5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and is serving a prison sentence in the Chelyabinsk Region. 6.  On 12 March 2004 the applicant was charged with three counts of fraud, two counts of murder and unlawful dealings in firearms. According to the Government he made an undertaking not to leave his place of residence pending investigation. On several occasions he failed to appear for questioning and on 30 June 2005 his name was put on the wanted persons’ list. 7.  On 18 July 2006 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody. On 20 July 2006 the Tsentralniy District Court of Chelyabinsk authorised the applicant’s detention. In particular, the court noted as follows:
“Having regard to the materials submitted, [the court] considers that [the applicant] is charged with a particularly serious criminal offence that entails a custodial sentence, that he absconded in the past, that his name was put on the wanted persons’ list, that he does not reside at his registered place of residence. It can be inferred from these facts taken together that the applicant might abscond, continue his criminal activities, interfere with the investigation...” 8.  On 15 September 2006 the District Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 14 December 2006. Referring to his health, unsatisfactory conditions of detention, lack of a criminal record and his minor child, the applicant argued that the court might use any other preventive measure, including bail, rather than detention. Dismissing the applicant’s arguments, the court noted as follows:
“[The applicant] is charged with serious offences and his name has been on the federal wanted persons list for over a year. It follows that, if released, [the applicant] might abscond or re-offend ... The defence has not furnished any medical documentation to substantiate the allegations that [the applicant] is unfit for detention. The court has also taken into account the material concerning [the applicant’s] character when deciding on the matter.” 9.  On 26 September 2006 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld the decision of 15 September 2006 on appeal. 10.  On 12 December 2006 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 14 March 2007. The applicant asked the court to release him on bail. He noted that his detention had been unreasonably long; that the prosecutor’s office had been procrastinating with the investigation; and that he had a permanent residence, a job and family ties. The court reasoned as follows:
“[The applicant] is charged with serious offences... [In the past the applicant] absconded ... and his name was put on the local and federal wanted persons lists. In such circumstances the court considers that, if released, [the applicant] might abscond.” 11.  On 12 March 2007 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 14 June 2007. In particular, the court noted as follows:
“[The applicant] is charged with a particularly serious offence, he absconded for over a year which, in the court’s opinion, indicates that, if released, [the applicant] might abscond, continue his criminal activities, or interfere with the establishment of the truth in the case.” 12.  On 5 April 2007 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 12 March 2007 on appeal. 13.  On 13 June 2007 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 19 July 2007 noting as follows:
“Regard being had to the gravity of the charges, information concerning the [applicant’s] character, including the fact that his name was put on the federal wanted persons’ list, the court finds substantiated the prosecutor’s arguments that, if released, [the applicant] might abscond [or] interfere with the establishment of the truth.” 14.  On 13 July 2007 the Regional Court opened the trial in respect of the applicant and two other defendants and scheduled the first hearing for 19 July 2007. The case file submitted by the prosecution comprised twenty‑three volumes. 15.  On 19 July 2007 the Regional Court ruled that the preventive measure imposed on the applicant and two other defendants should remain unchanged pending their trial. The court found as follows:
“Regard being had to the gravity of the charges and information concerning the defendants’ character, the court does not discern grounds to lift or change the preventive measure imposed on the [defendants] and considers it necessary to continue to detain them.” 16.  On 27 September 2007 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the decision of 19 July 2007 on appeal. 17.  On 28 November 2007 the jury found the applicant guilty of two counts of murder, fraud and misappropriation of funds. 18.  On 3 December 2007 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court sentenced the applicant to twenty-two years’ imprisonment. On 25 September 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the verdict on appeal. The applicant’s lawyer was not present at the hearing. 19.  On 11 March 2009 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the appeal judgment of 25 September 2008 by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh consideration owing to the appeal court’s failure to ensure the presence of the applicant’s lawyer at the hearing. The court further noted that the applicant should remain in custody until 11 June 2009. In this regard the court indicated as follows:
“... given that [the applicant] has been found guilty of a very serious offence and that he might abscond and interfere with the prompt consideration of his case by the appeal court ..., the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia considers it necessary that [he] remain in custody.” 20.  On 3 June 2009 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. Both the applicant and his lawyer were present. 21.  On 19 July 2006 the applicant was placed in remand prison no. 74/1 in Chelyabinsk where he was held until 30 June 2009. 22.  The Government submitted extracts from the remand prison’s register of inmates. They indicated the cell numbers where the applicant was detained without specifying the period of detention in each case:
Cell no.
Surface area (in square metres)
Number of inmates
Number of beds
22 23.  The applicant was not confined to his cell for the whole of the day. He left the cell to meet his lawyer, relatives and the prison administration. He was entitled to one hour’s exercise in the prison courtyard and had the right to use the shower at least once a week for at least fifteen minutes. The size and the organisation of the courtyard did not prevent the applicant from doing physical exercises. 24.  All the cells in the remand prison were equipped with natural and piped ventilation, which was in good working order. The average temperature in the cells was 180C to 200C. 25.  At all times the applicant was provided with an individual sleeping place and bedding. The cells were disinfected regularly. The lavatory was located at a considerable distance from the beds and the dining table and separated by a 1.5-m brick wall and a door. 26.  According to the applicant, all the cells in which he was held were overcrowded and the inmates had to take turns to sleep. In particular, he submitted the following information on the issue:
Period of detention
Cell no.
Surface area (in square metres)
Number of inmates
Number of beds
 
102 27.  The radiators in the cells hardly worked. The walls and the ceiling were covered with mould. The cells had no piped ventilation, except for cell no. 233, where the applicant spent one day. It was stiflingly hot in the summer and very cold and damp in the winter. Most of the windows were completely covered with metal sheets. The majority of the inmates smoked and the applicant, a non-smoker, was exposed to their tobacco smoke. He was allowed a daily walk outside, which did not exceed 40-50 minutes. There was no opportunity to do physical exercises. 28.  The toilet offered no privacy and the person using it could potentially be seen by both the inmates and the guards watching the inmates through the peep-hole in the door. 29.  The cells were lit with dim electric lights. There was no access to daylight in cell no. 95. 30.  The cells were infested with cockroaches, bugs, ants and rats. Disinfection was not performed, nor was any detergent distributed. The meals provided often contained flies, bugs, cockroaches and rats’ feet. The food was of a very poor quality and not in compliance with the quality standards established by law. Fish and meat were rarely served. Eggs, milk or fruit drinks were never offered. The quality of the food improved only on days when inspections were held. The food products the inmates could buy in the prison shop were of a very low quality. 31.  Hot water was not supplied, except for cell no. 233, where the applicant spent one day. From April to October each year the inmates were allowed to take only cold showers. From 6 September to 29 November 2008 the applicant did not have a single opportunity to take a shower. 32.  On several occasions HIV-infected inmates and inmates diagnosed with tuberculosis were placed in the cells where the applicant was detained. 33.  On 25 January 2007 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the local prosecutor about the conditions of the applicant’s detention. On 21 February 2007 the prosecutor responded that the conditions of detention were in compliance with the applicable rules. 34.  On 25 December 2007 the applicant’s tableware was confiscated and he had to share plates and spoons with other inmates. 35.  According to the applicant, on several occasions he was subjected to humiliating and degrading treatment and beatings while in detention. 36.  In December 2007 the applicant was beaten by one of the prison guards. The applicant’s request to see a doctor was refused. 37.  On 2 March 2008 the applicant was woken up by the guards. They took him and one of his cellmates to the corridor where they were stripped naked and subjected to a body search in the presence of female guards. 38.  On 12 August 2008 the prison administration allegedly refused to dispatch the applicant’s complaint concerning the ill-treatment. 39.  On 4 September 2008 one of the SWAT officers kicked the applicant twice in the rear and in the crotch during another search. Then the applicant was stripped naked and ordered to do numerous sit-ups. He provided statements from two inmates who had witnessed the incident. 40.  The Government provided the following information with regard to the authorities’ inquiry in response to the applicant’s complaints about ill‑treatment in custody. 41.  On 25 July 2008 the Chelyabinsk Region prosecutor’s office received a complaint lodged by a number of inmates detained at remand prison no. 74/1 about unlawful actions by prison guards in the course of searches. 42.  The prosecutor’s office forwarded the complaint to the regional department of custodial facilities and the latter carried out an inquiry which disclosed no instances of unlawful acts or negligence on the part of the remand prison administration. On 29 August 2008 the complainants were informed accordingly. 43.  The applicant’s subsequent complaint about the incidents that took place in December 2007, March and September 2008 reached the regional prosecutor’s office on 29 September 2009. The prosecutor’s office carried out an inquiry and dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unsubstantiated. 44.  The relevant decision was quashed on 17 December 2009 for failure by the investigator to carry out a complete inquiry and the case file was returned to the latter for further action. According to the Government, the inquiry is still pending.