5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and is serving a prison sentence in Kemerovo Region. 6.  On 5 December 2004 Ch. complained that a group of men had tried to extort 7,000,000 Russian roubles from him. On the same date the prosecutor’s office opened an investigation in respect of S. and four other unidentified persons. 7.  Following the applicant’s failure to appear for questioning, on 14 January 2005 the prosecutor put his name on the wanted persons’ list. 8.  On 29 January 2005 the applicant was arrested on a train going to Moscow. He was, inter alia, suspected of having participated in the attempt of extortion. 9.  On 31 January 2005 the Naberezhniye Chelny Town Court remanded the applicant in custody pending investigation. In particular, the court noted as follows:
“[The applicant] is suspected of having committed a crime which entails a custodial sentence exceeding two years, and the court considers that there are sufficient grounds to believe that, if released, he may abscond, given that he is not domiciled in Naberezhniye Chelny, that he was apprehended after his name had been put on the wanted persons’ list, that he may threaten the witnesses and other parties to the criminal proceedings, and that he may destroy evidence or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice. [He] might continue his criminal activities, since the crime he is suspected of was committed before the period of the suspended sentence imposed on him earlier had expired. This fact is confirmation that [the applicant] persistently engages in unlawful behaviour.” 10.  On 11 February 2005 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan upheld the decision of 31 January 2005 on appeal. 11.  On 25 March 2005 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 29 April 2005. The court noted as follows:
“According to the court order of 31 January 3005, [the applicant], if released, may abscond (he was apprehended after his name had been put on the wanted persons’ list), threaten witnesses, destroy evidence or continue criminal activities.
To date the above circumstances have not changed. [The applicant] is charged with a particularly serious criminal offence.
Under such circumstances ... [the applicant’s] detention should be extended ...” 12.  On 15 April 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 25 March 2005 on appeal. 13.  On 26 April 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 29 July 2005. The court noted, in particular, as follows:
“... [the applicant] is charged with a particularly serious criminal offence which entails a custodial sentence exceeding two years. This case is of extreme complexity. The circumstances underlying the court’s decision to remand the applicant in custody still remain ... [The applicant] may abscond or commit new crimes.” 14.  On 10 June 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 26 April 2005 on appeal. 15.  On 22 June 2005 the applicant was formally charged with participation in the attempt of extortion, membership of a criminal gang and illegal possession of firearms. 16.  On 13 July and 19 October 2005 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 October 2005 and 29 January 2006 respectively. In both decisions the court noted as follows:
“... [the applicant] is charged with particularly serious criminal offences which are a danger to public order and entail a custodial sentence exceeding two years. The present criminal case is of high complexity. The circumstances underlying the [applicant’s] remand in custody still remain. A number of investigative activities involving [the applicant] are pending. [The applicant] might abscond, commit new criminal offences and interfere with administration of justice ... ” 17.  On 27 January 2006 the Town Court extended the applicant’s pre‑trial detention until 29 April 2006. The court noted as follows:
“[The applicant] is charged with grievous and particularly grievous criminal offences. He might abscond and continue criminal activities.
In view of the above, the defence’s request to replace remand in custody with an alternative measure of restraint is dismissed.” 18.  On 12 April 2006 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 June 2006. The court noted as follows:
“[The prosecutor’s request to extend the applicant’s detention] should be granted. [The applicant] is charged with particularly grievous criminal offences. The arguments of the defendant and his counsel that the investigative authorities have been inactive for a long time cannot justify the dismissal of the [prosecutor’s] request.” 19.  On 1 June 2006 the investigator established that the applicant was not involved in extortion and discontinued the criminal proceedings in that respect. 20.  On 14 June 2006 the prosecutor’s office completed the criminal investigation. The applicant remained in custody. However, no detention order covering the period from 1 July to 27 October 2006 was submitted. 21.  On 17 July 2006 the applicant and fourteen other defendants started reading the case file, which consisted of thirty-nine volumes. By 19 January 2007 the applicant had read eighteen volumes. 22.  On 27 October 2006 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 January 2007. The court noted as follows:
“[The court] discerns no grounds to release [the applicant]. [The applicant] is charged with extremely serious criminal offences which attract a custodial sentence of more than two years.
[The applicant] may abscond, continue criminal activities, interfere with administration of justice.” 23.  On 19 January 2007 the Town Court set the end-date for the applicant’s study of the case file for 10 February 2007. The applicant appealed, alleging that the Town Court had failed to specify the exact number of working days allocated for his study of the case file. On 6 February 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 19 January 2007 on appeal. 24.  On 25 January 2007 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 April 2007. The court noted as follows:
“The [prosecutor’s] request should be granted. [The applicant] is charged with extremely serious criminal offences. He might abscond or interfere with the administration of justice. [The court] discerns no circumstances justifying the [applicant’s] release.” 25.  On 24 March 2008 the Town Court extended the detention of all the defendants, including the applicant. The court noted as follows:
“The defendants are charged with extremely serious criminal offences ... To date the circumstances underlying their remand in custody still remain. They might abscond, continue with their criminal activities, or interfere with the administration of justice. Accordingly, the defendants cannot be released.” 26.  According to the applicant, he appealed against all the orders remanding him in custody. The Supreme Court upheld all of them on appeal. 27.  On 15 September 2008 the Town Court found the applicant guilty of membership of a criminal gang and illegal possession of firearms and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. On 12 November 2009 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. 1.  The period of the applicant’s detention in, the temporary detention centre in Naberezhniye Chelny, and the levels of occupation there 28.  The Government submitted the following information as regards the applicant’s detention in the temporary detention centre in Naberezhniye Chelny:
Year
Month
2005
31 January to 2 March
 
23 March to 1 April
 
22-29 April
 
25-27 May
 
20-29 June
 
1-15 and 20-22 July
 
5-24 August
 
9-19 and 26-30 September
 
14-21 October
 
2-11, 14-18 and 23-30 November
 
12-21 December
2006
18 January to 3 February
 
10-17 April
 
15-24 May
 
2-7 and 14-21 June
 
17-26 July
 
16-25 August
 
22 September to 2 October
 
20-30 October
 
27 November to 6 December
 
25-27 December
2007
12-26 January
 
12-21 February
 
2-6 March
 
30 March to 6 April
 
16-28 April
 
16-18 May
 
15-18 June
 
23-30 July
 
12-14 September
 
26 September to 1 October 29.  The Government provided data on cell numbers and measurements. The applicant did not contest the accuracy of the information submitted by the Government. He too reported on the cell population in respect of the cells where he had been detained. The parties’ submissions on the issue can be summarised as follows:
Cell no.
Cell surface area (sq. m) (as indicated by the Government and not contested by the applicant)
Number of sleeping places (as indicated by the Government and not contested by the applicant)
Number of inmates (as indicated by the applicant)
1 30.  The Government were unable to submit the information concerning the individual cell population in view of the lack of the relevant records. Nor could they provide any data in respect of the period prior to 25 October 2005 in view of the destruction of the relevant records due to the expiration of the statutory time-limit prescribed for their storage. As regards the overall temporary detention centre population from 2 November 2005 to 2 October 2007, they provided the following data, which was not contested by the applicant:
Period of the applicant’s detention
Temporary detention centre population
2-11 November 2005
91 (on one occasion) to 138
14-18 November 2005
90 (on one occasion) to 141
23 November to 21 December 2005
121 to 168
18 January to 3 February 2006
131 to 180
10-17 April 2006
117 to 179
15-24 May 2006
130 to 180
2-21 June 2006
97 to 148
17-26 July 2006
118 to 152
16-25 August 2006
102 (on one occasion) to 170
22 September to 2 October 2006
50 (on one occasion) to 159
20-30 October 2006
130 to 178
27 November to 6 December 2006
105 (on one occasion) to 170
25-27 December 2006
131 to 164
12-26 January 2007
109 (on one occasion) to 176
12-21 February 2007
91 (on one occasion) to 175
2-6 March 2007
119 to 158
30 March to 6 April 2007
90 to 132
16-28 April 2007
90 to 168
16-18 May 2007
110 to 142
15-18 June 2007
140 to 166
23-30 July 2007
130 to 168
12-14 September 2007
114 to 178
26 September to 2 October 2007
95 to 142 31.  According to the applicant, the cells in the detention centre were overcrowded at all times and the inmates had to take turns to sleep. The applicant did not have an individual sleeping place. On some days inmates suffering from tuberculosis, hepatitis, Aids, and scabies were placed in the same cell with him. Some of the inmates had lice. 32.  The Government submitted a report of 15 July 2010 prepared by the Ministry of the Interior of the Tatarstan Republic on the inspection of the temporary detention centre in Naberezhniye Chelny, where the applicant had been detained. The report contained the following description of the temporary detention centre:
“[The temporary detention centre] was commissioned in 1977. It is located in a two-storey brick building ... Prior to refurbishment it had twenty-two cells on the second floor, with a maximum capacity of 110 inmates ...
Each cell had a toilet located in the corner at least 1.5 m away from the dining table and the nearest sleeping place. They were separated by a 120-cm brick screen, ensuring partial privacy ... Each cell had a dining table ... All the windows were covered with two layers of metal bars ... The cells were lit with a 100-watt bulb ...
A full refurbishment of the temporary detention centre in Naberezhniye Chelny was started in mid-June 2008 ...
Some inmates received bedding and bed sheets from their relatives because of the shortage of it in the centre. The inmates could have a shower at least once a week. Bed linen was changed whenever possible ...
Given that the regulations governing the operation of the temporary detention centres do not require daily registration of the number of inmates in each cell, it is impossible to specify the exact number of inmates detained with the applicant in each cell of the temporary detention centre, or to indicate the cell numbers where the applicant was detained ...
The average daily population of the temporary detention centre during the periods of the [applicant’s] detention was 137, that is 1.2 times its maximum capacity. This overcrowding was due to extensive criminal investigations of the activities of organised criminal gangs, which were thirty to forty strong ...
Inmates of temporary detention centres are provided with three meals a day. They may also receive food from their relatives in accordance with the statutory norms ... The temporary detention centre did not refuse to accept food parcels for the inmates.”
There are three exercise areas measuring 2.5-3.5 square metres located within the territory of the temporary detention centre. The exercise areas are surrounded by metal screens ... While the applicant was an inmate in the temporary detention centre the inmates were allowed daily outdoor exercise for at least an hour ... 10.  All inmates received medical assistance from a paramedic. If necessary, they received medical care at other medical institutions ... During the period of his detention in the temporary detention centre, [the applicant] consulted [the paramedic] on twelve occasions ... ”
(b)  The applicant’s submissions 33.  According to the applicant, the cells in the temporary detention centre were not ventilated. Because of the metal bars on the windows there was no access to daylight in the cells. They were lit with a 60-watt bulb. Because of the lack of sufficient lighting in the cells, it was impossible to read or work there. 34.  The distance between the toilet and the closest sleeping place was 0.5 metres. In some cells there was no toilet, but only a hole in the floor. The brick wall separating the toilet from the living area of the cell did not ensure sufficient privacy, and the person using it could be seen by other inmates. 35.  The cells were infested with bedbugs, cockroaches, flies and mice. The administration of the centre took no measures to exterminate them. The food was of poor quality. 36.  The applicant was confined to the cell twenty-four hours a day with no opportunity for outdoor exercise. He received no newspapers or magazines. He was allowed one shower a week. During the summer only cold showers were available. 37.  On 24 November 2006 the prosecutor’s office informed the applicant of the results of the inquiry conducted in response to his complaint about the conditions of detention in the temporary detention centre. In part, they acknowledged the problems raised by the applicant in his complaint. In particular, they noted that the number of inmates detained in the centre exceeded its designed capacity. They further admitted that the centre building required extensive repairs in order to bring it into compliance with applicable standards. They confirmed that the inmates received only one meal a day, and that it was impossible to arrange outdoor exercise for the inmates because they were so numerous. Nevertheless, the prosecutor did not discern any reasons to take action against the management of the temporary detention centre.