5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Rustavi no. 6 Prison. 6.  On 21 July 2004 the applicant was detained on suspicion of aggravated murder and causing actual bodily harm, offences under Articles 109 and 120 of the Criminal Code of Georgia respectively. 7.  On 24 July 2004 the Oni District Court, acting at the prosecutor’s request, remanded the applicant in custody for three months. His pre‑trial detention was subsequently extended several times. 8.  On 30 June 2006 the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to eighteen years’ imprisonment. His conviction was based on several witness statements, forensic reports, and certain other pieces of evidence. The applicant appealed against his conviction, claiming that the first-instance court had erred in the application of domestic law and the assessment of the facts. He complained, in particular, that the Oni District Court had failed to take the statements of the defence witnesses into account. 9.  On 15 November 2006 the Kutaisi Court of Appeal, after re-hearing the applicant, the victim and the key witnesses and reviewing the other evidence, upheld the applicant’s conviction in full. 10.  The applicant’s appeal on points of law of 12 December 2006, in which he reiterated the arguments he had made before the first two instances, was rejected by the Supreme Court of Georgia on 7 June 2007. 11.  In view of the deterioration of the applicant’s state of health, on 4 June 2007, the applicant’s advocate requested the Ministry of Justice, the authority in charge of the prison system at the material time, to conduct a comprehensive examination of his client’s medical condition. His request was, however, refused. Between 8 June and 18 July 2007 experts from the National Forensic Bureau (“the NFB”), an agency of the Ministry of Justice, conducted the medical examination at the applicant’s own expense (“the medical report of 18 July 2007”). The conclusions of that examination showed that the applicant was suffering from a chronic form of viral Hepatitis C (“HCV”) with moderate pathological activity; the experts classified the applicant’s condition as “not serious” and recommended that he receive antiviral treatment on an out-patient basis. 12.  On 1 August 2007 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Prison Department of the Ministry of Justice (“the Prison Department”) to transfer his client from Rustavi no. 6 Prison, where he was detained at the time, to the Prison Department’s medical establishment (“the prison hospital”) for the purposes of antiviral treatment. In support of the above request, the applicant’s lawyer submitted the medical report of 18 July 2007. 13.  On 6 August 2007 the Governor of Rustavi no. 6 Prison replied that the applicant was receiving hepatoprotective drugs in prison, and that his state of health was stable. 14.  In the meantime, the applicant was transferred, for unknown reasons, from Rustavi no. 6 to Rustavi no. 2 Prison, which fact his lawyer complained of to the Prison Department on 29 August 2007. He also reiterated his request for the applicant’s transfer to the prison hospital. 15.  In letters of 12 and 20 September 2007, the Governor of Rustavi no. 2 Prison and a representative of the Prison Department respectively, citing the medical report of 18 July 2007, stated that “in view of the applicant’s current state of health, his transfer to [the prison hospital] for medical assessment and treatment [was] unnecessary”. They noted that the applicant was receiving symptomatic treatment on an out-patient basis. 16.  On 24 June 2008 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Prison Department to specify what treatment was being provided for his client in prison. A copy of the applicant’s medical file was also requested. 17.  In a reply of 14 July 2008, the Prison Department stated that the applicant had not been treated with antiviral medication; spasmolytic and hepatoprotective drugs had been provided instead. Blood and liver tests performed on the applicant had disclosed that his state of health remained satisfactory. The reply further noted that the applicant was under the supervision of the medical personnel of Rustavi no. 2 Prison. The lawyer’s request for a copy of the applicant’s medical file was left unanswered. 18.  On 21 July 2008 the applicant’s lawyer requested the NFB to conduct another comprehensive medical examination of his client in order to establish how his HCV condition had evolved since July 2007. For that purpose, on 18 July 2008 the lawyer had presented a service agreement to the NFB according to which the applicant was to cover the costs of the examination. However, after a preliminary estimate disclosed that those costs would amount to some 1,000 Georgian laris (GEL) (approximately 450 euros)[1], on 30 September 2008 the lawyer, referring to the difficult financial situation of the applicant’s family, requested that the examination be conducted at the Prison Department’s expense. In this connection, it was brought to the Department’s attention that the applicant had been infected with HCV in prison. 19.  The request of 21 July 2008 was dismissed by the Prison Department on 8 October 2008. 20.  On 20 October 2008 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Court, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to indicate to the Government an interim measure ensuring that the applicant was provided with a comprehensive medical examination and an appropriate treatment plan. On 22 October 2008 the Government were requested, under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court, to provide the Court with up-to-date information on the applicant’s state of health and his current medical treatment. 21.  On 13 November 2008 the Government submitted to the Court a copy of the applicant’s medical file, according to which it appeared that the applicant had been transferred to the prison hospital on 30 October 2008. Comparing the results of the various medical tests which the applicant had undergone upon his transfer to the prison hospital with the conclusions of the medical report of 18 July 2007, the Government stated that the applicant’s HCV had not progressed and that his general condition had remained stable. They contended that, in view of the fact that the applicant’s HCV was in a latent form, antiviral medication was not necessary. Instead, Ringer Lactate and glucose transfusions containing vitamins C, B1 and B6 were to be given to him. Riboxin, a medication having positive metabolic effects, was also prescribed. 22.   By a letter of 20 January 2009 the Government submitted the results of the applicant’s additional medical examination, conducted at a civil laboratory centre on 8 December 2008. The results of the laboratory tests showed that the applicant was infected with HCV, Genotype 3a, with a viral load of 316130 UL/ml, and he required antiviral medication. Consequently, the Government, in consultation with qualified medical experts, proposed a treatment plan according to which the antiviral agents Intron A and Ribovirin were to be administered to the applicant for twenty-four weeks. The medical information further disclosed that the applicant’s state of health was stable; no jaundice of the skin or sclera was noticeable; the amount of bilirubin was within the norms; the liver bore no signs of serious internal injury but its lower border was palpable 2 cm below the costal margin. 23.  The medical file shows that the applicant initially accepted the proposed treatment plan. However, according to four handwritten notes dated 26 and 29 December 2008 and 9 January and 18 May 2009, he opted for postponing the treatment until he had undergone another forensic examination. The note of 18 May 2009 does not bear the applicant’s signature. 24.  In the meantime, the applicant was additionally diagnosed with a personality disorder and was transferred to the prison hospital, where he was seen by various specialists, including a psychiatrist, and prescribed the relevant drug-based treatment. 25.  According to the applicant’s medical file, on 4 June 2009 he consented in writing to receiving antiviral treatment, however, only on condition that he was transferred either to Ksani no. 7 or Rustavi no. 2 Prison. 26.  On 29 June 2009 he was again offered antiviral treatment on an out-patient basis on the premises of Rustavi no. 6 Prison. A handwritten note according to which the applicant again refused the proposed treatment plan was signed by the head doctor of Rustavi no. 6 Prison, another doctor from the prison hospital, and one of the prison officers. The handwritten note contained at the end a comment by the applicant stating that he had never refused the proposed antiviral treatment and that no preconditions for the treatment had been set by him. The applicant maintained that the conditions in Rustavi no. 6 Prison were inadequate for the treatment. He also stated that on several occasions handwritten notes concerning his refusal to start the treatment had been drawn up in his absence. 27.  As disclosed by the case file, on 16 December 2009 the applicant finally agreed to the proposed anti-viral treatment plan.