the applicant was examined by the doctor, who performed some tests and authorised his transportation. 77.  Following his conviction, the applicant was transferred on 7 June 2001 to the transit area of penitentiary facility ZhKh-385/18 in the Republic of Mordoviya. It appears that after his transfer to a correctional facility the applicant was exempt from work on health grounds. 78.  On that date the prison doctor examined him and concluded that the applicant was complaining of pain in his eyes. On completion of the tests, the doctor decided that the applicant's heart, lungs, urine and blood tests were all normal. 79.  The applicant was subsequently transported to facility ZhKh-385/5, arriving there on 8 June 2001. During the examination upon arrival the doctor diagnosed the applicant with glaucoma of both eyes and recommended that he see an oculist and a neuropathologist. 80.  On 10 August 2001 the applicant applied to the medical unit of facility IK-5 and complained about the pain in his eyes. He was diagnosed as having glaucoma of both eyes and was prescribed a course of treatment. The applicant was also relieved from work assignments between 10 and 14 August 2001. 81.  On 18 September 2001 the applicant was transferred to prison hospital LPU-21 for inpatient treatment in the surgical department in connection with, among other things, the “secondary glaucoma”' He remained there, apparently with interruptions, until at least 2 March 2002. 82.  On 22 September 2001 the oculist diagnosed the applicant with “medium-degree myopia of both eyes ... [it is] recommended [among other things that steps be taken] to control [the patient's] intraocular pressure”. 83.  On 24 September 2001 the applicant was admitted for inpatient treatment in the surgical department of the prison hospital with the following diagnosis: “Medium-degree myopia. Suspicion of glaucoma”. 84.  It appears from the case file that the applicant requested the doctors not to administer any treatment until he had seen his family. Apparently, the applicant did not stay long in hospital. 85.  On 9 October 2001 the applicant was again admitted for inpatient treatment in the prison hospital. Having thoroughly examined the applicant and performed various tests, the doctors diagnosed the applicant with “medium-degree myopia – progressing”. The diagnosis did not mention any sign of glaucoma. 86.  On 6 September 2002 the applicant was released. 87.  Medical examinations dated 8 September 2003 and 27 July and 9 December 2004 established that the applicant was suffering, among other things, from glaucoma. 88.  This diagnosis was confirmed by medical examinations of 24 December 2004 and 28 July, 10 and 28 November and 26 December 2006. The last examination recommended that the applicant undergo a special medico-social examination for recognition of disability status and determination of his disability group.