5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Poltava. 6.  On 9 June 2004 the applicant was arrested in connection with criminal proceedings against him and two women, D. and O. In October 2004 the applicant was released under written obligation not to abscond. The criminal proceedings were discontinued in 2008 for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the applicant and the other accused persons. 7.  As established by the domestic courts, between 10 and 18 June 2004 the applicant was held in the ITT. In the morning of 11 June 2004 the applicant was escorted to the local court for a hearing concerning the preliminary measure to be applied in his respect. He returned to the ITT in the afternoon on the same day. 8.  In January 2007 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Oktyabrskyy District Court of Poltava (“the District Court”) against the ITT and other authorities seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained owing to the inappropriate conditions of his detention in the ITT. 9.  The applicant claimed that throughout the period of his detention in different cells of the ITT the conditions of his detention had been contrary to domestic legislation and Article 3 of the Convention. He stated that: he had not been given a chance to wash himself or clean his teeth as he had not been provided with hygiene products; he had had to sleep on wooden or metal bunks without a mattress or bed linen; every night he had been bitten by insects, putting him at risk of being infected with HIV or other illnesses from the other inmates; instead of a spoon he had been given a small utensil which had made it impossible to eat; he had never been allowed outside exercise and had had no access to fresh air; the toilets in the cells had offered no privacy as they were not properly partitioned; and every morning and evening he and the other detainees had been strip-searched in each other’s presence. In particular, the applicant and the other detainees were ordered to undress, go out of the cell to the corridor and enter a metal cage. During the body search the applicant was pushed with a truncheon and required to face a wall and spread his buttocks. 10.  Further to the applicant’s requests, the District Court questioned the two women, D. and O., who had been held in the ITT during the same period. Owing to the rotation of the detainees, D. was held in the same cells (nos. 3 and 5) as the applicant but on different days. 11.  When questioned in the court, D. submitted that she and other detainees had not been provided with bed linen; the cells had been infested with biting insects, making it impossible to sleep; she had been regularly strip-searched (apart from the applicant); she had not been provided with hygiene products; she had had no outdoor exercise; the utensil for eating had been too small, with the result that the persons using it could not avoid touching the food with their fingers; and the toilets were not properly partitioned. 12.  When questioned in court, O. explained that she had not been provided with bed linen, an appropriate utensil for eating or hygiene products; she had had no outdoor exercise; she had been bitten by insects; and no disinfection measures had been carried out. 13.  Further to the applicant’s requests, the District Court also questioned the applicant’s wife and other persons who saw him and talked with him during the impugned period of his detention or afterwards. All the witnesses were examined in the presence of the applicant. 14.  The applicant also submitted that his allegations could be corroborated by the detainees who had been held in the same cells simultaneously with him. He asked the court to have the ITT submit relevant detention records in order to identify his cellmates and summon them as witnesses. The District Court requested the records from the ITT. The ITT submitted the records concerning the detainees in the cells but those records did not specify the personal information necessary to identify and summon the cellmates. The applicant further demanded that the court inspect the cells in which he had been held in order to verify the facts in dispute. That request was refused and the District Court examined photographs of the ITT provided by the defendants. 15.  During the hearings the defendants submitted that the applicant’s contentions had been unsubstantiated. They argued, in particular, that the strip-searches had been carried out in accordance with domestic regulations, the applicant had had opportunities to receive the necessary products from his relatives, disinfection measures had been carried out twice a month as confirmed by the relevant records, and the physical conditions had been appropriate, as confirmed by the photographs taken on the premises of the ITT. 16.  On 7 June 2007 the District Court dismissed the claim as unsubstantiated. It noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the applicant had sustained any non-pecuniary damage, that there had been any unlawful actions or inactivity on the part of the defendants or that they were guilty of any civil wrongdoing. It pointed out that the applicant’s allegations were supported by statements of witnesses who had no direct experience of the applicant’s personal situation in the ITT. On the other hand, it noted that the record of the disinfection measures carried out in the ITT disproved the applicant’s allegations concerning inappropriate sanitary conditions. It also had regard to the domestic regulations concerning body searches of individuals held in temporary detention centres. 17.  The applicant appealed, claiming that the District Court had failed to take the necessary measures to identify and question his cellmates; it had groundlessly disregarded the statements of D. and O., who had been detained in the ITT during the same period, whose direct experience was relevant to the facts of the case. In particular, witness D. was held in the same cells, though on different days during the period under examination, and her submissions concerning the physical conditions of detention were identical to those of the applicant. The court had not inspected the premises of the ITT. The applicant further emphasised that the practice of strip-searches was contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. He referred to the Court’s judgments in the cases of Iwańczuk v. Poland, (no. 25196/94, 15 November 2001) and Van der Ven v. the Netherlands (no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003‑II). He insisted that there had been no reason for strip searches to be carried out twice a day, yet the District Court had considered that practice justified. The applicant argued that by ignoring the Convention requirements on that matter the District Court had failed to respect the Constitution, according to which the Convention was a part of the domestic law. 18.  On 31 July 2007 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the District Court in the presence of the applicant. It noted that, according to the official records submitted by the defendants, during the period at issue the cells in the ITT had been disinfected twice a month; the applicant had been visited by his lawyer; on 13 and 15 June 2004 his wife had given him parcels containing toilet paper, toothpaste, toothbrush and soap. The strip-searches had been carried out in accordance with the internal regulations adopted by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The photos submitted by the defendants showed that the toilets in the cells had been properly partitioned, and the exercise yard and the ventilation system had been available. On the other hand, the applicant had not submitted any evidence to substantiate his claim that he had sustained non-pecuniary damage, that the defendants had engaged in unlawful actions or inactivity or that they were guilty of any civil wrongdoing. The applicant’s allegations were contradictory and could not be supported by the statements of the witnesses, as they had no direct experience of the conditions of the applicant’s detention. 19.  The applicant appealed on points of law, repeating the arguments he had raised before the court of appeal. In particular, he insisted that the courts had failed to take measures to identify and question his cellmates. They had not given valid reasons for disregarding the statements of D. and O., who had been detained in the ITT during the same period. The practice of strip searches contradicted Article 3 of the Convention as interpreted in the Court’s case law and the courts had failed to examine the case from that standpoint. 20.  On 28 January 2008 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal on point of law noting that the decisions of the lower courts were lawful and substantiated.