5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Bibinje. 6.  On 6 July 2009 the Zadar County State Attorney’s Office (Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Zadru; hereinafter: the “State Attorney’s Office”) indicted the applicant in the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) on charges of continuous offences of rape and indecent behaviour against a child. 7.  During the proceedings the applicant denied the charges, arguing that he knew the victim and her family, who lived nearby, but had never engaged in any sexual or indecent behaviour with her. 8.  On 23 April 2010 the Zadar County Court found the applicant guilty on three counts of rape, one count of sexual intercourse with a child and one count of indecent behaviour, and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment. The trial bench found that the evidence of several witnesses and expert reports confirmed the victim’s accusations against the applicant, and that the charges brought against him should be classified not as a continuous offence but as cumulative offences of rape, sexual intercourse with a child and indecent behaviour. 9.  On 28 May 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal against the first‑instance judgment before the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske), challenging the factual and legal grounds for his conviction and sentence, and complaining of numerous substantive and procedural flaws in the trial and the judgment. In particular, he argued that he had not had an opportunity to effectively challenge the victim and witnesses during the trial, that a psychologist expert report had not been properly drafted, that the judgment lacked the relevant reasoning, and that the trial bench had erred in the legal classification of the acts at issue and in its factual findings, leaving some crucial facts undetermined. He thus requested that the first-instance judgment be quashed and the case be remitted for a retrial. He also asked that he and his lawyer be invited to the hearing before the Supreme Court. 10.  During the appeal proceedings the case file was forwarded to the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia (Državno odvjetništvo Republike Hrvatske), which submitted in its reasoned opinion that the appeal be dismissed. That submission was never forwarded to the defence. 11.  On 12 May 2011 the Supreme Court held a hearing in the presence of the applicant’s lawyer and the Deputy State Attorney, holding that the applicant’s presence was not necessary. During the hearing, the Deputy State Attorney reiterated her reasoned opinion. The applicant’s lawyer complained that there had been a breach of procedure. 12.  On the same day the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded, reversing the legal classification of the cumulative offences to one continuous act of sexual intercourse with a child, and sentencing the applicant to twelve years’ imprisonment. 13.  On 4 July 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske). Relying on the Court’s case-law, he complained, inter alia, that during the appeal proceedings the submission of the State Attorney’s Office had never been communicated to the defence and that he had not been given an opportunity to be present at the appeal hearing. The Supreme Court had been invited to examine all the legal and factual aspects of the case, which should not have been done without his presence at the hearing. He also stressed that the defence had not learned about the submission of the State Attorney’s Office until the appeal hearing, and thus had been deprived of an effective opportunity to reply to it. 14.  On 10 November 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint as ill-founded, holding that there had been no reason, nor requirement in terms of the relevant domestic law, to forward the submission of the State Attorney’s Office to the defence. As to the applicant’s absence from the appeal hearing, the Constitutional Court noted:
“... [T]he Supreme Court examined the appellant’s appeal in the presence of his defence lawyer, who had been invited to the hearing. The Supreme Court partially accepted the appeal and reduced the sentence. Therefore its decision was not to [the appellant’s] detriment. Thus the Constitutional Court finds that the Supreme Court correctly decided not to ensure the appellant’s presence at the appeal hearing.” 15.  The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 23 November 2011. 16.  During the criminal proceedings against him in the Zadar County Court, the applicant was initially remanded in custody in Zadar Prison (Zatvor u Zadru). 17.  On 6 September 2010, because of a problem of overcrowding in Zadar Prison, the Prison Administration of the Ministry of Justice (Ministarstvo pravosuđa Uprava za zatvorski sustav) ordered that the applicant be transferred to Pula Prison (Zatvor u Puli). He was transferred on 10 September 2010 and remained in detention on remand in that prison until 25 August 2011 (see paragraph 30 below). 18.  According to the applicant, during his stay in Pula Prison he was placed in a cell measuring in total 23.5 square metres, sometimes with five other persons but for most of the time with seven other persons. The cell was equipped with eight beds and eight cupboards, which, given the number of persons, prevented any normal circulation in the cell. He was locked up in such circumstances for twenty-two hours a day. In the winter the heating in the cell was not sufficient and in the summer it was too hot, so that the prisoners, who were allowed to take a shower only once a week, smelt unbearable. The hygiene conditions were poor, as inmates were not provided with sufficient cleaning products and some also smoked in the cell. In addition, food in the canteen often went bad because the refrigerators did not work well. There was only one toilet in the cell, which was not sufficient for eight persons. The applicant therefore had to use a bottle or some other means instead of using the toilet, because the drugs he had been taking for high blood pressure meant that he needed to use the toilet frequently. That caused laughter and mocking among the other prisoners. Moreover, he was distanced from his family. At the beginning, he was allowed only a ten‑minute telephone call with his family per week; later, he had the right to only a fifteen-minute call per week. 19.  The Government submitted that the applicant had been placed in a cell measuring in total 23.5 square metres with five to seven other persons, depending on the period at issue. The cell toilet, which the applicant had been able to use at any time, had been separated from the living area. The cell had been appropriately heated and air-conditioned. In addition, it had allowed access to daylight. The hygiene conditions had been very good and Pula Prison had been regularly treated against insects and rodents. The dining area had been separated from the living facilities and the applicant had had the opportunity to buy products from the prison canteen. He had also had the possibility to take two hours’ walk per day in the fresh air and to practise sport activities. The applicant had been allowed to telephone his wife, first for ten minutes per week, and then for fifteen minutes per week. During his stay in Pula Prison the applicant had been provided with full medical care. In particular, he had been examined by a dermatologist on 18 January 2011, by a surgeon on 28 January 2011, by an internist and a specialist in neurology on 17 February and 7 March 2011, and by a psychiatrist on 1 December 2012. 20.  On 29 September 2010 the applicant complained to the Prison Administration of the Ministry of Justice, the governor of Pula Prison, and the sentence-execution judge of the Pula County Court (Županijski sud u Puli) about the manner in which he had been transferred and admitted to Pula Prison and the conditions of his detention in that prison. In particular, he alleged that during the transfer he had been threatened with being shot and had not been medically examined upon arrival in Pula Prison. He also complained that he had been placed in a cell with seven other persons and that the hygiene conditions in the cell had been very poor. He stressed that by his transfer to Pula Prison he had been distanced from his family. 21.  On 28 October 2010 the Pula County Court obtained a report from the Pula Prison administration concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention. According to the report, Pula Prison had no information about the applicant’s transfer, which had been organised by the Zadar Prison administration. As to the applicant’s admission to Pula Prison, it was true that he had not been examined by a doctor on the day of his admission but only on the next working day, and that he had not been provided with treatment during the weekend of his admission. However, at that time the Pula Prison administration had not yet received the applicant’s medical documentation, so they had not known about his medical condition and he had not complained about any health problems. The Pula Prison administration also reported that the applicant had been placed in a cell measuring approximately 22 square metres with seven other persons. According to the report, that was contrary to the required standards, but the prison was in any event overcrowded, so it could not be changed. 22.  On 17 November 2010 the president of the Pula County Court informed the applicant’s representative by letter about the Pula Prison administration’s report of 28 October 2010, and stated that his complaint had been forwarded to the Zadar County Court because the proceedings were pending before that court. 23.  On 26 November 2010 the Zadar County Court requested the Prison Administration of the Ministry of Justice to transfer the applicant back to Zadar Prison as soon as practicable. 24.  On 9 December 2010 the Prison Administration of the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant’s representative by letter that it considered the applicant’s complaints ill-founded in any respect. It stressed that the applicant had refused any medical examination and had undergone treatment just before his transfer to Pula Prison. Upon his arrival at Pula Prison he had not asked to be medically examined. Furthermore, the Prison Administration of the Ministry of Justice considered that there had been nothing unlawful in warning the applicant that firearms could be used if he attempted to escape during the transfer. It also considered that the hygiene conditions in Pula Prison were good, although it made no reference to the complaint about overcrowding. 25.  On 24 January 2011 the applicant again asked the Prison Administration of the Ministry of Justice and the governor of Pula Prison to be transferred to Zadar Prison. 26.  On 28 January 2011 the Prison Administration of the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that it was not possible to transfer him to any other prison because of the general problem of prison overcrowding. 27.  On 2 April 2011 the applicant complained to the Ombudsman (Pučki pravobranitelj) about the conditions of his detention, and the Ombudsman requested that the Prison Administration of the Ministry of Justice inform him about the circumstances of the case. 28.  On 26 June 2011 the Ombudsman expressed his concerns to the Prison Administration of the Ministry of Justice concerning the applicant’s transfer to Pula Prison from Zadar Prison, since the relevant information showed that Pula Prison was more overcrowded than Zadar Prison. On 24 August 2011 the Ombudsman informed the applicant that there was a problem of prison overcrowding and that nothing further could be done concerning his complaints. 29.  In the meantime, on 4 July 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court about the conditions of his detention, and challenged the fairness of the criminal proceedings against him (see paragraph 13 above). 30.  On 25 August 2011 the applicant was transferred from Pula Prison to Zagreb Prison (Zatvor u Zagrebu), where he started to serve his prison sentence. 31.  On 10 November 2011, the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint that the criminal proceedings had been unfair (see paragraph 14 above) and declared the applicant’s complaint about the conditions of his detention in Pula Prison inadmissible on the grounds that he was no longer being held in Pula Prison.