5.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Blagoveshchensk. 6.  On 11 March 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud. On 12 March 2006 the Blagoveshchensk Town Court of the Amur Region authorised the applicant’s detention. As regards the reasons justifying applicant’s detention, the court noted as follows:
“...  [the applicant] is charged with moderately serious offences carrying a custodial sentence of up to five years. It can be seen from the materials submitted that [the applicant] is charged with offences committed by a group of people. In such circumstances, the court considers that, if at liberty, [the applicant] might abscond in order to evade justice, or fail to appear for questioning before the investigator or in court in order to obstruct the proceedings, and he might [also] put pressure on witnesses or destroy evidence.” 7.  The applicant remained in custody pending the investigation and trial. His detention was extended on several occasions. 8.  On an unspecified date the investigator reclassified the charges against the applicant to several counts of theft and robbery. 9.  On 21 November 2006 the Town Court opened the trial against the applicant and seven other persons. 10.  On 29 June 2007 the Town Court extended the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and four of the co-defendants until 21 October 2007. In particular, the court noted as follows:
“Having heard the defence parties, who consider that the preventive detention imposed on [the defendants] can be replaced by a less strict measure, having studied the materials of the case-file, and having regard to the fact that [the defendants] are charged with grievous offences and moderately serious offences against property, the court does not consider that it is possible to [release the defendants pending trial].” 11.  On 16 November 2007 the Town Court extended the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and the four other persons until 21 January 2008. The court reiterated verbatim its own reasoning from the detention order of 29 June 2007. The applicant appealed, alleging that from 21 October to 16 November 2007 he had been detained without a court order. 12.  On 17 December 2007 the Town Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. 13.  On 21 February 2008 the Amur Regional Court quashed the detention order of 16 November 2007 on appeal. The court acknowledged that the review by the Town Court of the applicant’s detention had been carried out more than three weeks late, in contravention of the applicable domestic rules of criminal procedure. The court further noted that, in view of the applicant’s conviction and the imposition of a ten-year sentence, he could not be released and there was no need to examine the issue of his pre-trial detention on the merits. 14.  On 31 July 2008 the Regional Court upheld, in substance, the applicant’s conviction on appeal and reduced his sentence to eight years’ imprisonment. The court quashed the applicant’s conviction in respect of one count of theft and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. 15.  On 13 October 2008 the Town Court discontinued the criminal proceedings concerning one of the thefts allegedly committed by the applicant. The applicant did not appeal. 16.  On 8 June 2009 the Presidium of the Regional Court carried out a supervisory review of the applicant’s conviction and reduced his sentence to seven years and six months’ imprisonment. 17.  On 5 February 2010 the applicant was released on parole. 18.  On 29 September 2008 the Town Court dismissed a claim by the applicant for damages in the amount of 150,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of his allegedly unlawful detention from 21 October to 17 December 2007. In particular, the court noted as follows:
“... in view of the fact that the period [of the applicant’s detention from 21 October to 17 December 2007] was set off against the period of the applicant’s sentence imposed by the final judgment, the court discerns no ground to find the applicant’s detention during the said period unlawful. Nor does the court find the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damage on account of [his] detention during the said period to be substantiated. Accordingly, the court dismisses the claim.” 19.  On 19 November 2008 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 29 September 2008 on appeal. 20.  On 25 March 2010 the President of the Regional Court granted the applicant’s request for supervisory review of the judgments of 29 September and 19 November 2008. 21.  On 19 April 2010 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the judgments of 29 September and 19 November 2008 by way of supervisory review and granted the applicant’s claims in part. Referring to the Convention and the relevant provisions of the Russian Civil Code, the court confirmed that, having been detained unlawfully, the applicant had a right to compensation, and awarded him RUB 15,000. In particular, it ruled as follows:
“Given that it has been established that [the applicant] was unlawfully detained [from 21 October to 17 December 2007], and regard being had to the length of such unlawful detention, its subsequent offsetting against the period of imprisonment [the applicant] was sentenced to, and the lack of evidence of any deterioration in the [applicant’s] health resulting from his unlawful detention, the Presidium considers it appropriate to adopt a new judgment granting the applicant’s claim for damages in part and awarding him compensation in the amount of RUB 15,000.” 22.  From 11 March 2006 to 11 March 2008, from 19 February to 19 March 2009, and from 28 May to 20 August 2009 the applicant was detained in remand prison no. 28/1 in Blagoveshchensk. 23.  The Government’s submissions as regards the conditions of the applicant’s detention may be summarised as follows:
Period of detention
Cell no.
Cell surface area (square metres)
Number of beds
Number of inmates
From 11 March to 3 April 2006
209
12
2
2-4
From 4 April to 22 May 2006
31 24.  According to the Government, the applicant was at all times provided with an individual bed and bedding, even though the personal space afforded to him was, on certain occasions, less than the statutory 4 square meters per person. The applicant was provided with three meals per day. The quality of the food was subject to the requisite quality control. 25.  All the cells in the remand prison where the applicant was detained were equipped with forced ventilation. The ventilation system was in good working order. Natural ventilation was achieved by means of trickle vents in the windows. The temperature in the cells was between 18 and 24oC. The heating and water supply were in compliance with the applicable standards. The metal bars on the windows did not prevent access to daylight. The artificial lighting in the cells was in compliance with the applicable specifications and was on from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. At night low‑voltage bulbs were used to maintain lighting in the cell. 26.  The toilet was located on a 35 cm-high platform in the corner of the cell. It was separated from the living area of the cell by a brick or metal screen 1.75 or 1.65 m high which ensured privacy. The distance between the toilet and the dining table was at least 1.5 metres. The closest sleeping place was located from 1 metre (cell no. 98) to 2.45 metres (cell no. 209) away from the toilet. The distance between the toilet and the sleeping places or dining area was at least 1.6 meters. The cells were regularly cleaned and disinfected. 27.  The applicant was allowed daily outdoor exercise. On average, the applicant was confined to his cell for 20-23 hours a day. 28.  The applicant did not contest the data submitted by the Government in respect of the measurements and population of the cells where he had been detained. He added that for 5 days in December 2006 and 15 days in May 2008 he had been detained in disciplinary cells nos. 49 and 61, where he was held in solitary confinement. 29.  According to the applicant, he was not provided with an individual bed. The cells in the remand prison were dirty and infested with insects and mice. At times inmates suffering from tuberculosis were held in the cell. 30.  On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the regional prosecutor’s office that the conditions of his detention were appalling. In response to his complaint, the prosecutor’s office inspected the remand prison. 31.  On 31 October 2008 the prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that the irregularities found in the course of the inspection would be rectified. As regards the conditions of detention in the remand prison, the prosecutor summarised the inspection findings as follows:
“The inspection found numerous violations of [the Federal Law on the detention of suspects and defendants charged with criminal offences] governing ... conditions of detention ... in remand prisons.
The furnishing of the cells is not in compliance with statutory requirements. In some cells the number of tables, benches, cabinets for food storage, and sinks is insufficient in relation to the number of inmates. There is no artificial ventilation. Stands for drinking-water tanks and screens separating the toilet from the rest of the cell are missing. There is no radio. More than 40 per cent of the cells do not have wooden floors. Disinfection measures are not carried out to the full extent (extermination of bed bugs in disciplinary cells, extermination of cockroaches in the kitchen and bakery). The cells are infested with insects (bed bugs, cockroaches) ...
Many cells require complete refurbishment (the walls and ceilings are covered with mould, the plaster is flaking off the walls and ceilings, there are numerous cracks). Because of the lack of forced ventilation the cells are humid; the air is stuffy and humid. Some cells are not equipped with a radio. The temperature is not in compliance with the applicable standards.”