6.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Kyzyl in the Tyva Republic of the Russian Federation. 7.  On 21 January 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of banditism, robbery, theft of firearms and illegal deprivation of liberty. 8.  On 22 January 2000 the applicant was arrested; he was released three days later under a written undertaking not to leave his place of residence. 9.  On 3 March 2000 the preventive measure was changed to detention in custody, and on 4 March 2000 the applicant’s name was put on a wanted list. 10.  On 22 May 2000 the applicant was arrested, and on 25 May 2000 he was detained in remand prison IZ-17/1 of Kyzyl, Tyva Republic. 11.  On 13 July 2000 the acting Prosecutor of the Tyva Republic extended the applicant’s and his co-defendants’ detention until 21 October 2000, relying on the particular gravity of the charges against them and the likelihood that they would obstruct the course of justice and abscond if released. 12.  On 10 and 23 October 2000 the acting Prosecutor of the Tyva Republic and the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation respectively extended the applicant’s and his co-defendants’ detention until 22 November 2000 and 21 January 2001 respectively, endorsing the reasons given in the decision of 13 July 2000. 13.  On 20 January 2001 the applicant was committed for trial before the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic. According to the Government, the applicant’s detention from 21 January to 20 March 2001 was not covered by any legal order as the domestic authorities were not required to issue one under the legislation governing criminal procedure at the material time. 14.  On 15 February 2001 the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic suspended the examination of the criminal case because one of the applicant’s co-defendants had violated the conditions of his release on bail and had absconded. The case file was sent to the Prosecutor of the Tyva Republic in order for a search to be organised. The Supreme Court also noted that the prosecution authorities were to “determine the issue of the application of a measure of restraint [in respect of the applicant and his co-defendants]”. 15.  The Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic resumed the proceedings on 5 March 2001 and fixed a hearing for 12 March 2001. That hearing was adjourned until 20 March 2001 because some of the victims and the lawyers failed to appear. 16.  On 20 March 2001 the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic returned the case file to the prosecution authorities with an order to correct certain serious procedural defects, noting that defence rights had been violated. In the same decision the Supreme Court held that the measure of restraint applied to the co-defendants, including the applicant, should “remain unchanged” because of the gravity of the charges against them. 17.  On 20 July 2001 the acting Prosecutor of the Tyva Republic, relying on the gravity of the charges and the defendants’ liability to abscond, obstruct the course of justice and re-offend, extended the applicant’s and his co-defendants’ detention until 20 August 2001. A further extension until 20 September 2001 was ordered by a deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, with a reference to the same grounds. 18.  On 14 September 2001 the prosecution authorities returned the case file to the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic, which on 2 October 2001 remitted the case again for additional investigation, citing serious violations of defence rights which had not been remedied during the previous referral of the case file to the prosecution authorities. The Supreme Court also ordered that the defendants should remain in custody, given the gravity of the charges against them. 19.  Having received the case file, on 11 October 2001 the deputy prosecutor of the Tyva Republic extended the applicant’s and co-defendants’ detention until 11 November 2001, relying on the grounds used previously, namely the gravity of the charges and the defendants’ liability to abscond, reoffend and obstruct the course of justice. 20.  On 8 November 2001 the additional investigation ended and the case file was sent to the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic. It fixed the first hearing for 6 December 2001. However, that hearing and subsequent hearings scheduled for 10 January and 12 March 2002 were adjourned because of the involvement of the presiding judge in other unrelated proceedings. 21.  In the meantime, the composition of the bench changed: a new presiding judge and lay assessor were assigned to the case. Between 12 March and 13 June 2002 the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic fixed five hearings, of which three were adjourned because the co-defendants’ lawyers failed to appear, one was rescheduled because the victims did not attend, and one was adjourned because it was necessary to serve the applicant with a copy of the indictment act in the Tyvan language. 22.  On 13 June 2002 the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic, finding that the prosecution authorities had committed serious procedural violations at the indictment stage, referred the case back for additional investigation with an order to respect the rights of the defendants, including their right to the services of an interpreter, etc. The Supreme Court also stressed that the defendants should remain in detention. 23.  On 15 November 2002 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the decision of 13 June 2002 in the part concerning the referral of the case for additional investigation and sent the case for examination on the merits by the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic. At the same time the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation held that there were no grounds to change the measure of restraint applied to the defendants and that they should therefore remain in custody. 24.  After receiving the case file on 4 February 2003, the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic fixed the first hearing for 12 February 2003. That hearing was adjourned until 3 March 2003 because the co-defendants’ counsel failed to appear. On 3 March 2003 the hearing was adjourned on account of the examination of an application requesting release filed by one of the co-defendants. On 18 March 2003 the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic resumed the examination of the above-mentioned application for release, and on 19 March 2003 it stayed the proceedings until 26 March 2003 because of the necessity to appoint counsel for one of the co-defendants. 25.  On 24 March 2003 the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic extended the defendants’ detention for an additional three months, until 24 June 2003, holding as follows:
“Taking into account the prosecutor’s arguments that [the defendants] are charged with a criminal offence which belongs to the category of particularly serious [offences], punishable by a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment, [and] having regard to the particular complexity of the criminal case and [the fact] that the release from custody of the defendants, who represent an increased danger to society, may considerably impede a thorough, complete and objective examination of the circumstances of the case, the measure of restraint applied to the defendants should remain unchanged.” 26.  Of the three hearings scheduled between 26 March and 24 June 2003 by the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic, two were adjourned because the co-defendants’ lawyers and the victims failed to appear, and one was postponed to provide counsel with additional time to study the material in the case file. 27.  On 24 June 2003 the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic, using identical wording to that in the decision of 24 March 2003, extended the defendants’ detention until 24 September 2003. 28.  Between 24 June and 25 September 2003 the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic fixed four hearings, of which two were adjourned because the defence counsel failed to appear or were on annual leave, one was postponed because a co-defendant was ill, and one was rescheduled on account of a victim’s failure to attend. 29.  On 25 September 2003 the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic once again extended the defendants’ detention for an additional three months, until 24 December 2003, citing the same grounds as in the previous two detention orders of 24 March and 24 June 2003. 30.  The applicant appealed against the decision of 25 September 2003, arguing that his detention from 24 to 25 September 2003 had not been covered by any legal order, in violation of the requirements of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, that when extending his detention the court had referred solely to the gravity of the charges, and that his detention in general had been excessively long. 31.  On 4 December 2003 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the decision of 25 September 2003 on appeal. The court noted that the applicant’s and his co-defendants’ detention had been regularly extended in compliance with the requirements of the Russian legislation on criminal procedure. It further stressed that in extending the defendants’ detention the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic had correctly relied on the gravity of the charges. With regard to the detention from 24 to 25 September 2003, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation held that the detention had been lawful, since the prosecution authorities had submitted the application for the extension before 24 September 2003 and the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic had scheduled the hearing for the day after, 25 September 2003. 32.  In the meantime, the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic had listed nine hearings between 25 September and 9 December 2003. Of those hearings, two were adjourned because the victims failed to appear, three hearings were rescheduled because the co-defendants’ counsel were either involved in other proceedings or failed to appear, one was postponed because the presiding judge was ill, one was postponed at the request of one of the counsel and two were cancelled because it was necessary to determine the issue of the defendants’ representation. 33.  On 18 December 2003 the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic, relying on the same grounds as in the detention orders issued in 2003, issued another collective decision in respect of the defendants, extending their detention until 24 March 2004. Subsequent identically worded detention orders were issued by the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic on 19 March and 18 June 2004, extending the defendants’ detention until 24 June and 24 September 2004 respectively. Appeals lodged by the applicant against the extension orders of 19 March and 18 June 2004 were to no avail. 34.  Between 14 January and 15 June 2004 nineteen hearings were adjourned, mostly on account of the failure of the participants in the trial (witnesses, victims, counsel) to appear before the court for various reasons. 35.  On 25 August 2004 the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic convicted the applicant, along with ten other co-defendants, of robbery and theft of firearms and sentenced him to eight years and five months’ imprisonment. The applicant decided not to lodge an appeal. 36.  From 8 June 2000 to 28 September 2004 the applicant was detained in detention facility IZ-17/1 of Kyzyl in the Tyva Republic. During this period the applicant was held in cells nos. 18, 19, 21, 22, 26, 29, 36, 43, 51, 53, 56 and 80. 37.  For an extended period of time the applicant was held in cell no. 51 measuring 7.5 square metres and containing up to twelve inmates simultaneously. 38.  The applicant alleged that he had contracted tuberculosis as a result of his detention in such cramped conditions. 39.  As regards the cells’ measurements and the number of inmates detained therein together with the applicant, the Government submitted as follows:
(a)  cell no. 18 measuring 29 square metres accommodated from four to seven detainees between 7 December 2000 and 28 June 2001;
(b)  cell no. 19 measuring 29.4 square metres accommodated from six to seven detainees between 17 October and 7 December 2000;
(c)  cell no. 21 measuring 35 square metres accommodated from seven to nine detainees between 10 October and 19 November 2001;
(d)  cell no. 22 measuring 31 square metres accommodated from six to eight detainees between 9 June and 17 October 2000 and between 25 October 2003 and 29 March 2004;
(e)  cell no. 26 measuring 28.9 square metres accommodated from five to six detainees between 2 April and 8 August 2002;
(f)  cell no. 29 measuring 29.4 square metres accommodated from three to seven detainees between 8 August and 31 October 2002;
(g)  cell no. 36 measuring 44.4 square metres accommodated from eight to eleven detainees between 29 March and 28 September 2004;
(h)  cell no. 43 measuring 40.4 square metres accommodated from six to ten detainees between 2 September and 10 October 2001;
(i)  cell no. 51 measuring 13.7 square metres accommodated from three to four detainees between 28 June and 2 September 2001;
(j)  cell no. 53 measuring 21.2 square metres accommodated from four to six detainees between 19 November 2001 and 2 April 2002;
(k)  cell no. 56 measuring 45.4 square metres accommodated from eight to eleven detainees between 20 July and 25 October 2003;
(l)  cell no. 80 measuring 23.9 square metres accommodated from three to seven detainees between 31 October 2002 and 20 July 2003. 40.  In each cell the applicant had an individual sleeping place and bedding. 41.  The applicant was able to take daily one-hour outside walks, which took place in the specially equipped exercise yards. 42.  The lavatories in the cells, equipped with a flush system, were separated from the living area by one-meter-high brick partitions enabling the inmates to comply with their needs in private. They were situated at a distance from the dining table. 43.  The applicant could take a fifteen-minute shower once a week. After each shower, he received fresh bedding. 44.  The cells were equipped with drinking-water tanks. The detainees were also allowed to use electric kettles. 45.  The applicant was given food three times a day in accordance with the established legal norms. 46.  The cells were equipped with dining tables and benches corresponding to the number of detainees, forty centimetres of table and bench being allowed for each detainee. 47.  All cells were ventilated by a system of exhaust ventilation. Natural ventilation was also available. The cells were also equipped with a heating system providing an adequate temperature in line with sanitary norms. The average temperature in the cells was maintained at 18-24 degrees Celsius. 48.  Until 2003 the windows in the cells were covered with metal screens. These were subsequently removed to provide better access to daylight and fresh air. The artificial lighting consisted of one 100-150 watt light bulb per cell. Bigger cells were lit by two 100 watt light bulbs. 49.  The authorities ensured regular disinfection and pest control in the facility. 50.  Upon admission to the facility the applicant underwent an initial medical examination, including a fluorography examination (no pathologies were discovered) and blood tests to detect syphilis and HIV (both were negative). The applicant had no specific health-related complaints upon his admission. In December 2001 the applicant suffered an episode of catarrhal tonsillitis and received appropriate treatment; in March 2002 he was diagnosed with acute pyelonephritis and received appropriate treatment (subsequently the diagnosis was not confirmed); in September 2003 he was diagnosed with osteochondrosis, for which he receives regular treatment. The applicant’s allegations that he had contracted tuberculosis while in detention facility were disproved by the results of his fluorography examination of 26 February 2008. 51.  In support of their observations the Government provided several certificates issued by the governor of IZ-17/1 on 29 February 2008, together with the applicant’s prison card which recapitulates the numbers of the cells where the applicant was detained throughout his stay in the facility and the dates on which he was transferred from one cell to another, a list of food items supplied to detainees in the relevant period, and records from the applicant’s medical file. Although the certificates attesting to the number of inmates contained in the cells with the applicant mention enclosures containing statements by prison officers and by the applicant’s inmates Ch., V. and B. (who were held together with the applicant in cell no. 51 of the facility), these enclosures were not made available to the Court.