6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and is curently detained in Gherla Prison. 7.  On 2 April 2003 the applicant was convicted of vandalism, assault and disturbance of public order and sentenced to 472 days’ imprisonment by a judgment rendered by the Zalău District Court. The judgment became final on 2 July 2003 when the Sălaj County Court dismissed the appeal lodged against it by the prosecutor’s office. 8.  During the criminal proceedings the applicant was detained in Satu Mare Prison in connection with another offence he had committed, but he attended the hearings before the court of first instance. He was released from that prison on 18 May 2003. 9.  According to the information provided by the applicant, he did not attend the final hearings before the Sălaj County Court. He admitted that he had received a copy of the final decision, which had been delivered to his home on 2 July 2003, informing him that he had been convicted and sentenced to 472 days’ imprisonment. 10.  On 28 July 2003 an arrest warrant for the execution of the sentence was issued in respect of the applicant but could not be executed as he had absconded. 11.  Acting on information that the applicant was at his home in the village of Creaca, on the morning of 18 August 2003, at about 6 a.m., eight police officers, together with the head of the local police and his deputy, went to the applicant’s home in order to arrest him. The decision to operate in such a large number was taken on the ground that the applicant had antecedents of aggressive behaviour, his previous conviction being for assaulting a police officer. 12.  When they arrived outside the applicant’s home, the police officers ordered the applicant to surrender to custody, but he did not reply. Knowing that he was inside, an operational group composed of four police officers forced the door and entered. As it was dark in the house, police officer L.L. did not see the applicant, who hit him on the head with a stone. While the other police officers were trying to immobilise him the applicant tried to seize an axe and, before being immobilised, he bit one of police officer H.N.’s fingers. He was handcuffed and transported by car to the Sălaj Police Station. 13.  The injured police officer was immediately hospitalised. According to a forensic report drafted after the events, he had suffered a cranial trauma and a fractured skull, which put his life in danger, and he needed between forty and forty-five days of medical treatment to recover. 14.  According to the applicant, he was beaten by the police both on his arrest on 18 August 2003 and in the course of police questioning at the police station. 15.  Following the incident, the prosecutor’s office attached to the Sălaj District Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant for attempted murder and assault. 16.  He was heard first on 19 August 2003 at the police station. He stated that he was aware that he had been sentenced to imprisonment in July 2003 for previous offences he had committed. 17.  On 13 November 2003 the applicant gave a statement to the prosecutor’s office. He stated again that he knew about his conviction and expressly refused to appoint a lawyer of his choice. On the same day a new arrest warrant relating to the new charges against him was issued. 18.  On 19 November 2003 the applicant was informed that the investigation was complete. He was invited to study the case file. He again refused to appoint a lawyer, and was assisted by a court-appointed lawyer, P.M. 19.  At the last hearing, held on 17 December 2003 before the Sălaj County Court, the applicant agreed to pay the victim L.L. compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage amounting to 3,000 euros (EUR). His lawyer, P.M., asked the court to take his behaviour into consideration as a mitigating factor in determining his punishment. 20.  On 17 December 2003 the Sălaj County Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment, taking into account the previous non-executed sentence. The judgment was based on extensive evidence: a report drafted on 18 August 2003 immediately after the events and at the site of the incident (raport de constatare la faţa locului), a forensic report, the applicant’s statements, and the statements of all the police officers present during the applicant’s arrest, including those of the two victims, L.L. and H.N. 21.  The applicant appealed against the judgment. He maintained that the statements on the basis of which he had been convicted were subjective as the witnesses were colleagues of the victims. He asked to be acquitted on the ground that, on the one hand, it had not been his intent to kill the police officer and, on the other, because he had not been aware that the persons who had forced their entry into his house were police officers acting in their official capacity. 22.  In the appeal proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer appointed at his request, P.P. At the hearing of 3 March 2004 the lawyer made a request for a psychiatric report in respect of the applicant. 23.  The psychiatric report, drafted on 28 April 2004, stated that the applicant suffered from a personality disorder of the impulsive type but that he retained his mental capacity for critical appreciation. 24.  On 12 May 2004 the Cluj Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded. It held that it could not accept the applicant’s account in respect of his alleged error as to the purpose of the police officers’ visit to his home, especially since the applicant acknowledged that he had known that an arrest warrant for the execution of an imprisonment sentence against him had been issued. It also noted that the claim of lack of intent to kill the police officer was not tenable, taking into account the circumstances under which the offence had been committed, namely, that the police officer had been struck with considerable force in a vital region of the body, the head, with an object capable of causing lethal injuries. Moreover, the forensic report confirmed that the injuries caused by the applicant had put the victim’s life in danger. 25.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law requesting his acquittal and, failing that, the reduction of his sentence. 26.  The applicant was represented before the High Court of Cassation and Justice by two court-appointed lawyers. The first one, T.B., was appointed on 7 June 2004 in order to assist the applicant at the hearing of 16 June 2004 and the other one, M.B., was appointed on 24 June 2004 and assisted him on 7 July 2004. 27.  On 7 July 2004 the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the appeal as unfounded. 28.  On 5 January 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint against the police officers who had arrested him, accusing them of abuse on account of the ill‑treatment to which he said he had been subjected on 18 August 2003. 29.  Initially the complaint was lodged with the prosecutor’s office attached to the Sălaj County Court, which relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the military prosecutor’s office attached to the Cluj Military Tribunal as the defendants were professional soldiers. 30.  A forensic report drafted immediately after the incident of 18 August 2003, at the prosecutor’s order, on the basis of all the medical documents stated that the applicant had suffered “cranial trauma without concussion, contusion of the nasal pyramid with secondary epistaxis, and thorax contusion without bone injuries”, and he had needed three‑four days of medical treatment to recover. 31.  On 15 December 2005 the prosecutor’s office decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers. It held that they had acted in self defence and that the applicant’s injuries had been incurred while they were trying to immobilise him as he had resisted arrest and been aggressive. 32.  On 16 December 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Cluj Military Tribunal against the prosecutor’s decision. By a judgment rendered on 23 January 2007 the Tribunal relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the chief prosecutor of the Cluj military prosecutor’s office. 33.  On 27 March 2007 the military prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s complaint, upholding the decision not to initiate criminal proceedings. The applicant did not lodge any complaint against his decision on the basis of Article 2781of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 34.  Since 18 August 2003 the applicant has been held in a number of different detention centres. Initially he was detained in Zălau Police Station and then transferred to Satu Mare, Baia Mare, Jilava and Gherla Prisons. In respect of the establishments in which he was detained, the applicant alleged that he had been kept in overcrowded cells in poor conditions of hygiene. He claimed that there were rats and parasites in his cell. In all the prisons hot water was available only once a week. He also claimed that he received poor food and that the opportunity to take outdoor exercise was limited to one ten‑minute walk per day. 35.  The Government supplied the following details concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention in each establishment: 36.  The applicant was detained in Zalău Police Station from 18 August to 11 December 2003. 37.  He was detained in cells nos. 7, 8 and 11. 38.  All three cells had a length of 4 m, a width of 3 m and a height of 3 m and were occupied as follows: cell no. 7 by six to seven detainees, cell no. 8 by three to six detainees and cell no. 11 by two to four detainees. 39.  The applicant was detained in Satu Mare Prison during the following periods: between 11 December 2003 and 2 February 2004, 23 August 2004 and 24 January 2005, 22 March and 30 August 2005, and between 17 and 23 October 2006.
The cells in which the applicant was detained were as follows:
-  cell no. 8 with a surface area of 12.54 square metres and occupied by six to eleven detainees;
-  cell no. 71 with a surface area of 24.72 square metres and occupied by thirty‑four detainees;
-  cell no. 56 with a surface area of 8.2 square metres and occupied by seven detainees;
-  cell no. 59 with a surface area of 27.78 square metres and occupied by twenty‑seven detainees;
-  cell no 53 with a surface area of 8.2 square metres and occupied by five detainees. 40.  The applicant was detained in Baia Mare Prison from 30 August 2005 to 1 August 2006.
He was detained in cells nos. 14 and 29.
Cell no. 14 had a length of 7.75 m, a width of 5.2 m and a height of 2.75 m and was occupied by between thirty-one and thirty‑seven detainees.
Cell no. 29 had a length of 5.2 m, a width of 3.85 m and a height of 2.9 m and was occupied by thirteen detainees. 41.  The applicant was detained in Jilava Prison between 29 March and 13 April 2004 and again from 14 June to 23 August 2004, in cells nos. 612 and 619. 42.  Both cells had the same dimensions, namely: a length of 9.5 m, a width of 4.5 m and a height of 3 m. The number of detainees in the first cell was on average thirty-seven, and in the second, forty‑two. 43.  The applicant was detained in Gherla Prison during the following periods: from 2 February to 11 March 2004, from 14 April to 14 June 2004, from 24 January to 22 March 2005, from 23 October 2006 to 29 October 2007, from 6 November to 12 November 2007, from 18 December 2007 to 25 May 2008, from 3 June to 25 August 2008, from 16 December 2008 to 19 February 2009, from 27 February to 10 April 2009, and from 6 July 2009 until the present. 44.  In respect of Gherla prison, the Government submitted information concerning the numbers of the cells the applicant had been detained in and their surface area, but they did not submit any information on the occupancy rate of those cells. 45.  The diagnoses of personality disorder and chronic gastritis were made on the applicant’s arrest. 46.  From the information submitted by the Government, it appears that the applicant received treatment for his various conditions, especially for chronic gastritis, personality disorder of the unstable-impulsive type and epilepsy. It also appears that he was often admitted to the hospitals of the prisons where he was detained. Thus, he was hospitalised in the medical unit of Dej Prison between 11 and 29 March 2004, 9 and 17 October 2006, and 9 and 16 June 2009. In Jilava Prison he was hospitalised between 30 March and 13 April 2004, 30 October and 5 November 2007, 27 May and 2 June 2008, and 20 and 27 February 2009. 47.  The applicant was also examined by different specialists. Thus, he underwent psychiatric medical examinations on 9 November 2006, and 21 and 23 May 2008. He underwent surgical interventions for self‑inflicted injuries on 16, 17 and 18 May 2007. 48.  On 12 December 2007 the applicant was hospitalised in the medical unit of Dej Prison after falling out of bed during an epileptic fit. On 18 December 2007 he was sent back to Gherla Prison, where he had been detained before hospitalisation. He refused to stay in the medical unit as recommended by the doctor, preferring to stay in his cell and signing a statement to that effect. 49.  He systematically refused hospitalisation and the medical treatment he was offered. In this connection, the Government submitted a copy of minutes drafted by the Gherla prison authorities (notably on 11, 14, 16 and 18 July 2008, on 27, 29 and 30 January 2009, and on 2 February 2009) noting the refusal by the applicant of his medication. 50.  Moreover, the applicant frequently refused food. 51.  On 6 November 2007 he was hospitalised in the medical unit of Dej Prison because of the voluntary ingestion of medicines. He refused medical assistance. 52.  According to the applicant’s prison medical record, his treatment for his various conditions was continuing. 53.  On 10 January 2006, while detained in Baia Mare Prison, the applicant lodged a complaint against the prison authorities, relying on Ordinance no. 56/2003. He requested, inter alia, to be transferred to another cell with fewer detainees and to be provided with a diet better suited to his medical condition. He also complained of infringements of his right of access to his prison file and of his right to respect for his correspondence, that is, the right to send applications and documents to the Court. He further complained of a lack of adequate medical treatment. 54.  The judge of the Baia Mare District Court dismissed his complaint on 9 March 2006 on the grounds that the applicant’s food was in accordance with the norms adopted by the National Administration of Penitentiaries and that the applicant’s cell was similar to other cells in the prison, only the medical unit of the prison having cells designed for fewer detainees. With regard to his right to have access to his file, the judge noted that the applicant had submitted only one request in this regard, on 23 October 2005, and that it had been granted. He also noted that the applicant’s request for copies from his file lodged on 23 December 2005 had been granted. 55.  An appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant was dismissed by the Maramureş County Court on 23 May 2006 as unfounded. 56.  On 10 December 2007 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the prosecutor’s office attached to the Cluj Court of Appeal against three doctors working for the hospital of Gherla Prison for abuse and ill‑treatment. He claimed that they had not provided him with the medication he needed for his epilepsy and personality disorder, causing him severe pain and mental suffering. 57.  The complaint was dismissed on 19 February 2008 on the ground that there was no evidence to support the applicant’s allegations. The applicant challenged the decision not to initiate a criminal investigation but it was upheld by the chief prosecutor on 21 March 2008. 58.  The applicant’s complaint against the prosecutor’s decision was allowed by the Cluj Court of Appeal on 15 May 2008. It held that the investigation conducted by the prosecutor had not been effective as the file had not contained enough evidence for any conclusion to be drawn. It remitted the case to the prosecutor’s office for further investigation. 59.  The prosecutor’s office appealed, claiming that the applicant’s initial complaint had been totally unsubstantiated. The High Court of Cassation and Justice allowed the appeal on 11 September 2008, finding that the applicant had submitted no evidence justifying further investigation, his allegations being unsubstantiated. 60.  The Government submitted copies of several requests lodged by the applicant with different domestic authorities in order to obtain information concerning proceedings to which he was a party. They also provided the Court with copies of letters addressed by the domestic authorities to the applicant providing the requested information. 61.  According to the information provided by Baia Mare Prison, the applicant received stamps and envelopes for correspondence on 5, 8 and 15 June 2006. On 5 June 2006 he received copies of documents from his personal file. 62.  According to the information submitted by Satu Mare Prison, the applicant received letters from the Court on 5 October 2004, 25 November 2005, 27 April and 29 June 2006, 5 April 2008, and 7 March 2009. They also stated that the letters had never been opened. 63.  The authorities of Gherla Prison maintained that the applicant had been provided with stamps and envelopes in order to send correspondence to the Romanian authorities and the Court.