5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Gura-Humorului. 6.  By a final judgment of 6 July 2011 the Suceava Court of Appeal sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment. 7.  The applicant was detained in Botoşani Prison between 11 July and 9 September 2011 and between 11 November 2011 and 6 January 2012. 8.  On 6 January 2012 the applicant was released from prison.
Conditions of detention 9.  The conditions of the applicant’s detention are in dispute between the parties. 10.  The applicant complained mainly of overcrowding, unsatisfactory sanitary conditions and poor quality of food. 11.  He was detained in an overcrowded cell. However, the applicant did not state how many inmates the cell had, nor did he mention its area. He simply stated that there were three tiers of bunk beds in the cell. 12.  The cell was infested with insects. The applicant sent an envelope containing insects to the Court in support of his allegations. There was running water for only a few hours a day, so the detainees had to collect water for drinking and to flush the toilets. The quality of the food was poor. The prison had no dedicated place for eating, and the detainees were forced to eat in their cells. 13.  The Government submitted in their observations that, the applicant had been detained in Botoşani Prison under an open regime for a period of four months. 14.  They further submitted that the applicant had occupied cell 5. The cell had an area of 17.1 square metres and a volume of 56.43 cubic metres. The applicant shared the cell with eight inmates. Accordingly, each detainee had 6.27 cubic metres of space. 15.  The cell was fitted with two windows measuring 130 cm by 160 cm, providing good ventilation and natural lighting. It was also equipped with a television set and had adequate electricity and sanitary facilities. The cell had a sanitary annex containing a shower. The prisoners were entitled to two showers per week. 16.  The prison had its own heating. As regards the hygiene conditions, there was periodical insect treatment and rodent extermination. 17.  On 7 September 2011 the applicant lodged a complaint with the delegated judge on the basis of Law no. 275/2006, concerning the conditions of his detention, and in particular poor hygiene, lack of personal space, infringement of his right to eat in a dedicated space and to have one hour of suitable exercise in the open air daily, as well as complaining that the food was inadequate and insufficient. He also claimed that despite being in an open detention regime he had had no permanent access to the spaces made available by the detention authorities to detainees in an open regime. 18.  On 27 September 2011 the delegated judge allowed the applicant’s complaint in part, only as regards his lack of access to spaces made available to detainees in an open regime. It dismissed the applicant’s complaint concerning overcrowding, holding that six cubic metres were sufficient. 19.  The applicant appealed the judgment. During the appeal proceedings the applicant abandoned his request to have a witness heard on his behalf. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed as unfounded by the Botoşani District Court.