5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and is currently serving a prison sentence in a medical establishment of the Ministry of Penitentiary, Probation and Legal Assistance (“the prison hospital”). 6.  The applicant and an acquaintance (co-accused in subsequent criminal proceedings) were arrested in the latter’s flat on 31 March 2007 for unlawful purchase and possession of a particularly large quantity of drugs with the intention to sell, an offence under Article 260 § 3 (a) of the Criminal Code of Georgia. According to the relevant search record, the police discovered some 80 grams of heroin in the flat, and, in addition, according to the record of the body search of the applicant, 1.6150 grams of heroin were found in a pocket of his jacket. 7.  Prior to the arrest of the applicant and his acquaintance, two other people had been arrested while leaving the same flat. They were both released the same evening, after making incriminating statements against the applicant and the co-accused. At a later stage of the proceedings, notably during the trial, they retracted their initial incriminating statements, claiming that they had been coerced by the police into making them (see paragraph 11 below). 8.  The case file did not contain a copy of the record of the applicant’s body search. However, the applicant claimed that he had refused to sign it, since, according to him, heroin had been planted on his person by police officers during his transfer from the impugned flat to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The applicant maintained in this connection that he had never waived his right to be searched in the presence of independent witnesses, contrary to what was noted in the search record. 9.  On 28 December 2007 the Tbilisi City Court convicted the applicant of unlawful purchase and possession of a particularly large quantity of heroin, which had been found in the flat and on his person, with the intention to sell and sentenced him to seventeen years in prison. The first‑instance court dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s allegation that heroin had been planted on him by the police. 10.  Following the applicant’s appeal, the prosecution dropped the charges concerning the heroin found in the flat. Subsequently, on 12 September 2008 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal convicted the applicant of unlawful purchase and possession of 1.6150 grams of heroin found on his person only and reduced his sentence to twelve years’ imprisonment. 11.  The applicant’s conviction was primarily based on the record of his body search, the results of the chemical examination of the seized substance and the statements of the three police officers who had conducted the body search. In reaching their conclusion, the domestic courts also relied on the pre-trial incriminating statements of the two witnesses arrested during the police operation and released shortly afterwards. The court gave precedence to the statements they had made during the pre-trial investigation as it considered that the withdrawal of their initial statements had been unjustified, as they had not proved that they had been coerced into making them. The court specifically noted the fact that neither of the two witnesses had lodged any subsequent complaints regarding the alleged coercion exerted on them. 12.  By a decision of 7 May 2009 the Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed that applicant’s appeal on points of law. 13. Copies of medical records submitted to the Court indicate that prior to his arrest, in 2006 the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from viral hepatitis C (HCV) and B, acute erosive peptic ulcer, second degree arterial hypertension, ischemic heart disease and angina pectoris. From 10 to 17 March 2006 the applicant underwent clinical treatment for gastroduodenal bleeding. At the same time he was involved in a drug rehabilitation program. In June 2006 the applicant was additionally diagnosed with dysbacteriosis. 14.  On 17 August 2007 the head of the medical unit of Tbilisi no. 5 Prison, where the applicant was placed at the material time, in reply to the applicant’s lawyer’s request, issued a medical certificate according to which the applicant did not require treatment on an in-patient basis. It was noted in the certificate that the applicant had been examined on 14 August 2007 by a group of medical specialists who had diagnosed him with second degree arterial hypertension, chronic inactive HCV infection and a peptic ulcer. 15.  On 18 July 2008 the applicant was transferred to Rustavi no. 6 Prison. On 15 October 2008, in view of a deterioration in the applicant’s medical condition, his lawyer requested the head of the prison department of the Ministry of Justice, the authority in charge of the prison system at the material time, to transfer the applicant to the prison hospital for medical examination and treatment. In support of the request, the applicant’s lawyer submitted a copy of the applicant’s medical records confirming his diagnosis. On 20 October 2008 the Ministry of Justice forwarded the request to the Governor of Rustavi no. 6 Prison and to the head of the medical group of the prison department requesting that action be taken accordingly. The applicant claimed that he had never received a reply to his request, which fact the Government disputed. Although they failed to submit a copy of the relevant letter in support of their contention, the Government provided the Court with an extract from the log book of Rustavi no. 6 Prison, according to which a letter of reply had been sent to the applicant on 5 November 2008. Further, according to the Government, the applicant subsequently underwent various medical examinations; notably, he had blood and urine tests, including a blood test for HCV, a fibrogastroduodenoscopy and an electrocardiography. He was also consulted by a pathologist, a therapist and a cardiologist and prescribed drug-based treatment for his various conditions. 16.  On 16 June 2010 the applicant was transferred to Rustavi no. 16 Prison, where he stayed for almost one year. According to the case file, the chief doctor of the above facility issued an undated medical record, which confirmed the applicant’s diagnosis of chronic HCV, second degree arterial hypertension, peptic ulcer and angina pectoris. The chief doctor made no mention of the treatment, if any, administered to the applicant at the material time. 17.  On 5 May 2011, following the communication of the case to the respondent Government, the applicant was placed in the prison hospital, where he underwent extensive clinical examinations and his final diagnosis was defined as follows: first degree arterial hypertension, chronic superficial gastroduodenitis, chronic HCV with moderate pathological activity, a cyst on the right kidney, spinal osteochondrosis, disc hernia, varicose veins in the lower limbs and chronic venous insufficiency. 18.  The applicant started receiving an anti-viral treatment on an in-patient basis in the prison hospital. In September 2011 he was additionally diagnosed with sputum negative pulmonary tuberculosis. The decision was, therefore, taken to suspend his anti-viral treatment. On 12 September 2011 the applicant was included in the DOTS programme (Directly Observed Treatment, Short-course – the treatment strategy for the detection and cure of tuberculosis recommended by the World Health Organisation).