5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Nizhniy Novgorod. 6.  He is currently serving his sentence in correction facility UZ‑62/12 in the village of Sherstki, located in the Tonshaevskiy District of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region. 7.  The facts of the case, which are partly disputed between the parties, may be summarised as follows. 8.  On 25 January 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated robbery with violence. 9.  From 11 February 2000 to 17 July 2000 he was detained in detention facility SIZO 32/1 (later renamed SIZO 52‑1) in Nizhniy Novgorod. 10.  Throughout his detention in SIZO 32/1 the applicant was held consecutively in the following cells:
- Cell no. 9/70, measuring 37.2 sq. m, intended for 22 inmates;
- Cell no. 17/210, measuring 15.2 sq. m, intended for 8 inmates;
- Cell no. 2/12, measuring 39.5 sq. m, intended for 22 inmates;
- Cell no. 2/11, measuring 43.4 sq. m, intended for 24 inmates;
- Cell no. 4/29, measuring 39 sq. m, intended for 22 inmates;
- Cell no. 4/27, measuring 57.1 sq. m, intended for 34 inmates. 11.  Notwithstanding the Court's specific enquiry, the Government did not indicate the number of inmates actually held in the above cells at the material time. However, they submitted that the applicant had at all times had an individual bunk bed and bedding. 12.  The applicant, on the other hand, maintained that the number of inmates in the above cells varied between 50 and 70, and occasionally increased to 90 men. Due to the shortage of beds inmates had to take turns to sleep, which left them with no more than four hours of sleep daily. For the rest of the time they had to stand around in the cell because there was not enough room even to sit down. No separate bedding was provided for individual detainees and the applicant had to share bedding as well as the bed itself. 13.  In support of his statement the applicant submitted a testimony by Mr O., who was detained in SIZO 32/1 in 2003 and who alleged that the cells were still severely overcrowded at the time of his detention. 14.  The windows in all the cells were permanently covered with dense-mesh metal blinds. In addition, there was a metal sheet fixed at a distance of about one metre outside each window. The surface area of the sheet exceeded that of the window, so that it screened off most of the daylight. 15.  With regard to the artificial lighting in the cells, the Government submitted a copy of the inspection report of 20 January 2000 for SIZO 32/1. According to the report, the level of artificial light in all the cells, including all those in which the applicant was subsequently detained, was between 100 and 115 lux (the minimum regulatory standard being 100 lux). 16.  According to the applicant, the cells were insufficiently lit, which led to a deterioration of the inmates' eyesight. He relied on written statements by Mr O. (see paragraph 13 above) and by Ms B., who was detained in SIZO 32/1 in April 2001. Both inmates also complained about the inadequate light in the cells. 17.  According to the Government, the cells were equipped with an automatic ventilation system and central heating. They submitted a copy of the inspection report of 14 February 2000 for SIZO 32/1, which stated that the temperature in all the cells of the facility was between +19ºC and +23ºC, and that the humidity was between 47 and 56%. This, they claimed, lay within the standard range required by the health regulations. 18.  The applicant disagreed with the Government and submitted that, while the cells might have been equipped with automatic ventilation, it had not worked. He referred to the statement of Mr O., according to which the ventilation system had not started functioning until the end of 2003. He maintained that the air in the cell was stale, a situation which was aggravated by the fact that most inmates smoked in the cell. He claimed that he had had no access to fresh air. He further submitted that the cell was permanently overheated and excessively humid due to overcrowding. 19.  The cells were each equipped with a wash basin and a WC at floor level. The Government, relying on the sanitary inspection report of 15 February 2000, submitted that all the cells had been disinfected and disinfested and that no insects or rodents had been discovered in SIZO 32/1. They also submitted that inmates were allowed to take a shower once a week in a specially equipped shower facility. 20.  The applicant did not dispute that the cells were equipped with the above sanitary facilities, but he contended that sharing one wash basin and one WC with at least 50 other detainees meant that it was hard to gain access to them and that they were permanently filthy. Likewise, in the shower facility it was virtually impossible to get access to water in the fifteen minutes given to all inmates (at least 50) simultaneously, with only four shower heads functioning. He disagreed with the Government's assertion as to the absence of insects or rodents, claiming that the numbers of cockroaches, lice, bed bugs and other pests were so high that they could not be controlled. He relied on the statements made by Mr. O., who submitted that in 2003 the cells were still heavily infested with cockroaches, lice and bed bugs. 21.  The Government submitted that the quality and nutritional value of the meals provided to inmates in SIZO 32/1 attained and even exceeded the minimum standards. They claimed that the relevant inspection had taken place on 13 March 2000 and that its conclusions had been satisfactory. With regard to the arrangements in the cell for taking meals, they submitted that each cell was furnished with a dining table and seats where the inmates could take meals. 22.  The applicant, meanwhile, claimed that the catering in the facility was extremely poor and that inmates often made complaints about it. He further maintained that the rations were inadequate in view of his state of health. As to the furniture, he acknowledged that each cell had a table and benches, but said that they could seat no more than 8-10 persons. He therefore had to stand while eating his meals in order to eat while the food was still warm. 23.  On the applicant's arrival in SIZO 32/1 he was interviewed about his state of health. He denied having tuberculosis. On 14 February 2000 he had a compulsory x-ray which revealed pathology in the lower lung fields. 24.  On 16 February 2000 the applicant was diagnosed with bilateral lower lobe pneumonia and admitted to a prison medical ward. When questioned by the medical personnel he explained that he had been suffering from a cough, fever and headaches for two weeks. 25.  In the next two weeks the applicant underwent intensive medical treatment, and his condition was monitored by means of a further x-ray on 25 February 2000 and a CT scan on 29 February 2000. On the basis of the latter the tuberculosis specialist diagnosed the applicant on 1 March 2000 with focal pneumonia in the upper lobe of the right lung. 26.  The applicant alleged that the regular searches in the cells and personal searches of inmates were usually accompanied by violence on the part of prison officers, including beating, insults and setting dogs on inmates. 27.  According to the Government, no violent practices had been recorded in SIZO 32/1 and no complaints of such practices had been made to the competent prosecutor's office, either by the applicant or by other detainees. 28.  According to the Government, no complaints were made by the applicant while he was in pre-trial detention. The applicant, on the other hand, submitted that he had filed numerous complaints about the harsh conditions of detention with the Chief Officer of SIZO 32/1, without success. He claimed that he had no copies of these complaints at his disposal because he had had no means of taking copies in the facility. 29.  On 28 April 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod began examining the applicant's case. According to the applicant, he requested the court to summon a defence witness, but his request was refused. On the same date the applicant was convicted of aggravated robbery with violence and sentenced to eleven years and six months' imprisonment and confiscation of property. 30.  The applicant appealed. It is not clear whether the applicant raised before the appeal court the complaint regarding the district court's refusal to summon the defence witness. 31.  On 4 July 2000 the Nizhegorodskiy Regional Court examined the appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant was present at the hearing.