5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Giurgiu. He was detained from 21 March 2002 until 20 March 2009, when he was released from Giurgiu Prison. 6.  He was convicted of attempted rape and sentenced to seven years of imprisonment. 7.  During the applicant’s seven years of detention he has been held in a number of different detention centres. Starting from 24 April 2002 he was detained in Giurgiu Prison, except the periods in which he was detained in Jilava Prison or hospitalised in Rahova Prison Hospital. 8.  As the applicant was a party to different proceedings before the Bucharest courts, he was detained in Jilava Prison in the periods between 25 January and 29 March 2003, 23 August 2003 and 17 January 2004, 14 August and 9 October 2004, and 7 and 10 January 2008. 9.  Moreover, as the applicant needed special medical treatment, he was hospitalised in Rahova Prison Hospital for the periods between 17 and 24 April 2004, 26 June and 3 July 2004, 24 July and 7 August 2004, and 4 and 11 March 2006. 10.  In respect of the three establishments in which he had been detained, the applicant alleged that he had been kept in overcrowded cells, in poor conditions of hygiene. In addition, he described the situation in each of the establishments, as detailed further below.
(a)  Giurgiu Prison 11.  According to the applicant, in Giurgiu Prison he was underfed and detained in a damp cell. 12.  He alleged that the temperature in the cell in winter had been very low. 13.  In a letter addressed to the Court in July 2005, he maintained that often there had been no water – either for drinking or for the toilet. In a letter dated 4 June 2007 he also claimed that there had been a lack of water. 14.  He further alleged that there had been no television, radio or any other source of information at the detention centre. 15.  The applicant was transported on several occasions between prison and the domestic courts, where he had been summoned to appear at public hearings. He travelled in vans transporting large numbers of prisoners in cramped conditions and without any ventilation.
(b)  Jilava Prison 16.  The applicant was detained in Jilava Prison in 2003 and 2004 for the periods specified above in paragraph 8. He was again transferred to this prison on 7 October 2008, when he occupied cell no. 311 in Section III. 17.  Here, in cells originally planned for twenty-four prisoners, fifty prisoners were being detained. 18.  He complained that the cell was not heated in winter and that therefore it was very cold. 19.  He also complained that there was a lack of running water. With respect to the drinking water, he claimed that it was of very poor quality. 20.  He alleged that there were bugs and rats in the cell. 21.  The opportunity to exercise outdoors was limited to one ten–minute walk per day, and there were days without any outdoor activity. 22.  The quality of food was also very poor, meat being a rarity.
(c)  Medical ward of Rahova Prison 23.  The applicant complained that while he was hospitalised in Rahova Prison he had to share his bed with another prisoner, even after he had undergone a surgical intervention. 24.  The Government provided official information, submitted by the National Prison Administration (“NPA”), concerning the size of and the facilities in the cells that the applicant had occupied during his detention, as well as the general conditions of detention in the three establishments.
(a)  Giurgiu Prison 25.  According to a letter dated 23 August 2007 addressed to the Romanian Government by the Giurgiu Prison Administration, at that time the applicant was placed in cell no. B 228. It had six beds and accommodated five other detainees, each having his own bed. The surface area of the cell was 21.76 square metres. However, there was no information concerning the surface area of the cell and the number of prisoners occupying it for the period of detention before 2007. 26.  The temperature in the cell was adequate, as the cell was connected to the city heating network. 27.  The applicant was allowed three hours of outdoor exercise per day between 8 and 11 a.m. The prison owned two buses and three microbuses for the transport of prisoners from the prison to the courts for hearings. 28.  A schedule approved by the prison authorities had ensured the availability for prisoners of a shower twice a week. 29.  The prisoners had access to a room where they could watch television. They could also read newspapers as the prison had a subscription to the newspaper Adevărul. 30.  The prison authorities sent copies of the applicant’s requests for copies from his medical and criminal files which were allowed (containing the written confirmation by the applicant that he had received the copies). Most of them were dated 2006 and 2007. 31.  It also appears that in December 2006 the applicant received copies of the Romanian Constitution and of the laws concerning the rights and obligations of prisoners. In 2007 he received a certificate attesting to his lack of revenue, to be sent to the Court in order to obtain legal aid.
(b)  Jilava Prison 32.  In Jilava Prison, the applicant had been placed for the period between 14 August 2004 and 9 October 2004 in cell no. 611. It had a surface area of 43.70 square metres. The cell had twenty-seven beds. The average number of prisoners occupying the cell for the period between 14 August 2004 and 7 September 2004 had been between thirty-three and forty. 33.  The cell was equipped with two squat toilets connected to the water network and was separated from the rest of the room by a wall. 34.  Fresh air had been able to come in through the windows in the cell and toilet area. 35.  The prisoners had been allowed to take one hot shower per week in communal bathrooms available in each section of the prison. 36.  The applicant had been allowed to walk outside the cell for thirty minutes each day. 37.  Disinfection of the cells was carried out periodically. According to the documents provided by the prison authorities, such disinfection of the applicant’s cell was carried out on 6 January and 24 June 2004. 38.  According to the information provided by the prison authorities, the applicant made a request for stamps, which he needed for his correspondence with the Court, on 8 September 2004. The applicant’s request could not be satisfied as he was transferred to Giurgiu Prison the next day. On 6 September 2004 the applicant requested copies from his medical file. The authorities asked him to submit a written request. 39.  Although the applicant was hospitalised a few times in the medical ward of Rahova Prison, the Government provided information only in respect of the period between 24 July and 7 August 2004. They mentioned that the prison hospital had ninety beds and that at the time the applicant was hospitalised there were only eighty-seven prisoners being detained. 40.  In July 2002 the applicant had an anal abscess. He alleged that, due to lack of medical treatment, it aggravated and became a fissure close to the intestinal ring that caused him intense physical pain. Therefore, he was hospitalised in the medical ward of Jilava Prison for the period between 23 July and 3 August 2002. The doctors considered that a surgical intervention was not necessary. 41.  In March 2004, following a hunger strike, the applicant was examined by a medical expert. He concluded that the applicant must undergo a surgical operation because of the anal fissure. For this reason, the applicant was hospitalised this time in the medical ward of Rahova Prison for the period between 17 April and 24 April 2004. There he underwent a surgical operation for haemorrhoids, but not for anal fissure. 42.  The applicant alleged that he had not received the medical treatment which had been prescribed by doctors as the prison or prison pharmacy did not have the medicine he needed. 43.  The Government sent the applicant’s medical file, along with a letter from the Prison Service dated 8 October 2007, which detailed the medical care that the applicant had received in prison. 44.  From the information submitted by the Government, it appears that the applicant received treatment for his various medical conditions. It also appears that from 17 until 24 April 2004, he was hospitalised in Rahova Prison Hospital where he was examined by the prison doctors. As a result of the medical treatment with antibiotics and the anti-inflammatory medication that he received, his anal fissure was improving and the doctor considered that it did not require a surgical intervention. 45.  From 26 June to 3 July 2004 the applicant was hospitalised again in the Rahova Prison Hospital. A surgical intervention was recommended, but the applicant left the hospital at his own request. However, he underwent a surgical intervention when he was again hospitalised on 24 July 2004. He left the hospital on 7 August 2004, as his health significantly improved after the operation. 46.  He was hospitalised again in the medical ward of Jilava Prison from 23 October to 20 November 2004. 47.  His medical supervision continued throughout 2005, 2006 and 2007. He underwent ophthalmological, orthopaedic and neurological check-ups, was periodically seen by specialist doctors, and received the prescribed medicines through the prison pharmacies. 48.  Between the periods during which he was hospitalised, the applicant was detained in Giurgiu and Jilava Prisons. 49.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against Dr D.V. of Rahova Prison Hospital who had operated on him whilst he was in detention. He alleged that he had been subjected to a surgical intervention which had not been necessary. The prosecutor’s office decided not to initiate a criminal investigation. The applicant did not appeal against that decision. 50.  On an unspecified date the applicant also lodged a criminal complaint against Dr I.C. of Jilava Prison. He alleged that his medical file had been stolen. On 10 November 2004 the prosecutor’s office decided not to initiate an investigation on the ground that no offence had been committed. As appears from the documents submitted by the parties, the applicant did not file any appeal against that decision.