6.  The applicant was born in 1968. He is currently serving a life sentence. 7.  On 22 October 1999 the Donetsk Kuybyshevsky District Prosecutor’s Office instituted a criminal investigation into a series of murders accompanied by robberies. On an unspecified date the applicant and Mr L. were identified as possible perpetrators and were put on the list of wanted persons. The police also issued an internal search notice in which the applicant was described as a dangerous criminal. According to the applicant, in November 1999 his picture was shown on television as a previously convicted person who was wanted by the police in connection with multiple robberies. 8.  On 31 January 2000 the applicant and Mr L. were arrested. 9.  On 1 February 2000 the applicant was questioned as a suspect and refused to give a statement. According to the Government, the applicant had his procedural rights explained to him. 10.  On 4 February 2000 the Donetsk Kyivsky District Prosecutor ordered the applicant’s pre‑trial detention on the grounds that he was suspected of serious criminal offences. 11.  On 9 February 2000 the applicant was questioned as an accused and refused to give a statement. According to the Government, the applicant had his procedural rights explained to him. According to the applicant, a police officer drafted a written confession on his behalf, but he refused to sign it. 12.  During questioning on 4, 5, 7, 17 and 23 February and 15 March 2000 Mr L. confessed to having been involved in eight murders he was suspected of. He also revealed places near the applicant’s country estate where the bodies of several victims and murder weapons were hidden. Mr L. stated that the applicant had taken part in those offences, and in particular that five of the eight victims had been murdered by him. 13.  On 14 February 2000 Mr K. was admitted to the case as the applicant’s legal counsel. On the same date the applicant was questioned in the presence of his lawyer. From that date on, all major procedural actions were conducted in the presence of the applicant’s lawyer. 14.  On 18 February 2000 an investigator appointed to deal with the applicant’s case held a confrontation between Mr L. and the applicant, in the presence of their lawyers. During that confrontation the applicant and his lawyer were allowed to put questions to Mr L., who repeated his accusations against the applicant. 15.  On 23 March 2000 the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 1 June 2000 because of the gravity of the charges and the need to gather further evidence. 16.  On 29 May 2000 the investigator declared the pre-trial investigation complete. From that date until 26 October 2000 the applicant and his lawyer had access to the case file. 17.  On 27 October 2000 the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor sent the indictment together with the case file to the Donetsk Regional Court for trial. 18.  On 6 December 2000 the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor recalled the case file from the Donetsk Regional Court and ordered that the pre-trial investigation be resumed. 19.  On 8 December 2000 the prosecutor ordered the extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention up to a maximum of five months on the grounds of the severity of the imputed offences and the need to undertake further investigative measures. 20.  On 28 December 2000 the additional investigation was completed and the applicant and his lawyer were given access to the case file. 21.  On 15 March 2001 a new indictment and the case file were sent to the Donetsk Regional Court. 22.  On 23 March 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court held a preparatory hearing. It committed the applicant and Mr L. for trial on charges of aggravated murder, involvement in an organised criminal gang, robbery and violent resistance to the police. 23.  In a letter dated 21 May 2001 the Acting President of the Donetsk Regional Court wrote to the applicant noting that, since the beginning of the trial proceedings, he had lodged over thirty applications, including several requests for release, and that all of them had been attached to his case file. 24.  During the trial hearings the applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, stated that on 18 October 1999 – when one of the murders under examination had been committed – he had been in Kyiv and thus could not have been involved in that offence. He asked the trial court to question Mr P. and to obtain evidence from the traffic police, who had stopped his car on that date not far from Kyiv. 25.  The trial court heard evidence from Mr P., who confirmed that on the indicated date he and the applicant had gone to Kyiv. However, the court dismissed this evidence because of serious inconsistencies between Mr P.’s evidence and the applicant’s account of the alleged trip. Moreover, the Kyiv Regional Traffic Police Department had informed the court that there were no records indicating that the applicant’s car had been stopped on that date. 26.  The Donetsk Regional Court also rejected a motion made by the applicant’s lawyer for the summoning of witnesses who could allegedly confirm the applicant’s ill-treatment by the police, finding this evidence irrelevant. 27.  On 16 December 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (the Donetsk Regional Court as renamed on 29 June 2001, hereafter “the Court of Appeal”), sitting as a first-instance court, found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. His conviction on several counts of murder and robbery was principally based on the statements made by Mr L. during the pre‑trial proceedings. During the trial itself Mr L. claimed that this evidence had been extracted from him under duress. The trial court did not find any indication that Mr L. had been subjected to undue pressure. The attesting witnesses, who had been present when Mr L. had shown the police the places where the bodies and weapons were hidden, stated that he had done so without any coercion. Moreover, his evidence given during the pre-trial investigation was considered coherent and consistent with medical evidence concerning the victims’ injuries and cause of death. 28.  The applicant appealed. He submitted, in particular, that his right to mount a defence had been violated because the trial court had rejected several motions made by his defence counsel. He also complained of his ill-treatment by the police in an unsuccessful attempt to force his confession. 29.  On 29 May 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the judgment of 16 December 2002. It noted, among other things, that the applicant’s defence rights had not been violated and his allegations of ill-treatment had been duly examined and found to be unsubstantiated. 30.  At 11 p.m. on 31 January 2000 the applicant and Mr L. were stopped by three police officers, who identified them as wanted persons. The applicant and Mr L. attempted to escape and resisted the police officers during their arrest. Thereafter the applicant and Mr L. were taken to the Donetsk Kuybyshevsky District Police Station (“the Police Station”). According to the applicant, he was tortured by the police. 31.  On 1 February 2000, during his questioning by the investigator, the applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by several police officers. The investigator ordered his medical examination. A medical expert report, drawn up on the same date, stated that the applicant had multiple bruises and abrasions on his head, face, lips, left ear, wrists, chest and right thigh. These injuries could have been sustained at the time indicated by the applicant. 32.  On 4 February 2000 an ambulance was called out for the applicant. According to him, this was done because of the seriousness of the injuries he had sustained from ill-treatment. The Government maintained that the ambulance had been called to treat a self-inflicted injury to the applicant’s neck. 33.  On the same date the applicant was taken to hospital, where he received medical treatment for an injury to his neck. During his stay in hospital the applicant smashed a glass locker with his head and thereby caused an injury to his nose. 34.  After his discharge from hospital on 4 February 2000, the applicant was taken to the Donetsk City Temporary Detention Centre (“the Donetsk ITU”). According to the applicant, his ill-treatment continued there. On 15 February 2000 the investigator ordered that further medical evidence be obtained. In a report of 18 February 2000, a medical expert noted bruises on the applicant’s eyelids, right collarbone area, stomach, lower abdomen, both elbows, both shins and both forearms. The expert also recorded wounds to the applicant’s neck and nose. The expert, having regard to the applicant’s claim that he had been beaten up by the police, found that these injuries could have been obtained at the time and in the circumstances stated by the applicant. 35.  On 22 May 2000 a prosecutor from the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office (“the Regional Prosecutor’s Office”), having questioned the applicant and the police officers concerned, decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the latter, finding no corpus delicti. At the applicant’s request, this decision was revoked by the Deputy Prosecutor for the Donetsk Region. 36.  On 5 October 2000, after an additional inquiry, the Deputy Prosecutor decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the officers on the grounds of the lack of any corpus delicti. This decision was later revoked by the prosecution authorities. 37.  An additional medical expert examination of the applicant’s injuries, which took place on 22 December 2000, confirmed the findings of the expert report of 18 February 2000. The expert noted that it could not be fully excluded that the applicant’s injuries had originated in the circumstances described by him. At the same time, it was unlikely that the injuries had been inflicted in the circumstances described by the police officers who had apprehended the applicant. 38.  On 1 March 2001 the investigator from the Regional Prosecutor’s Office again decided not to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, on the same grounds as in the previous decisions on the matter. 39.  After his arrest on 31 January 2000 the applicant was placed in a cell at the Police Station, where he was kept until 4 February 2000. On that latter date he was transferred to the Donetsk ITU, where he was held until 12 April 2000. According to the applicant, the conditions of his detention in both places were poor. 40.  On 12 April 2000 the applicant was transferred to Donetsk Pre-Trial Detention Centre no. 5 (“the Donetsk SIZO”). 41.  According to the applicant’s submissions, which he sought to support with a set of photographs submitted to the Court, he was kept in a small, dirty and overcrowded room which he shared, at different times, with seven or eight other prisoners. The lavatory pan in the corner of the cell was separated from a washstand, but not from the living area. It was approximately half a metre off the floor, the partition being about one metre in height. Consequently, the person using the toilet was in full view of both his cellmates and the prison guard, who could observe inmates through a peephole in the door. 42.  The Government submitted that during his detention in the Donetsk SIZO the applicant had shared cell no. 474 with five to six other inmates. The cell had measured 15.73 square metres. The Government maintained that the cell had been equipped with the necessary number of beds, lavatories, tables and chairs, and had had electric light and a window which let daylight in. There had been adequate systems of water supply, sewage disposal, ventilation and heating. In general, the conditions of the applicant’s detention had complied with the relevant hygiene and sanitation standards. The applicant had been provided with sufficient nutrition. He had been able to go for daily outdoor walks for one hour and to have eight hours’ uninterrupted sleep a day. 43.  The Government submitted photographs of several cells, stating that they had been taken in the Donetsk SIZO in 2004. The Government maintained that they could not comment on the photographs submitted by the applicant, as there was no indication of when and where they had been taken. 44.  During his remand in custody the applicant wrote letters to various officials in which he complained about the conditions of his detention. In accordance with the prescribed procedure, these letters were sent through the administration of the detention centre, which dispatched them to the addressees. With the exception of letters addressed to public prosecutors and the Ombudsman, which were allowed to pass unopened under the applicable rules, the applicant’s correspondence was subject to automatic monitoring. 45.  On 10 July 2001 the applicant sent his first letter to the Court. The Court Registry sent the applicant two letters, dated 4 September and 14 November 2001. Both those letters were handed over to the applicant after they had been opened by the administration of the Donetsk SIZO. 46.  The applicant challenged on many occasions the monitoring of his correspondence, including his correspondence with the Court, by the prison administration. On 7 January 2002 the State Prisons Department (the “Prisons Department”) dismissed his complaints. The applicant was informed that, although Article 8 of the European Convention protected his right to confidential correspondence, pursuant to section 13 of the Pre-Trial Detention Act 1993 and the Prisons Department’s internal regulations, all correspondence of a person in pre-trial detention was subject to monitoring. Accordingly, the letters from European institutions had been opened and registered before they were shown to the applicant. 47.  On 4 April 2002 the Governor of the Donetsk SIZO punished the applicant with ten days’ confinement in a disciplinary cell for having sent a letter to the Prisons Department’s headquarters in Kyiv, in which he had complained about the conditions of his detention, through channels other than the prison administration, in breach of section 13 of the Pre-Trial Detention Act. The punishment was carried out immediately. 48.  The applicant’s complaint about this punishment was rejected on 17 September 2002 by the Regional Prosecutor’s Office as being unsubstantiated. 49.  In 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Donetsk Leninsky District Court for defamation against the Donetsk Regional Television Company for broadcasting his picture in November 1999 as a previously convicted person who had been wanted for multiple robberies (see paragraph 7 above). The applicant claimed that this information had been libellous and injurious, as he had served his sentence for that previous conviction and had not been charged with any offence when the picture had been broadcast. 50.  On 26 November 2001 the proceedings were adjourned pending the criminal proceedings against the applicant. Following the applicant’s conviction the proceedings were resumed. 51.  On 5 November 2003 the court rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. The court found that the applicant had failed to provide convincing evidence that the facts had taken place as claimed and considered that, in any event, it was normal practice for law-enforcement agencies to publicise the photographs of suspects who had absconded while under investigation. As the applicant had been suspected of having committed serious offences, the use of this measure had been reasonable. 52.  The applicant did not appeal against that decision.