5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Kryvyy Rig following his conviction in criminal proceedings subsequent and unrelated to those examined in the present case. 6.  On 28 June 2004, at about 8 a.m., the applicant was questioned by police at Novomoskovsk Police Station in connection with a suspected attempted theft (see paragraph 20 below). The officers allegedly subjected him to ill-treatment to induce him to confess. Specifically, according to the applicant, they punched and kicked him, strangled him with a towel, put a gas mask on his face and made it difficult for him to breathe, as well as giving him electric shocks to the fingers and testicles. The applicant also allegedly had an injury to his chin, which caused extensive bleeding. He did not confess, however. 7.  On 29 June 2004 the applicant complained to his mother that he had been ill-treated: she in turn raised a complaint with the prosecution authorities and requested a medical examination for him. 8.  On 2 July 2004 a forensic medical expert examined the applicant and documented multiple bruises on both eyelids, the left temple, both earlobes, the chest, the knees, the left shoulder, and the left buttock, as well as sores on the chin, the wrists and the knees. The expert described the injuries as light, and concluded that they could have been inflicted on the applicant in the circumstances described by him. The injuries in question had originated from at least nine blows with blunt hard objects. No injuries were discovered on the applicant’s fingers or testicles. 9.  By rulings of 14 July 2004 and 23 September and 1 December 2005, the Novomoskovsk Town Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers in connection with the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment. All those rulings were quashed, either by a higher prosecution authority or by a court. The case file does not contain copies of any of those decisions. 10.  On 17 February 2006 the Novomoskovsk Prosecutor’s Office issued another ruling refusing to open a criminal case regarding the matter. As noted therein, the Novomoskovsk Police Department had conducted an internal investigation. According to its conclusions issued on 7 July 2004, the applicant’s allegation was ill-founded. The prosecutor also referred to the verdict of 12 April 2005, by which the applicant had been found guilty of burglary and attempted theft (see paragraph 24 below). Furthermore, the investigator questioned the inmates with whom the applicant had been sharing a cell in the Novomoskovsk Temporary Detention Facility (ITT) from 28 June to 6 July 2004, according to whom he had behaved in an arrogant and aggressive manner. 11.  On 25 September 2006 the Novomoskovsk Town Court (“the Novomoskovsk Court”) quashed the above ruling and directed the Novomoskovsk Prosecutor’s Office to carry out an additional investigation of the matter. It noted that the origin of the applicant’s injuries, the existence of which was not disputed, had never been established. The court criticised the prosecution authority in this connection for its failure to carry out a reconstruction of the events with the participation of the applicant and a forensic medical expert. Furthermore, the court noted that, although the prosecutor had referred to a conflict-like environment in the ITT, it was not clear what kind of conflicts, if any, had taken place involving the applicant, and whether they could have resulted in his injuries. 12.  The Novomoskovsk Prosecutor’s Office appealed. In addition to reiterating the reasons given in the ruling of 17 February 2006, it submitted that no injuries to the applicant’s fingers and testicles had been discovered. As regards the injuries documented on 2 July 2004, in the prosecutor’s view they “could have been inflicted as a result of the legitimate application of a rubber truncheon and martial arts techniques to the applicant during his arrest”. 13.  The applicant submitted objections to the above appeal. He noted in particular that the police officers who had arrested him on 27 June 2004 had stated on many occasions, including during the court hearings in his criminal case, that they had not deployed any force against him. Furthermore, they had admitted that they did not have their rubber truncheons with them when arresting the applicant, having left them in their vehicle. The applicant further argued that the Novomoskovsk Prosecutor’s Office could not ensure an independent investigation of his complaint, because of its closeness to the local police whose officers had allegedly ill-treated him. 14.  On 8 December 2006 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 25 September 2006. 15.  The applicant challenged the decisions of 25 September and 8 December 2006 before the Supreme Court in the part concerning assigning the additional investigation to the Novomoskovsk Prosecutor’s Office. He insisted that such an investigation could not be independent. 16.  On 2 April 2007 the Supreme Court however declined jurisdiction over the case. 17.  On 5 March 2007 the Novomoskovsk Prosecutor’s Office once again refused to open a criminal case against the police officers, having discerned no corpus delicti in their actions. It referred in particular to the findings of the police internal inquiry, according to which the applicant’s allegation was unsubstantiated. As regards the applicant’s injuries documented on 2 July 2004, the prosecutor concluded that they could have been inflicted “as a result of the legitimate application of a rubber truncheon and martial arts techniques to the applicant during his arrest”. It was also noted in the ruling that there was no evidence in support of the applicant’s allegation that he had been given electric shocks. 18.  On 6 March 2007 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office upheld the above findings. 19.  On 14 January 2010 the Novomoskovsk Prosecutor’s Office destroyed the investigation file following the expiry of its storage time-limits. It referred in this connection to some guidelines of the General Prosecutor’s Office of 2003. 20.  On 27 June 2004 a Ms R. called the police, complaining that somebody had climbed on to her balcony and entered her flat. She left the intruder inside her flat and made the telephone call from a neighbour’s flat. Having arrived at the scene the police discovered R.’s flat in a mess and the applicant inside with two pairs of gloves and a torch. Though he denied any ill intent and claimed to have entered the flat in question by mistake, he was arrested and taken to the police station. During his subsequent questioning during the morning of 28 June 2004 (after the applicant had spent a night in a cell in the police station), he did not confess to the attempted theft (see paragraph 6 above). 21.  It appears from the case-file materials that on 28 June 2004 the applicant was charged with an administrative (minor) offence of petty hooliganism. There are no documents or comments by the parties in this regard. 22.  As is confirmed by the documents in the file, the applicant was released on 11 July 2004. The grounds for his detention from 27 June to 11 July 2004, as well as the circumstances of his release, are unknown. 23.  On 21 March 2005 the applicant was arrested again, with no further details available. 24.  On 12 April 2005 the Novomoskovsk Court found the applicant guilty of burglary and attempted theft from R.’s flat and sentenced him to three years and eight months’ imprisonment. The court relied on the statements of the victim, who identified the applicant as the person she had seen climbing on to her balcony. The evidence also included depositions by R.’s neighbour and the arresting police officers, as well as the incident site inspection report and material evidence, namely the gloves and the torch. Lastly, the Novomoskovsk Court noted that there had been an investigation by the prosecution authorities as to the lawfulness of the police officers’ actions, with no violations established. 25.  The case file contains a copy of the appeal lodged by the applicant’s mother, acting as his representative. It is not known whether the applicant or his lawyer introduced additional appeals. The applicant’s mother submitted that the applicant had seen an unknown person leaving the flat in question in a precipitate manner. This had made him (the applicant) think that something had happened in the flat and his help might be needed. He therefore went in, and a few minutes later was apprehended by the police. Another argument in the appeal was that there was not sufficient evidence to show that the applicant had attempted any theft. If this logic were followed, he could equally have been accused of contemplating murder or rape. The appeal did not mention the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment at the hands of the police. 26.  On 23 September 2005 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld the judgment of 12 April 2005. The Court has not been provided with a copy of the appellate court’s ruling. 27.  The applicant appealed on points of law. The case file does not contain a copy of this appeal. 28.  On 15 December 2005 the Supreme Court found against the applicant. 29.  On 30 June 2006 the Novomoskovsk Court found the applicant, with some others, guilty of about ten counts of theft (eight of which had been committed between August and December 2004), and engagement of a minor in criminal activities, and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. 30.  On 16 October 2007 the Court of Appeal quashed that judgment in the part concerning the applicant for some procedural irregularities, and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh examination. 31.  On 27 November 2008 the Novomoskovsk Court delivered another judgment on the case, the findings of which were similar to those in the verdict of 30 June 2006. The applicant’s sentence was however reduced to three years and ten months’ imprisonment. 32.  On 12 December 2008 the above judgment became final (it appears that there were no appeals). 33.  On 3 January 2009 the applicant was released, having served his sentence. 34.  In September 2006 the applicant sought to be relieved from the criminal liability imposed by the judgment of 12 April 2005, with a reference to the amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences of 30 June 2005 decriminalising petty theft. 35.  On 13 March 2008 the Novomoskovsk Court rejected his claim. It noted that, in addition to the attempted theft of 27 June 2004, the applicant had also been accused of numerous other counts of theft. Accordingly, there was no reason to consider that on 27 June 2004 he had been attempting only petty theft. 36.  On 13 June 2008 the Court of Appeal upheld the aforementioned decision. It also referred to the fact that on 27 June 2004 the police had discovered the applicant in R.’s flat with two pairs of gloves and a torch, with the flat in a mess, as an indication of the applicant’s intention to steal a considerable amount of property. 37.  On 30 April 2009 the Supreme Court quashed those decisions and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh examination. It criticised the lower courts for going beyond the findings of the judgment of 12 April 2005. Thus, the Supreme Court noted that the first-instance court had wrongly referred to some additional charges of theft against the applicant not covered by the judgment in question. It also observed that that judgment had not made any assessment of the value of the property the applicant had attempted to steal, and therefore the appellate court had had no basis for its finding that he had in fact attempted a significant theft. 38.  On 2 September 2009 the Novomoskovsk Court allowed the applicant’s claim. It noted that the impugned judgment of 12 April 2005 had not established the value of the property he had attempted to steal. It was therefore impossible to establish unequivocally whether or not the theft in question could be regarded as petty. Relying on the principle of presumption of innocence, the court stated that any doubts were to be interpreted in the applicant’s favour. As a result, the court relieved him of the penalty imposed by the judgment of 12 April 2005. As regards the applicant’s request that the conviction be removed from the official records, the Novomoskovsk Court held that in any event the applicant was regarded as having had no criminal conviction in this case. 39.  From 28 June until his release on 11 July 2004 the applicant was detained in the Novomoskovsk ITT. 40.  According to him, he was also held in the ITT during some unspecified periods later in 2005-2008, after he was re-arrested on 21 March 2005, when he was taken to Novomoskovsk to attend court hearings. 41.  The only document in the case file regarding the applicant’s detention in the ITT after March 2005 is an information note issued by the local police on 17 August 2006 on three ambulance calls for him on 5, 22 and 27 June 2006 (see paragraph 63 below). 42.  Under the archive extracts and other documents in the case file, from 28 March 2005 to 21 April 2007 and from 12 September 2007 to 3 January 2009 the applicant was detained in the Dnipropetrovsk Pre-Trial Detention Centre (SIZO), located thirty kilometres from Novomoskovsk. Although he was arrested on 21 March 2005 there is no information as to where he was detained until 28 March 2005. 43.  From 21 April to 12 September 2007 the applicant was detained in Zhovti Vody Prison no. 26. 44.  According to the applicant, in June and July 2004 he was detained in overcrowded cells infested with insects. 45.  The applicant also made a general submission that the conditions of his detention in the ITT in 2005-2008 were unacceptable. 46.  According to the Government’s account, the conditions in the ITT were quite adequate. 47.  The applicant alleged that he had been detained in a cell infested with insects and that the bed linen there was dirty and bedbug-infested. 48.  According to the Government, the applicant was provided with bed linen in accordance with applicable regulations. 49.  On 27 March and 3 April 2007 there were searches in his cell. As a result, the following items belonging to the applicant were discovered and seized: four sewing spools, adhesive tape, a plaster figurine of three monkeys, and prayer beads. 50.  According to the applicant, the officers had left a mess behind them and some of his food had been spoiled. 51.  As also alleged by the applicant in his submissions to the Court, during those searches the administration had seized his copy of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a notepad with some important contacts and notes. 52.  The Government contested the veracity of this last submission. 53.  The applicant described the conditions of his detention in the prison as follows. The prison was located in an uranium ore mining area, which in itself posed a serious risk to his health. Furthermore, prisoners had to work in difficult and dangerous conditions without receiving due remuneration. There were frequent electricity and water supply cuts. More precisely, electricity and water were available only for about two and a half hours per day, and there were only twelve water taps to accommodate the needs of about 140 prisoners. Showering was possible only once a week. 54.  The applicant also alleged that the following incidents had taken place in the prison. On 9 May 2007 three prison guards had approached him, twisted his arms and handcuffed him “asking for some unspecified explanations”. Also, on 5 June 2007 the prison administration had seized his complaints to various authorities in a rude manner, using physical force. 55.  The Government denied that any such incident had taken place. 56.  Furthermore, according to them, electric power and water supply in the prison were centralised and provided round the clock. The applicant’s cell had a window and a lamp which provided sufficient light in the cell during the day and evening. Washing and laundry services were provided to the applicant once every seven days, with a mandatory change of linen, as well as disinfection and disinfestation of his personal clothes and bed linen in a disinfection chamber intended specially for that purpose. 5.  The applicant’s complaints to the domestic authorities on the conditions of his detention and incidents in the SIZO and the prison 57.  On 7 April 2007 the applicant complained to the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office about the conditions of his detention in the SIZO and about the aforementioned searches. He noted, inter alia, that his notepad had gone missing after the search of 3 April 2007. According to him, the guards had not allowed him sufficient time for preparation (it was not specified what kind of preparation) and as a result he had left behind (it is not clear where) his copy of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also complained that he had not had sufficient access to drinking water, and that there had been a smell of paint in his cell which had caused him headaches. 58.  Following his transfer to the prison on 21 April 2007, the applicant additionally complained to the prosecution authorities about the conditions of his detention in the prison. He also complained that he had often been placed, both in the SIZO and in the prison, in a punishment cell, which he said was done for no reason. 59.  On 6 June 2007 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Zhovti Vody Court regarding the conditions of his detention. On 14 June 2007 the court declined civil jurisdiction over the case. 60.  On 20 June 2007 the regional prosecutor’s office issued a ruling refusing to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s complaints, having discerned no corpus delicti in the actions of the officials of the Dnipropetrovsk SIZO and the prison. It noted that, following the search in his cell, the SIZO administration had rightly seized the items, which were not permitted. While the applicant had indeed been disciplined on a number of occasions (three reprimands, an unscheduled tour of duty, and five days in a punishment cell in the SIZO, as well as fifteen days in a punishment cell in the prison), those measures had been taken following numerous breaches of the prison regime by him. No force had been used on the applicant. Lastly, the prosecutor noted that the applicant had submitted four complaints to the administration to be posted; these complaints had been dispatched without hindrance or delay. 61.  On 30 January 2008 the State Department for Enforcement of Sentences wrote to the applicant, apparently in reply to his complaint, that he had breached the regulations concerning detainees’ correspondence by sending a complaint without informing the prison authorities. He was warned that should this happen again disciplinary measures would follow. 62.  Since 2000 the applicant has been suffering from duodenal and gastric ulcers, as well as from a prolapse of the mitral valve of the heart. 63.  According to an information note issued by the local police on 17 August 2006 at the applicant’s request, he sought medical assistance in the ITT on 5, 22 and 27 June 2006 on account of stomach pains. As a result, an ambulance was called for him and he was provided with medical assistance for duodenal and gastric ulcers. 64.  On 27 February 2012 the prison administration destroyed the applicant’s medical file, citing the expiry of the term of its storage.
(b)  The parties’ accounts 65.  According to the applicant, his health seriously deteriorated in detention owing, in particular, to the absence of any medical care and lack of appropriate nutrition. He stated that he was suffering from constant pain in the stomach, liver and pancreas. 66.  The applicant further submitted that during his detention from 12 March 2005 to 4 January 2009 he had lost sixteen kilograms in weight. 67.  The applicant also alleged that the prison authorities had accepted parcels of medication from his mother, but had never handed them over to him. 68.  The Government mainly referred to the fact that the applicant’s medical file had been destroyed (see paragraph 64 above). 69.  At the same time, they noted that, following the applicant’s transfer to the prison from the SIZO, he had been examined by medical staff over a period of five days. As a result, he was diagnosed with duodenal and gastric ulcers. 70.  In reply to the above submission, the applicant contended that the prison was not equipped to carry out an adequate examination in view of his gastric problems. 71.  Furthermore, according to the Government, the applicant had applied only once for medical assistance in detention. Namely, on 13 June 2007 he applied to a psychiatrist who diagnosed him with psychopathy. 72.  The applicant denied ever having consulted a psychiatrist.