5.  The applicant was born in 1965. He is currently detained in Jilava Prison. 6.  By a decision of the Romanian prime minister from 29 November 2002 to 20 December 2004 the applicant occupied the post of Secretary of State for the State Secretariat for the Problems of the December 1989 Revolutionaries (“the State Secretariat”). 7.  On 7 December 2002, as a result of his appointment to the post of Secretary of State, the applicant delegated his duties as president of the Revolutionary Association “Club 22” (“the Association”) to the vice‑president of the said organisation. Under the terms of the agreement signed on the same date, he did not delegate his right to be a signatory on the bank account and various other duties of utmost importance for the organisation and its members, which were to be determined by mutual agreement at a later date. 8.  In an interlocutory judgment of 25 May 2005 the Romanian Court of Auditors (Curtea de Conturi a României) examined the report produced after inspection of the financial documents and the activity of the State Secretariat for the year 2004. It noted inter alia that, although the applicant was dismissed from his post on 20 December 2004, he continued even after that date to sign and authorise payments on behalf of the State Secretariat. By unlawfully using his power to authorise payments, he approved 2,907,902,590 Romanian lei (ROL) (approximately 75,190 euros (EUR)) from public funds in the form of financing for the Association as a subsidy covering rent and utility charges incurred by the Association, despite the lack of any contractual agreement with the aforementioned Association as required by law. Consequently, the Court of Auditors referred the case to the Bucharest Court of Appeal and the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of Cassation in order to investigate the applicant’s administrative and criminal liability respectively. 9.  On 25 January 2006 the National Anticorruption Department brought criminal proceedings against the applicant and a co-accused for improperly using his influence and information acquired by virtue of his position in order to obtain unwarranted material gain for himself or others. It held that on 21 and 22 December 2004 the applicant, although his post of State Secretary had already been revoked, authorised payments of approximately EUR 75,000 from the account of the Secretariat to the account of the Association of which he was a president. Although required by law, no formal agreement had been signed between the two organisations and, although he was not registered as a tenant, the applicant was living in the building occupied by the offices of the Association. 10.  On an unspecified date the National Anticorruption Department indicted the applicant and his co-accused for improperly exploiting his influence and information obtained by virtue of his position for the purposes of acquiring unwarranted material gain for himself or for others and sent his case for trial. 11.  At hearings on 31 May and 23 October 2006, the Court of Cassation examined the applicant’s and some of the parties’ submissions in respect of the procedural aspects of the case. 12.  At a hearing on 1 November 2006 the Court of Cassation, sitting as a panel of three judges, heard the applicant in respect of the charges brought against him. In addition it allowed the applicant’s request for a financial expert report, documents and testimonial evidence to be added to the file. 13.  At hearings on 29 November 2006, 21 February, 21 March, 23 April and 26 September 2007, the Court of Cassation heard the witnesses in the case. In particular, it heard C.C., G.M., G.N.V., F.Z., G.B., D.H., M.L.N., C.G., N.R., and T.M. In addition, the court examined the parties’ submissions and their requests for evidence and noted that documents had been added to the file, including the expert report requested by the applicant. 14.  The applicant was present personally at the hearing of 29 November 2006 when the witness G.N.V. was heard. 15.  From 26 October 2007 to 20 November 2008 the Court of Cassation held six additional hearings at which it examined various submissions made by the parties, allowed the parties’ objections to the expert report available on file, ordered a new financial expert report after the expert had answered the parties’ objections, and allowed the additional objections made by the parties to the new financial expert report. 16.  By an interlocutory judgment of 12 January 2009 the Court of Cassation referred the applicant’s case to the Bucharest District Court on the grounds that the applicant’s mandate as Member of the Romanian Parliament had expired and the Court of Cassation was no longer competent to examine his case. 17.  None of the Court of Cassation judges who had examined the applicant’s case prior to its referral could continue to examine his case after the date of the transfer. 18.  From 23 March to 1 June 2009 the Bucharest District Court, sitting in a single judge formation, held four hearings at which it examined some of the parties’ procedural requests, allowed them to examine the expert’s answer to their additional objections, heard and examined the applicant’s request for additional explanations from the expert, and examined documents necessary to clarify the findings of the expert financial report. On 1 June 2009 the court noted that the judicial stage of the investigation of the case had ended and adjourned the proceedings for the parties’ pleadings on the merits of the case and for debate. 19.  On 4 June 2009, at the debate stage of the proceedings, the Bucharest District Court, sitting in the same single-judge formation, heard the parties’ pleadings in respect of the merits of the case. It also allowed the applicant to address the court last. In addition, it adjourned the proceedings to 15 June 2009 pending the delivery of the judgment. 20.  By a judgment of 15 June 2009 the Bucharest District Court, sitting in the same single-judge formation, convicted the applicant for improperly exploiting his influence and information acquired by virtue of his position for the purposes of acquiring unwarranted material gain for himself or for others and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment, without hearing him or any of the witnesses directly. On the basis of the available documents, financial invoices and legal provisions it held that, in order to cover the rent and the utility costs incurred by the Association, the applicant and his co‑defendant had unlawfully set up a State-run and State-funded programme designed to help all organisations similar to the Association who had difficulties in covering their utilities. Subsequently, he approved the Association’s request for funding and ordered the payments of the available public funds to the said organisation. The applicant and his co-defendant had approved and ordered the payments knowing that no legal agreement existed with the Association and that no invoices supporting the Association’s request for funding had been submitted. 21.  The court noted that C.C. and F.Z. also testified regarding the way the funds had been paid, stating that the Association had been the only organisation who had applied for funding and that a legal agreement or contract was required for it to access the funds in question. The same conclusion had been reached by the second expert report, which also found that the statement made by G.N.V. on behalf of the Association did not amount to a contractual agreement. Moreover, the applicant’s co-defendant had stated when confronted by the applicant that she had cautioned him about the absence of the legal agreement, but she had been asked to sign the payment orders on the grounds that G.N.V.’s statement had amounted to such an agreement. 22.  The court further held that under normal circumstances the availability of the public funds should have been publicised so that all the organisations concerned could have applied for them. However, the applicant failed to put this into effect. With this in mind, the court found relevance in T.M.’s testimony that he was not aware of the program and that the applicant had denied the existence of the funds when he had been asked about them by the witness. The court noted that T.M.’s testimony had been confirmed by C.G. and G.B. At the same time, on the basis of G.N.V.’s and G.M.’s testimonies, it notes that it was the applicant who had initiated the program following the G.N.V.’s request for help on behalf of the Association. 23.  The Court also noted on the basis of the available documents as well as the applicant’s and his co-defendant’s statements that he had also continued to look for additional funding by drawing on funds from other programs in order to cover all the Association’s debts. However only part of the funds made available to the Association went towards the rent. The rest was redirected to a bank account controlled by the applicant. 24.  The court also held ‒ on the basis of the available lease contracts and the applicant’s statements ‒ that the applicant had been living in the building that housed the Association. By relying on G.N.V.’s testimony it rejected the applicant’s submission that he was not the only member of the Association living in the building. The court considered the applicant’s living circumstances relevant because it clarified the applicant’s motivation for his actions. The applicant appealed against the judgment. 25.  On 19 April 2010 the applicant asked the Bucharest County Court to rehear the witnesses T.M., C.G. and G.N.V. He argued that he had not been present when the three witnesses had been heard by the court. In addition, he needed to rehear the three witnesses in order to clarify the facts, because the first-instance court had changed the meaning of their testimonies. Furthermore, he had brought criminal proceedings against T.M. for perjury. 26.  On the same date the applicant also asked the Bucharest County Court to hear three new witnesses for the first time. He argued that these witnesses would be able to clarify the way in which the representatives of the other organisations and of the financial experts perceived the administrative acts produced by the applicant, and that this would prove that he had not misled the State authorities when he initiated the program and that all the documents drafted or signed by him had been made public and available for everyone to read. Also, the new witnesses could clarify certain circumstances concerning the agreement drawn up by G.N.V. on behalf of the Association. 27.  On the same date, the Bucharest County Court refused the applicant’s requests. It informed the applicant that he could provide the court with updates on the criminal proceedings brought by him against T.M. In addition, it held that the applicant’s request regarding the first three witnesses in fact concerned the interpretation of evidence, given that the witnesses’ testimonies and the reasoning of the first-instance court had been available in writing. The second-instance and the third-instance courts were charged with the interpretation of evidence. Consequently, help in the form of the witnesses’ testimony was not needed, given that they had given and signed them under oath. The three witnesses had been heard during the criminal-investigation stage of the proceedings and before the first-instance court, where the applicant’s legal representative could have asked them questions aimed at clarifying the circumstances of the applicant’s case. 28.  As regards the applicant’s request for the hearing of three new witnesses, the court considered it unnecessary for the case because no witness would be able to assess and clarify the understanding of the experts or of the representatives of the other organisations. 29.  On 21 February 2011, during the debates, the applicant asked the Bucharest County Court to verify whether on the date of the deliberation of the case, the Bucharest District Court had in fact allowed him to address the court last. 30.  On the same date, the Bucharest District Court refused the applicant’s request on the grounds that the evidence in the file attested that the applicant had been allowed to address the court last. In addition, it had allowed the applicant to address the court last in respect of the merits of the case. 31.  By a judgment of 1 April 2011 the Bucharest County Court, after having examined the applicant’s submissions and arguments, dismissed his appeal as ill-founded. The applicant and the witnesses were not heard directly by the County Court. It held inter alia that the criminal proceedings brought by the applicant against T.M. for perjury were not sufficiently relevant, given the overwhelming evidence supporting the accusations brought against the applicant. In addition, the non-public nature of the information used by the applicant was not a factor that influenced his conviction, given the nature of the offence he had been charged with. The applicant appealed on points of law (recurs) against the judgment. He reiterated his complaint that he had not been allowed to address the first‑instance court last. 32.  By a final judgment of 7 February 2012, after having examined the applicant’s submissions and arguments for his appeal on points of law and without hearing him or the witnesses, the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed it as ill-founded. It held inter alia that according to the relevant criminal procedure rules, an accused is to be heard last by the court before the debates are declared closed. During his pleading the accused may not be questioned in order to allow him to submit all the arguments he wishes to make in support of his defence. Consequently, the applicant’s rights to defence had not been breached given that the court, pending the delivery of the judgment, had allowed him to submit written observations before it. The applicant lodged an extraordinary annulment appeal (contestaţie în anulare) against the judgment. He argued that although he had been heard by the Court of Cassation on 1 November 2006, none of the courts who convicted him had heard him directly although they had a lawful duty to do so. 33.  On 24 February 2012 the Bucharest Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s annulment appeal. It held that it could not conclude that the applicant had not been heard by the first-instance court, given that he was heard by the Court of Cassation and that ‒ in accordance with the relevant criminal procedure rules ‒ the court to which the case had been referred could use the acts and measures undertaken by the court from which the case had been referred. In addition, he had been present and had been assisted by a legal representative before the second-instance court. Consequently, according to the relevant criminal procedure rules, the last‑instance court had not been subject to a duty to hear him. 34.  In his first letters, the applicant contended before the Court that in the Bucharest Police Department’s detention facility, Jilava Prison Hospital and Rahova Prison his cells had been overcrowded and had not been separate from the bathroom facilities. In addition, in Jilava Prison the detention cells had been overcrowded and he had been forced to lie on the bed constantly on account of the lack of space; the hygiene conditions had been inadequate and the sanitary installations defective; there had never been any running warm water and he had been allowed to wash only twice a week together with another hundred persons; the outdoor physical exercise had been limited to only one hour a day and the food had been inadequate. Lastly, the prison authorities had transported him regularly for approximately one hour to attend domestic courts together with other detainees in vehicles which had lacked windows or artificial light and any form of ventilation. 35.  On 2 August 2013, after the case had been communicated to the Government, the applicant informed the Court that he wished to relinquish his claim concerning the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention.