7.  The applicant was born in 1964 and previously resided in the town of Baku, in the Republic of Azerbaijan. 8.  He is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in penitentiary establishment IK-4 in the town of Vyazniki of the Vladimir Region, Russia. 9.  On 26 February 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having taken part in multiple episodes of organised armed robbery, along with eight other people. 10.  Since that date he has remained in custody. 11.  On 28 February 2004 the Frunzenskiy District Court of the town of Vladimir (“the District Court”), having heard submissions from a prosecutor and from the applicant in person, authorised the applicant's arrest and pre­trial detention. 12.  The court examined the materials of the case file and noted that the applicant was suspected of having committed a series of particularly serious crimes, had no fixed place of residence, work or registration in Russia, that he was a foreign national, that there were grounds to believe that being at large the applicant might flee from justice or continue his criminal activity, and that the application of less drastic preventive measures was generally not justified. 13.  It does not appear that the applicant brought appeal proceedings in respect of this detention order. 14.  On 2 March 2004 the charges were brought against the applicant on suspicion of his involvement in multiple episodes of organised armed robbery. 15.  Subsequently, on an unspecified date, the applicant's case was merged with other cases which concerned the applicant's criminal activity in the Vladimir, Ivanovo and Saratov Regions. 16.  By order of 22 April 2004 the District Court, having heard submissions from the applicant, his counsel and the prosecutor, extended the applicant's detention until 6 July 2004, for a total period of 4 months and 10 days. 17.  The court mentioned the same reasons as in the order of 28 February 2004, adding that the applicant could put pressure on other participants in the criminal case, attempt to eliminate evidence and otherwise impede the proceedings. 18.  The decision also noted the need to finalise investigative actions in the Vladimir, Ivanovo and Saratov Regions. The prosecutor estimated that these actions could take at least two months and ten days. The court examined the materials in the case file as collected so far and agreed with the investigator's reasons. 19.  It does not appear that the applicant brought appeal proceedings in respect of this decision. 20.  On 6 July 2004 the District Court extended the pre-trial detention until 6 September 2004, for a total period of 6 months and 10 days. The court noted that the applicant had been accused of a serious crime, that he was unemployed, and that from the case-file materials it followed that further investigative actions were required. 21.  According to the court, there was reason to believe that being at large the applicant might flee, continue his criminal activity or impede the criminal proceedings. 22.  It is not clear whether the judge heard submissions from the applicant or his counsel in person or whether any appeal proceedings were brought in respect of this extension. 23.  On 25 August 2004 further charges were brought against the applicant on account of other alleged criminal activity on his part. 24.  On 6 September 2004 the applicant's pre-trial detention was further extended by the District Court, this time until 6 November 2004, for a total period of 8 months. The court gave reasons essentially similar to those mentioned in its previous decisions. 25.  It is not clear whether the judge heard submissions from the applicant or his counsel in person or whether any appeal proceedings were brought in respect of this extension. 26.  In a decision dated 22 October 2004 the District Court again extended the applicant's pre-trial detention, this time until 6 December 2004, referring to the same reasons as in its previous decisions. The total period of the applicant's authorised detention now amounted to 9 months and 10 days. 27.  It is not clear whether the judge heard submissions from the applicant or his counsel in person or whether any appeal proceedings were brought in respect of this extension. 28.  On 6 December 2004 the District Court extended the pre-trial detention until 6 February 2005, for a total period of 11 months and 10 days. The court justified the decision with reference to essentially the same reasons as previously. 29.  It is not clear whether the judge heard submissions from the applicant or his counsel in person or whether any appeal proceedings were brought in respect of this extension. 30.  It appears that on 11 January 2005 the investigation in respect of nine co-accused in the case, including the applicant, was over and the prosecution authority sent the bill of indictment, along with the case file, to the trial court for examination on the merits. 31.  On 27 January 2005 the Vladimir Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) carried out a preliminary examination of the case and, having detected various shortcomings and defects in the investigation, decided to return the file to the prosecutor. 32.  Those defects included the following: failure to notify the accused of their rights in relation to the jury trial procedure; failure to decide whether there was any need to split the case in view of the fact that some co-accused had opted for a jury trial procedure; and lastly certain inconsistencies and shortcoming in the factual conclusions made by the prosecution in the bill of indictment. 33.  The court noted that all accused in the case should remain in detention as there were no reasons to release them. The court did not set any specific time-limit for their detention. The decision referred to all accused collectively, without analysing their circumstances individually. In taking this decision the court relied on Article 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 34.  Upon expiration of the ten-day time-limit for appeal on 3 February 2005, the court sent the case file back to the prosecutor's office. 8.  The applicant's request for release dated 10 March 2005, the second bill of indictment and the decision of 28 March 2005 to stay the proceedings 35.  On 4 March 2005, having introduced necessary corrections and amendments, the prosecution sent the corrected case file to the trial court for examination on the merits. 36.  On an unspecified date, the trial court decided to hold a preliminary hearing in the case on 28 March 2005. It does not appear that any formal decision was taken as regards the applicant's detention on remand. 37.  On 10 March 2005 the applicant, through his lawyer, applied for release. The request referred to the alleged lack of any lawful basis for his continued detention as of 6 February 2005. 38.  This request was examined and rejected by the Regional Court at the preliminary hearing on 28 March 2005. The court decided that the investigation should be suspended because one of the accused, Mr D.G. K., was seriously ill, while one of the others, Mr A.A. G., could not take part in the proceedings as he was being tried in a different set of proceedings for a different offence. The court noted that it was impossible to try the applicant separately from the other co­accused and that the six month time-limit, as set out in Article 255 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was not breached. 39.  In respect of the lawfulness of the applicant's detention on remand, the court noted that until 11 January 2005, the date on which the case had been sent to the trial court for examination on the merits, the applicant had been regarded as “detained pending investigation” and that after that date he was “detained pending trial”. In view of the trial court's decision of 27 January 2005 remitting the case to the prosecution as of 3 February 2005, the applicant was again detained “pending investigation”. On 4 March 2005 the case was again sent to the trial court and the applicant detained “pending trial”. The court then gave the following reasoning:
“Under Part 2 of Article 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if a preventive measure in the form of detention on remand is chosen ..., then the term of the detention counted from the date on which the case reached the court and until the verdict has been given may not exceed six months, except for cases explicitly mentioned in Part 3 of the above-mentioned Article. The norm in question means that as of the date on which the case reached the court the accused is counted as being detained pending trial.
Under Part 3 of Article 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court in charge of the case may, upon expiry of the above-mentioned six months, extend the term. At the same time, such an extension is possible only in cases involving serious or particularly serious offences, and each time for a term not exceeding three months.
At the time when the case reached the court that is on 4 March 2005 [the applicant] was counted as being detained pending trial. The six-month time-limit mentioned in Part 3 of Article 255 has not expired to date. The court finds no violation of the domestic law in this respect.” 40.  The decision of 28 March 2005 was contested by the applicant, through his lawyer, before the Supreme Court on 7 April 2005. 41.  On 20 June 2005, that is seventy-four days thereafter, the Supreme Court of Russia (“the Supreme Court”) examined and rejected the complaint. The decision referred to all the accused collectively, without analysing their circumstances individually. In its relevant part, the court ruling stated as follows:
“[the applicant and eight others] are accused by the investigation of commission of crimes, including serious and very serious offences.
The circumstances which served as a basis for the preventive measure in the form of detention did not change. Having noted its reasons in the decision, the court came to the conclusion that the need for the preventive measure in respect of [the applicant and other co-accused] had not ceased to exist, and that there had been no reason to release him or to choose a milder preventive measure, which is why the court had taken the decision ...
This court has no reason to differ.” 42.  On 20 June 2005 the Regional Court resumed the proceedings in the case and decided to hold a preliminary hearing on 11 July 2005. 43.  In view of the fact that the six-month time-limit set out in Part 3 of Article 255 of the Code was about to expire, on 11 July 2005 the Regional Court extended the applicant's detention for three months until 18 October 2005. The court gave the same reasons as previously. 44.  The decision of 11 July 2005 was contested by the applicant through his lawyer before the Supreme Court on 18 July 2005. 45.  On 15 September 2005, that is two months and five days later, the Supreme Court examined this appeal and decided to uphold the decision of 11 July 2005. The court essentially relied on the fact that the circumstances relevant in the applicant's situation had not changed and that the proceedings could not be finalised “for objective reasons”. Again, the court referred to all the accused collectively, without analysing their circumstances individually. 46.  On 19 July 2005 the Regional Court yet again carried out a preliminary examination of the case and decided to return the case to the prosecution. The court ordered an additional investigation to be carried out, having spotted a number of defects in the work of the investigator, including multiple breaches of the rights of the accused. 47.  By the same decision the court decided to leave the applicant's preventive measure unchanged. The court referred to all the accused collectively, without analysing their circumstances individually. It gave the following reasoning:
“... Deciding on the question of the preventive measure in respect of all the accused, the court is of the view that they are accused of committing a few crimes in the categories of serious and especially serious offences, do not have any fixed abode in the Vladimir Region, and according to the bill of indictment had committed crimes as part of a criminal group, and therefore the preventive measure imposed on them should be left unchanged.” 48.  The decision of 19 July 2005 was contested by the applicant through his lawyer in the Supreme Court on 25 July 2005. 49.  On 6 October 2005, that is two months and eighteen days later, the Supreme Court examined and rejected the appeal. The court referred to all the accused collectively, without analysing their circumstances individually. It upheld the decision of 19 July 2005 in full, having noted that:
“... the grounds for choosing the preventive measure in the form of detention in respect of [the applicant] had not changed; the need for its application had not ceased ...” 50.  On 2 September 2005 the District Court, whilst the case was still pending with the investigator, authorised the applicant's detention for twenty days more, until 23 September 2005. It indicated the same reasons for the detention as in the previous decision. In particular, it noted:
“The extension of the term of detention of [the accused] is justified by objective reasons and is well-founded. [The applicant] is accused of the commission of a number of crimes, including very serious offences that were highly dangerous to society, and has no fixed place of residence in Russia; this is why there are reasons to believe that if at large he may continue his criminal activity, abscond from the investigative bodies or impede the investigation in the case. In these circumstances, there are no grounds for a change in the preventive measure or for its cancellation ...” 51.  On 5 September 2005 the applicant, through his lawyer, complained to the Regional Court about the decision of 2 September 2005. 52.  On 4 October 2005 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 2 September 2005. The court noted that the applicant's detention on remand was lawful and that:
“... the impossibility of applying to [the applicant] a different, milder, preventive measure was justified in the court decision on several occasions and the circumstances which served as a basis for confinement of [the applicant] have not become obsolete [since then] ...” 53.  On 22 September 2005 the Regional Court, whilst the case was still pending with the investigator, further extended the applicant's detention, this time until 1 January 2006. 54.  The decision of 22 September 2005 was contested by the applicant through his lawyer on 23 September 2005. 55.  On 8 December 2005 the Supreme Court decided to uphold the decision of the Regional Court dated 22 September 2005, having noted that “[the applicant] had been accused of a number of crimes, including serious and very serious offences” and that the applicant's detention on remand had been, and remained, lawful and justified. 56.  On 11 November 2005 the prosecutor finalised the investigation and referred the case to the trial court for examination on the merits. 57.  On 5 December 2005 the Regional Court decided to hold the first preliminary hearing of the case. It rejected the applicant's request for release and decided that the applicant should remain in detention, relying essentially on the same reasons as previously. 58.  On 13 December 2005 the applicant through his lawyer contested the decision of 5 December 2005 in the Supreme Court. 59.  On 15 December 2005 the court hearing was delayed until 22 December 2005 with reference to the absence of co-accused D.G. K. and his lawyer. 60.  On 22 December 2005 the hearing resumed. The court decided to continue the examination of the case on 12 January 2006 because six defence lawyers were busy in other sets of proceedings. 61.  On 12 January 2006 the court decided to postpone further examination of the case because of the illness and absence of co-accused D.G. K. until 23 January 2006. 62.  The hearing of 23 January 2006 was again postponed because of the absence of co-accused D.G. K., some witnesses and one defence lawyer. 63.  The hearing scheduled for 25 January 2006 was cancelled and postponed with reference to the illness of the applicant's counsel. 64.  On 1 February 2006 the hearing resumed, but later it was decided to postpone it again, this time with reference to the inability of one of the defence lawyers to continue on the next day. 65.  On 3 February 2006 the hearing resumed. At the end of the hearing, it was decided to continue on 9 February 2006, since in between these two days there were some public holidays, and one of the defence lawyers as well as one translator were busy in a different set of proceedings. 66.  The hearing of 9 February 2006 took place as planned. At the end of it, the court decided to continue the examination of the case on 14 February 2006. 67.  On 14 February 2006 the examination of the case resumed. 68.  The next hearing took place on 27 February 2006, since the applicant's lawyer, one of the translators and yet one other defence lawyer were busy and could not attend earlier. 69.  The hearing of 27 February 2006 took place as planned. 70.  On 3 and 6 March 2006 the hearings resumed. 71.  The hearings scheduled for 9 and 17 March 2006 did not take place because of the absence of one of the defence counsel. 72.  On 22 March 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 5 December 2005 (see paragraph 58 above), yet again referring to all the accused without analysing their circumstances individually. 73.  On 21, 22 and 23 March 2006 the trial court hearings resumed. 74.  On 27 March 2006 the prison authorities failed to escort co-accused A.A. G. to the courtroom and the court had to adjourn the hearing of the case until 3 April 2006. 75.  The hearings of 3 and 6 April 2006 did not take place as one of the defence counsels was ill. 76.  The hearings of 11, 12, 14 and 24 April 2006 did not take place owing to the illness of one of the co-accused and the unavailability of one of the translators and three defence lawyers, including the applicant's counsel. 77.  The examination of the case resumed on 26, 27 and 28 April 2006. 78.  On 4 May 2006 the court was unable to continue owing to the illness of one of the defence counsel. It was decided to adjourn the hearing until 12 May 2006. 79.  On 12 May 2006 the Regional Court extended the applicant's detention for another three months, until 14 August 2006. The court again referred to the same reasons as in previous decisions. 80.  The court could not continue the examination of the merits of the case owing to the absence of one of the translators who was busy elsewhere. 81.  On 17 May 2007 the hearing of the case resumed. 82.  On 17 May 2006 the applicant contested the decision of 12 May 2006. 83.  The decision of 12 May 2006 was upheld by the Supreme Court on 27 July 2006, again repeating the same reasons. 84.  On 25 July 2006 the Regional Court ordered the extension of the applicant's detention for another three months, until 14 November 2006. The court again mentioned the same reasons as previously, having rendered a decision in respect of a number of co-accused in the case. In response to the applicant's argument about poor conditions of detention, the court noted that the applicant had failed to present any evidence of the alleged conditions. 85.  On 31 July 2006 the decision of 25 July 2006 was contested by the applicant. 86.  On 19 October 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. It also essentially dismissed the assertion about poor conditions of detention as unsubstantiated. 87.  On 7 November 2006 the Regional Court, in a decision collectively referring to a number of co-accused, including the applicant, again extended the applicant's detention on remand, this time until 14 December 2006. 88.  On 14 November 2006 the applicant, along with eight other co­accused, was found guilty by the Regional Court of having taken part in aggravated robbery, participation in a criminal gang, and illegal storage, trafficking and use of firearms, and was sentenced to twelve years and six months of imprisonment. The court established that the applicant and the co-accused, acting as a criminal gang, had robbed trucks by disguising themselves as police officers and using real firearms to scare the drivers. They had subsequently sold the stolen property at local markets. The body of evidence included, among other items collected in various regions of Central Russia, oral and written submissions given by over forty witnesses and nine victims. 89.  The judgment of 14 November 2006 became final after it was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court on 21 June 2007. It appears that the applicant raised an argument concerning the conditions of his detention on remand, but the court rejected it as irrelevant. 90.  Since 26 February 2004 the applicant has remained in custody. 91.  Between that date and 4 March 2004 the applicant was detained in a Temporary Detention Wing of the Department of the Interior of the town of Vladimir. 92.  Between 4 March 2004 and 31 August 2007 he was held in pre-trial detention centre IZ-33/1. 93.  Since 31 August 2007 he has been detained in penitentiary establishment IK-4. 94.  The applicant submitted that he had been detained in cells nos. 39, 19, 55, 36 and 32: cell no. 39 measured thirty-two square metres with twenty-four sleeping places and thirty-five to forty inmates at all times; cell no. 19 measured twenty-four square metres, had thirteen sleeping places and contained fifteen to seventeen inmates; cell no. 55 measured fifty-six square metres, had thirty-five sleeping places for the total number of inmates ranging from thirty-two to sixty-two; cell no. 36 measured forty-eight square metres, had thirty-five sleeping places and contained thirty-five to forty inmates; cell no. 32 measured forty-eight square metres, had thirty sleeping places for no more than thirty inmates. 95.  In all cells toilets were situated close to the dining table and were very dirty. No toilet accessories, such as toilet paper, toothpaste, toothbrushes or toilet soap, were provided by the prison administration. There was no ventilation and many inmates were heavy smokers. The air in the cells was very humid. The walls in all cells were infested with mice, lice and insects. There was furthermore no proper day-time light so that it was impossible to read and write. Each cell was provided with one bucket of warm water per day. It was possible to take a fifteen-minute shower once a week. The inmates had no access to clean water and had to drink tap water. The cells were not cleaned. The prison walks took place within a limited space almost entirely covered by a roof. 96.  The Government commented only on the period starting from 15 December 2004. 97.  As of that date and until 31 August 2007 the applicant was detained in cell no. 55 measuring 46.68 square metres and equipped with 16 sleeping places. The Government submitted a certificate dated 19 March 2008, in which the head of prison administration and a senior inspector certified that there had been between 12 and 16 inmates in the cell at the relevant period of time. At the same time, they conceded that the cell had been “somewhat overcrowded”. 98.  The applicant was provided with an individual sleeping place and bedding. Cell no. 55 had two glazed windows which let daylight through. According to the Government, the toilet in the cell was partitioned from the rest of the living area, and there was a regular water supply and heating in the cell. The applicant was fed three times a day and had the possibility of taking a one to two hour walk once a day. 99.  In a letter dated 27 March 2008 addressed to the Court the head of the Vladimir Regional Department of the Federal Service of Execution of Sentences, submitted that, at the time of the applicant's detention, facility IZ‑33/1 had been overcrowded, but argued that such overcrowding had been insignificant and offered to pay the applicant 4,085 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation for any damage suffered.