5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is serving a prison sentence in the Chelyabinsk Region. 6.  The applicant was arrested on 13 March 2001 on suspicion of having murdered his aunt. He refused to testify until legal-aid counsel had been appointed.  On 16 March 2001 he was also accused of having unlawfully deprived Mr P. of his liberty. He subsequently retained Mr M. as counsel in the proceedings. Thereafter, the applicant refused Mr M.’s services for unspecified reasons.  On an unknown date legal-aid counsel D. was appointed to defend the applicant. The applicant and his co-accused were charged with fraud, abduction and several counts of murder. The applicant studied the case file between October and December 2001. 7.  In December 2001 the case was sent to the Chelyabinsk Regional Court for trial. The applicant’s request for trial by jury was rejected. A professional judge and two lay judges (Ms G. and Ms Y.) were assigned to try the case. 8.  Throughout the proceedings the applicant was kept in detention. The trial court extended his detention on several occasions. The applicant appealed, alleging that the lay judges had been sitting in his case unlawfully because, contrary to the statutory requirement of the Lay Judges Act, they had served as lay judges more than once a year between 1998 and 2002. The Supreme Court of Russia dismissed appeals lodged by the applicant against the detention orders. In particular, on 22 November 2002 the Supreme Court upheld an order of 1 October 2002 by the presiding judge and the lay judges extending the detention. The appeal court stated as follows:
“It appears from a note submitted by the Regional Court that new lists of lay judges in the region had not yet been compiled when the [applicant’s] trial date was set ...” 9.  On an unspecified date the applicant retained Mr Zh. as his counsel in the criminal proceedings. 10.  The examination of the case started in February 2003. At the court hearing on 13 February 2003 the applicant unsuccessfully objected to the participation of the lay judges in his case and asked for trial by jury. Later on, for unspecified reasons, Ms Y. was replaced by Ms Ch. on the bench of the trial court. 11.  On 18 February 2003 the presiding judge ordered counsel Zh. to be replaced on account of illness. From 20 February 2003 the applicant was assisted by legal-aid counsel Z. It appears that at certain stages in the proceedings the applicant was assisted by legal-aid counsel P. The trial court refused to admit a Ms K. as a lay representative. 12.  By a judgment of 24 April 2003 the trial court (the presiding judge and lay judges Ms G. and Ms Ch.) convicted the applicant of several offences (fraud, abduction, extortion, theft and several counts of murder) and sentenced him to twenty-two years’ imprisonment. 13.  The last day of the trial was apparently broadcast and commented upon by local television in April, August and September 2003. 14.  The applicant appealed against the trial court’s judgment to the Supreme Court of Russia. He argued, inter alia, that Z. had failed to lodge a statement of appeal “despite an earlier promise to do so” and that the composition of the trial court had been unlawful. The prosecutor also appealed against the trial court’s judgment. 15.  On 19 September 2003 the applicant made submissions before the appeal court by video link. According to the applicant, the appeal hearing lasted seven minutes, while the deliberations took only two minutes. The appeal court amended the judgment on appeal and reduced the applicant’s sentence to twenty-one years’ imprisonment. The appeal court made no specific findings regarding the composition of the trial court and observance of the applicant’s defence rights in the appeal proceedings. 16.  By letters of 19 March and 12 April 2004 the President of the Regional Bar Association rejected the applicant’s complaints against counsel Z. 17.  In October 2005 and then on 21 December 2006 the Russian Supreme Court reduced the applicant’s prison term to twenty years and six months. 18.  In reply to the applicant’s request for information, the Regional Court and the Regional Parliament stated that they had no information concerning lists of lay judges or whether any lists had been destroyed (see also paragraph 24 below). 19.  On 8 February 2007 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation examined a complaint lodged by the applicant and ruled that legal-aid counsel should have been appointed for the appeal proceedings. Although it declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible, it found as follows:
 “...2.  The decisions taken in [the applicant’s] case, which were based on an unconstitutional interpretation of Article 50 § 1 (1) and (5) and § 3, should be re‑examined in accordance with the applicable procedure, if there are no obstacles to doing so”. 20.  On 13 June 2007 the Vice-President of the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s renewed complaint about his conviction, stating that “the mere fact that the lay judges had served more than once in a year could not raise doubts as to the legitimacy of their mandate and, by implication, the lawfulness of the trial bench”. 21.  On 10 June 2009 the Presidium of the Supreme Court re-examined the criminal case against the applicant by way of supervisory review, set aside the appeal decision of 19 September 2003 and ordered a fresh appeal hearing. Referring to Articles 97, 108 and 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Presidium ordered the applicant’s detention pending the appeal proceedings. 22.  On 3 September 2009 an appeal hearing was held before the Supreme Court, which set aside the trial court’s judgment of 24 April 2003. The appeal court stated, inter alia, that there had been no lists of lay judges in the Regional Court at the material time; that the lay judges had sat in other cases in 2002-03; and that there had been a “violation of [the applicant’s] defence rights and his right to a jury trial”. The appeal court ordered a retrial before the Chelyabinsk Regional Court and ordered the applicant to remain in custody until 10 November 2009 pending the retrial. 23.  The retrial started in September 2009. However, on 6 April 2010 it was stopped because the Presidium of the Supreme Court was asked to carry out a supervisory review in respect of the appeal decision of 3 September 2009. 24.  On 1 September 2010 the Presidium of the Supreme Court set aside the appeal decision of 3 September 2009 and ordered a retrial. However, unlike the court decision of 3 September 2009, the Presidium removed any reference to (i) the absence of a list of lay judges in the Regional Court; (ii) whether the lay judges had sat in other cases in 2002-03; (iii) “the violation of [the applicant’s] defence rights and his right to a jury trial”. As a result, the Presidium quashed the trial court’s judgment of 24 April 2003 in the following terms:
“... As explained by the deputy President of the Regional Court, the lists of lay judges for district and town courts in the region had been approved between 29 June 2000 and 29 November 2001 ... The lists for eight district courts in the region were not submitted for approval. The lay judges in [the applicant’s] case were registered as residing in Chelyabinsk. There is no indication that their names were added to the list of lay judges ... In those circumstances the trial court was not established by law. Under Article 381 § 2 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCrP), the unlawful composition of the court is a ground for quashing the judgment in all circumstances...”
The Presidium also quashed several detention orders issued by the trial court during the trial in 2002. Lastly, with reference to Articles 108 and 255 of the CCrP, the Presidium ordered the applicant to remain in custody pending the retrial. 25.  The retrial took place between October 2010 and February 2011. At the preliminary stage of the retrial, the applicant was assisted by legal-aid counsel B. and subsequently, at his own request, by legal-aid counsel D. In the meantime, in December 2010, having consulted his lawyer, the applicant waived the opportunity for trial by jury and agreed that the case should be examined by a professional judge. 26.  New counsel K. was appointed in January 2011 to replace counsel D., who had to participate in another trial. At a hearing on 11 January 2011, in reply to a question from the presiding judge, the applicant replied that he “had not yet fully discussed the defence position” with his counsel. At a hearing on 12 January 2011 the applicant stated that he had talked to his counsel and that they had discussed the defence position, which had prompted the applicant to amend his earlier strategy and plead guilty to the murder of his aunt. It also appears that (at this or a subsequent hearing) counsel K. supported the applicant’s and his co-defendant’s request for the prosecution to be discontinued on account of the expiry of the time-limits on one of the charges. The applicant also stated that, having talked to his counsel, he accepted that there was no longer any need to call the remaining witnesses or victims. Thus, the applicant accepted that it was appropriate to rely on the relevant material from the case file. 27.  At a hearing on 13 January 2011 the presiding judge noted that the applicant had lodged an appeal against an earlier procedural order, also requesting the appointment of Mr D. as counsel. In that connection, the presiding judge asked whether the applicant was dissatisfied with counsel K. The applicant replied that he was satisfied, that counsel was sufficiently qualified to defend him and that he did not want him replaced. 28.  On 1 February 2011 the Regional Court discontinued the case on one of the charges. On 16 February 2011 the Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder, kidnapping and extortion. The court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of nineteen years and six months. As required under Article 72 of the Russian Criminal Code, that term was to be counted from 13 March 2001, to take into account the preceding periods of the applicant’s detention pending trial and pursuant to the trial court’s judgment of 24 April 2003. 29.  The applicant and counsel K. appealed to the Supreme Court of Russia. 30.  The applicant complained about counsel K. to the President of the local bar association. The latter replied that the applicant had not raised during the trial the issue of counsel’s attendance at the remand centre, and that he had discussed the defence position with counsel on several occasions before the court hearings and in the holding room in the courthouse. 31.  In March 2011 the Supreme Court appointed Ms Polozova as defence counsel. Both Ms Polozova and Mr D. were notified of the date and time of the appeal hearing. Mr D. informed the court that he had no authority to assist the applicant in the appeal proceedings and nor had he been retained as counsel by the applicant or his family. Ms Polozova also informed the court that she had no contract with the applicant, besides which she was busy and thus unable to accept the case as legal-aid counsel. The Supreme Court therefore appointed Ms Chi. as defence counsel. The relevant register indicates that she studied the case file between 26 April and 5 May 2011. Counsel Chi. also attended the appeal hearing on 12 May 2011. The applicant participated in the appeal hearing by video link from a detention facility. The applicant refused to be assisted by counsel Chi. The appeal court dismissed his objection and counsel Chi. continued to assist him. 32.  On 12 May 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 16 February 2011 on appeal. The appeal court held as follows:
“[The applicant] was assisted by counsel K. at the trial; no challenge was lodged against her. The information in the verbatim record of trial conflicts with the allegation that the defence counsel was ineffective. There is also an indication that counsel did not meet [the applicant] in the remand centre. However, the question of the need for such a meeting was not raised before the court. While stating at the beginning of the trial that the defence position had not been fully discussed, [the applicant] did not ask for additional time. Subsequently, [the applicant] confirmed on numerous occasions that counsel had provided advice and discussed the defence position with him ... During the preliminary hearing the court had granted [the applicant’s] request to be assisted by advocate D. He was replaced during the trial owing to his participation in another criminal trial ... ” 33.  According to the applicant, from 13 to 30 March 2001 he was detained in Kurchatovskiy temporary detention centre in the town of Chelyabinsk (ИВС Курчатовского района). He was not provided with a mattress, bedding or any personal hygiene products and had no access to a shower. The cell was dirty, damp and cold, and had no ventilation. The applicant had no out-of-cell activities and was confined to his cell twenty-four hours a day. 34.  From 30 March 2001 to 28 October 2003 the applicant was detained in Chelyabinsk remand centre no. 74/1 (ФБУ ИЗ-74/1 ГУФСИН РФ по Челябинской области). Apparently, he was also kept in this remand centre for a period in 2005.
(a)  The applicant’s account 35.  The applicant provided the following description of his conditions of detention in the remand centre in 2001-03. 36.  From 17 April 2001 to 29 April 2003 he was kept in cell no. 77, which measured 7-8 square metres and was designed for six inmates (for four inmates “later on”). It actually accommodated three to seven detainees. Hence, at times they had to take turns to sleep. Artificial light was on day and night. Between 30 March and 20 April 2001 the applicant was not provided with bedding in the remand centre; a blanket was provided only in late 2002. No towels or tableware were provided. 37.  From 29 April to 28 October 2003 the applicant was kept in cell no. 80, which measured 7-8 sq. m and was designed for four inmates. It actually accommodated up to five inmates. Hence, at times they had to take turns to sleep. 38.  In respect of all the cells the applicant alleged that the lavatory pan situated in the corner was separated from the living area only by a partition. A table was placed one metre from the pan. The cells were not ventilated, and the lack of ventilation was exacerbated by the fact that other detainees smoked. Until January 2003 the cell windows were covered with metal shutters in addition to slanted bars. There was no access to hot water in the cells. 39.  Throughout his detention in the remand centre the applicant had no out-of–cell activities other than a daily one-hour walk in the courtyard of the remand centre. He spent the remainder of the day confined to his cell. Catering and medical services were unsatisfactory. During the summer period the applicant had no access to a hot shower.
(b)  The Government’s account 40.  The Government submitted the following data concerning the cell measurements and population. Cell no. 77 measured 9.3 sq. m and accommodated, at the relevant time, four detainees; cell no. 80 measured 9.3 sq. m for four detainees; cell no. 83 measured 9.3 sq. m for four detainees; cell no. 91 measured 30.2 sq. m for twelve detainees; cell no. 96 measured 9.3 sq. m for four detainees; cell no. 154 measured 23.1 sq. m for eight detainees; and cell no. 1 measured 20.8 sq. m for six detainees. 41.  The Government concluded from the above data that the statutory requirement regarding floor space per detainee (four sq. m) had not been complied with in cells nos. 77, 80, 83 and 96. The remaining material conditions of detention (lights, ventilation, individual bed and bedding, food) were decent. There were no metal shutters on the cell windows. There were some metal bars on the windows, which did not impede natural light. The toilets were separated from the main area by a partition, approximately one to one and a half metres in height. 42.  The above submissions were based on the information provided by the head of the detention facility in 2008, as well as on various supporting statements allegedly made by the prison staff (but signed by the chief prison officer). The Government also submitted copies of schedules relating to “sanitary measures” for detainees between 2001 and 2003. 43.  The applicant complained about his detention to various public authorities. Allegedly, on 26, 28 March and 2 April 2001 the applicant and his counsel complained to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chelyabinsk Region that the conditions of detention in the temporary detention centre were unacceptable. On 10 September 2001 a prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings in relation to the allegation of unlawful detention in the temporary detention centre. 44.  The applicant stated that several letters from the European Court to the applicant in 2004-05 had been inspected by staff of prison no. 1 in the Chelyabinsk Region. The majority of these letters were standard correspondence relating to the first introduction letter or acknowledging receipt of the applicant’s correspondence. A letter dated 19 March 2004 requested the applicant to further substantiate his complaint about the conditions of detention in the Chelyabinsk remand centre. 45.  Each letter bore a stamp indicating its registration number and the date of receipt by the detention facility. Subsequently, the applicant argued that the practice of monitoring correspondence continued to apply, and submitted copies of the Court’s letters to the applicant between 2006 and 2008 which also bore similar stamps of various detention facilities. 46.  Correspondence sent by the applicant to the European Court in 2003‑08 was accompanied by cover letters compiled by the staff of various detention facilities. Some cover letters indicated the nature of the correspondence (for instance, submission of additional materials, notification of changes in the applicant’s case) and/or the number of pages submitted by the applicant for dispatch. Some of the applicant’s own letters also had a prison stamp indicating the date when each letter had been submitted to the “special unit”. For instance, in his letter of 7 June 2011 the applicant informed the Court of new developments in the proceedings at the national level and of his intention to complain of further violations of the Convention. This letter bore the stamp of Chelyabinsk remand centre no. 74/3 and the date of receipt in the “special unit”. In July 2011 the Court forwarded this letter to the applicant’s representative before the Court. In August 2011 the representative lodged a complaint before the Court in relation to the inspection of this letter by prison authorities. Subsequently, the applicant argued that he had handed the letter of 7 June 2011 to a prison officer, intending to ask him to provide him with an envelope. The officer reported to him superior that, despite having explained to the applicant that letters to the Court had to be submitted in a sealed envelope, the applicant had insisted on dispatching the letter and had not asked for an envelope. The officer was reprimanded for summarising the contents of the letter in the cover letter. 47.  The applicant also wrote to the International Protection Centre (IPC), which is a non-governmental organisation in Moscow which, inter alia, provides information about Convention proceedings and assists applicants before the Court. In reply to the applicant’s letter, on 28 April 2004 the IPC informed him of the procedure following the lodging of an application form and provided advice as to how to obtain copies of documents in support of the application pending before the Court. The IPC’s letter bore the stamp of prison no. 1, indicating the internal registration number of the correspondence and its receipt date. 48.  Lastly, the applicant wrote several letters to the regional bar association. By letters of 19 March and 12 April 2004 the vice-president of the bar association dealt with his complaint against counsel Z., in particular as regards his failure to lodge a statement of appeal in 2003. In a letter of 22 December 2004, the vice-president informed the applicant that he was unable to assist him as counsel or to provide any further consultation regarding the provisions of the criminal law and procedure. All the letters from the bar association bore the stamp of prison no. 1, indicating the internal registration number or the receipt date. 49.  The applicant unsuccessfully complained to the regional prosecutor’s office that his correspondence with the regional bar association and the IPC had been inspected by the prison administration, despite the allegedly privileged status of such correspondence.