5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Netherlands. 6.  On 17 February 1998 the applicant was detained in the Netherlands on the basis of a request for his extradition by the authorities in Germany, where he was suspected of having committed a bank robbery and, during his subsequent flight and pursuit by the police, of having taken several hostages and having shot and killed one person. On 4 November 1998 he was extradited to Germany where, by judgment of 21 May 1999, the Duisburg Regional Court (Landgericht) convicted the applicant of extortion, attempted homicide, homicide and hostage-taking and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 7.  Pending the determination of a request under the Enforcement of [Foreign] Criminal Judgments (Transfer) Act (Wet overdracht tenuitvoerlegging strafvonnissen – “WOTS”) for the applicant to be allowed to serve his sentence in the Netherlands, where he had lived since early childhood, the applicant was transferred to the Netherlands on 4 July 2000. 8.  On 3 October 2000, in accordance with the provisions of the WOTS, the Hague Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) gave leave for the applicant’s sentence to be executed in the Netherlands and, considering that under the Netherlands sentencing rules a life sentence fitted the nature and seriousness of the offences, the circumstances in which they had been committed and the person and personal circumstances of the applicant, imposed a life sentence. The applicant filed an appeal on points of law against this ruling with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad). 9.  On 26 June 2001 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s appeal on points of law against the ruling and quashed the decision of 3 October 2000. It held that the Regional Court had failed to examine whether or not, with regard to the possibilities of early or conditional release for persons sentenced to life imprisonment, the applicant’s situation in the Netherlands would be less advantageous than in Germany. It remitted the applicant’s case to the Amsterdam Regional Court for a fresh decision. At the time the application was lodged with the Court, the proceedings before the Amsterdam Regional Court were still pending. 10.  Following his transfer from Germany to the Netherlands on 4 July 2000, the applicant was initially detained in an ordinary remand centre (huis van bewaring) in Rotterdam. On 5 December 2000 a number of items (a whet stone attachment for a rotary grinder, knotted sheets, a rope and a metal hook) were found in his cell. The applicant was subsequently transferred to the National Segregation Unit (Landelijke Afzonderingsafdeling) in the Nieuw Vosseveld Penitentiary Complex in Vught. 11.  On 21 December 2000, on the advice of the special selection board of the maximum security institution (Extra Beveiligde Inrichting – “EBI”), the Minister of Justice decided to place the applicant in the EBI, which is part of the Nieuw Vosseveld Penitentiary Complex. His detention in the EBI was reviewed and extended by the Minister every six months. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged each decision to extend before the Appeals Board (beroepscommissie) of the Central Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice (Centrale Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing). On 1 April 2001 the Central Council was replaced by the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing en Jeugdbescherming). 12.  On 27 May 2002, as he had done in respect of the previous decisions to extend, the applicant filed an appeal with the Appeals Board against the decision of 22 May 2002 extending his stay in the EBI by six months. He argued, inter alia, that the EBI detention regime was in breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, that he was suffering from sarcoidosis and that the environment in the EBI had a very negative effect on his health. 13.  On 1 November 2002 the Appeals Board rejected his appeal. In so far as relevant, its decision reads as follows:
“On the basis of Article 6 of the Regulation on the selection, placement and transfer of detainees (Regeling selectie, plaatsing en overplaatsing van gedetineerden) of 15 August 2000, which entered into force on 1 October 2000, detainees may be placed in the maximum security institution if they:
a. are considered extremely likely to attempt to escape and pose an unacceptable risk to society in terms of the danger of their committing further serious violent crimes, or
b. in the event of an escape, would pose an unacceptable risk to society, the risk of escape in itself being of lesser importance.
... The Appeals Board considers as follows:
During an inspection of the [applicant’s] cell in the [Rotterdam] remand centre on 5 December 2000 a whet stone attachment [for an electrical device], a coil of ‘rope’ [made from] plaited strips of sheet and a long rope with a hook made from a broom handle, with an attached hook made from the aluminium handle of a floor sweeper, were found. In addition a crack was noted in the cell window. The seriousness and quite recent nature of these discoveries justify the finding that the [applicant] at present still poses an extreme risk of escape. In that connection [the Appeals Board] notes that the 1998 incidents mentioned by the [EBI] selection officer have not been taken into consideration in reaching this finding. Those incidents concern a knife found in January 1998 in a bus in which the [applicant] and three other detainees had been transported, some visitors of the applicant who in May 1998 remained in their car for a remarkably long time observing the detention facility, a fork going missing from the applicant’s cell and odd behaviour in the visitors’ room. Those incidents did not lead to the [applicant’s] being placed in the EBI at that time. Instead, the [applicant], after a stay in the National Segregation Unit, was transferred to an ordinary remand centre. It remains unknown whether the knife belonged to one of the detainees who had been travelling in the bus.
In view of the very violent crimes the [applicant] is suspected of having committed and the subsequent pursuit in Germany and the Netherlands during which persons were taken hostage, the [applicant] – in the event of an escape – would pose an unacceptable risk to society in terms of the danger of his committing further serious violent crimes.
The Appeals Board, noting the above considerations, concludes that the [applicant] falls within the category [referred to in Article 6 (a) of the Regulation on the selection, placement and transfer of detainees].
As regards the [applicant’s] reliance on [the Convention], the Appeals Board considers that the EBI regime is not in violation of the prohibition set out in Article 3 of the Convention. Interference with the right to respect for private and family life set forth in Article 8 of the Convention is permitted as long as such interference is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society for, inter alia, the prevention of disorder and crime.
On the basis of the documents obtained it appears that the examination [to establish whether the applicant suffers from sarcoidosis] is still ongoing. In these circumstances, the argument [based on this medical condition] cannot (for the time being) succeed.
The Appeals Board, noting the above, finds that the decision to extend the applicant’s stay in the EBI is lawful and that, weighing up all the interests involved, it cannot be considered as unreasonable or unjust.” 14.  No further appeal lay against this decision. 15.  By decision of 19 November 2002 the applicant’s stay in the EBI was extended by a further period of six months. He again lodged an appeal with the Appeals Board in which he argued, inter alia, that the EBI regime was in breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, in particular as regards strip-searches in the EBI and the conditions governing visits. He submitted that the EBI regime was having adverse effects on his mental and physical health. 16.  On 25 March 2003 the Appeals Board dismissed the appeal. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows:
“In its decision of 1 November 2002 the Appeals Board found that the [applicant] continued to pose an extreme risk of escape. ... The Appeals Board notes that, since then, there have been no signs indicating a possible escape by the [applicant]. Noting this, it is of the opinion that at present lesser weight is to be attached to the discovery in December 2000 and that it can no longer be said that the [applicant] poses an extreme danger of escape.
However, in view of the very violent offences the [applicant] is suspected of having committed and the subsequent pursuit having taken place in Germany and the Netherlands, in which people were taken hostage and one person was killed, the [applicant], in the event of an escape, would pose an unacceptable risk to society.
The Appeals Board, noting the above considerations, therefore concludes that the [applicant] falls within the category [referred to in Article 6 (b) of the Regulation on the selection, placement and transfer of detainees].
As regards the applicant’s arguments based on Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, the Appeals Board points out that, under the [1999] Prisons Act, it reviews decisions by the selection officer, in the instant case the decision to extend the [applicant’s] stay in the EBI. Consequently, it does not review the underlying detention regime as such and, therefore, the examination of the question as to whether or not the regime is in violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention [falls outside the scope of the present appeal proceedings]. The Appeals Board considers, in any event, that – having regard to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights – it cannot be held that the EBI regime as it currently exists should be regarded as being in breach of the Convention.
It does not appear from the documents that the applicant’s medical condition represents a contra-indication for a longer stay in the EBI.
 The Appeals Board, noting the above, finds that the decision to extend the applicant’s stay in the EBI is lawful and, weighing up all the interests involved, concludes – albeit on a different ground – that it cannot be considered as unreasonable or unjust.” 17.  No further appeal lay against this decision. 18.  On 30 June 2003 the applicant was transferred from the EBI to another prison with a different regime. 19.  On 10 August 2004 another individual – who had been detained in the EBI between 26 June 1998 and 24 December 2003 – brought a civil action in tort (onrechtmatige daad) against the Netherlands State before the Hague Regional Court. One of the grounds on which he claimed payment of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage for unlawful acts for which he considered the Netherlands State to be liable was that, from his arrest in March 1998 until the end of December 2003, he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the conditions of his detention, including having had to undergo humiliating and unnecessary strip-searches. He based this part of his claim on, inter alia, the Court’s findings in its judgments of 4 February 2003 in the cases of Van der Ven v. the Netherlands (no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003-II) and Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands (no. 52750/99), the findings of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) as set out in two reports (see paragraphs 47-48 below), and a report drawn up on 10 October 2003 by academic researchers on the psychological impact of the EBI regime on the mental well-being of (former) inmates (see paragraph 24 below). 20.  On 11 July 2005 the applicant and eight other (former) EBI detainees applied to the Regional Court for leave to join the civil action against the Netherlands State. Their application related to the part of the claim concerning compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the conditions of detention in the EBI, including having had to undergo humiliating and unnecessary strip-searches. These civil proceedings are currently still pending and, to date, no decision has been taken on the applicant’s request to join the pending civil action.