6.  The applicant was born in 1974. He is currently detained in Ploieşti Penitentiary. 7.  On 27 January 2005 the applicant was arrested for robbery with violence. He was first placed in pre-trial detention in the Bucharest police facility. On 4 May 2005 he was sent to Bucharest-Jilava Penitentiary. 8.  During the criminal investigation, the applicant denied the charges, allegedly because other co-defendants had threatened to physically abuse him and his family should he confess to his crime. He allegedly unsuccessfully asked the authorities to grant him special protection. 9.  On 27 April 2005, the prosecutor’s office completed the criminal investigations against the applicant and the case was sent to Bucharest County Court. Before the court the applicant confessed to his crime. From that moment on he was allegedly threatened with physical abuse by several co-detainees, acting on behalf of one of the applicant’s co-defendants in the criminal proceedings. 10.  By decision no. 704/2005 of 23 August 2005 the administration of Jilava Penitentiary ordered that the applicant be placed in strict solitary confinement for ten days for proffering verbal insults against prison staff, on 13 August 2005, while he was in cell no. 510. On 28 October 2005 the Bucharest District Court annulled decision no. 704/2005. The court found that the applicant had not committed any offence. 11.  On 9 September 2005, around 11.15 p.m., while he was detained in cell no. 315, the applicant was physically abused by N.M. and seven other co-detainees, allegedly relatives of his co-defendant. 12.  Following this assault, at 11.50 p.m. he was examined by Dr L. from the Jilava Penitentiary’s medical centre. Dr L. noted in his report that the applicant had an open wound on his scalp and sent him to Rahova Penitentiary Hospital for surgery. Dr. V., from the Rahova Hospital for detainees, provided the applicant with medical care. 13.  On 10 September 2005 the applicant was sent back to Jilava Penitentiary. On 15 September 2005 the surgical stitches were extracted from his wound. On 22 December 2005 a doctor examined him and established a diagnosis of recent cranial trauma, with scarring, and prescribed him medication. 14.  Shortly after this incident of 9 September 2005, by decision no. 783/2005 of 19 September 2005, the administration of Jilava Penitentiary placed the applicant in strict solitary confinement for ten days, for breach of disciplinary rules, namely for proffering insults and threats against a co-detainee. The decision mentioned that the applicant was still in cell no. 315. 15.  The incident report noted that late in the evening of 9 September 2005, at 11.15 p.m., the applicant had insulted N.M. and had threatened him with a small knife. N.M. had subsequently knocked the applicant over so that he had fallen on his head, causing an open wound. He had been taken to the hospital immediately. As is stated in an official letter of 11 July 2006, addressed to the National Administration of Penitentiaries, the medical file and the administrative files of N.M. revealed that he had not suffered any injury during the incident of 9 September 2005. 16.  On an unspecified date after the incident, the applicant was placed in cell no. 207. He shared this cell with fifty-five other inmates, for whom thirty-seven beds were provided. 17.  On 21 September 2005 the National Administration of Penitentiaries rejected the applicant’s request to be transferred to another detention centre, on the ground that his “legal situation was not clarified yet”. The applicant was invited to apply for transfer once the criminal proceedings against him were completed. 18.  On 7 October 2005 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against N.M. for the injury that he had suffered on 9 September 2005. 19.  Following alleged threats from inmates and prison staff, the applicant dropped his complaint. Consequently, on 6 December 2005, the Bucharest District Court decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against N.M. 20.  On 22 December 2005 the applicant’s written waiver declaring that he would not appeal against the decision of 6 December 2005, but unsigned, was registered at the Bucharest District Court. 21.  On 21 September 2005 the applicant, while still in cell no. 315, complained about the disciplinary penalty imposed on him following the incident of 9 September. 22.  On 21 November 2005 the Bucharest District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court stated that the applicant, “while drunk (în stare de ebrietate)” had verbally offended N.M., as the latter and six other co-detainees had testified before the Penitentiary administrative authorities. The court did not rely on the statement of the only witness called by the applicant because it had “not been corroborated by the other statements”. Finally, taking into consideration the medical evidence adduced by the applicant, the court noted that N.M. had recognised that he had hit the applicant upon being provoked by the latter. 23.  The applicant appealed against the decision of 21 November 2005. While being examined by the Bucharest County Court, during the hearing of 27 January 2006 concerning his appeal, he stated that he had been “forced to withdraw his criminal complaint” against his aggressor. 24.  In a judgment of 27 January 2006, the Bucharest County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal without giving any consideration to the medical evidence submitted by the applicant. The County Court explicitly recognised that the applicant had been injured and taken to hospital on the night of 9 September 2005, but stated that the applicant himself had committed a disciplinary breach by insulting and menacing N.M., so that “his allegations could only stand for the determination of the extent of his involvement in the incident”. 25.  On 20 October 2005 and 24 November 2005 the National Administration of Penitentiaries again rejected the applicant’s requests to be transferred to another detention centre. 26.  On 12 December 2005 the National Administration of Penitentiaries rejected the applicant’s request for transfer on the ground that there were no places available elsewhere. 27.  On 8 February 2006 the applicant was removed to cell no. 407, and allegedly suffered several injuries as a result of ill-treatment by prison staff. 28.  The medical record from 8 February 2006 stated that the applicant was complaining of being assaulted, but that he refused medical care or clinical evaluation of his physical condition. It was also mentioned that he refused to give a written statement that he was not accepting medical care (“Afirmativ agresiune. Deţinutul refuză să primească asistenţă medicală şi o evenuală evaluare clinică. Refuză să consemneze în fişa medicală refuzul şi să semneze în registrul de consultaţii”). 29.  Shortly after this incident, on 13 February 2006, the applicant was punished for verbally insulting staff of Bucharest-Jilava Penitentiary, hitting one officer and destroying beds from his cell. He was given a penalty of six months’ solitary confinement. Following a complaint by the applicant, on 8 June 2006 the Bucharest District Court annulled the decision of 13 February 2006 considering that the disciplinary penalty was too severe. The court stated that a less severe penalty of ten days’ solitary confinement would be sufficient and imposed it on the applicant. 30.  On 17 February 2006 a psychiatrist examined the applicant and established that he was suffering from a personality disorder. He was prescribed antidepressants. 31.  On 13 March 2006 the prison administration informed the applicant that it would accede to his request for protection in order to avoid conflict with some detainees. The measures taken consisted in being separated from the other detainees during their transportation to the courts or during daily activities in the penitentiary. 32.  On an unspecified date, the applicant withdrew his complaint against prison staff concerning the incident of 8 February 2006. 33.  On 22 June 2006 the applicant was transferred to Bucharest-Rahova Penitentiary, after being sentenced to imprisonment by a judgment of 4 May 2006 rendered by the Bucharest County Court. An appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant was dismissed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 30 April 2007. 34.  On 6 September 2006, the administration of Rahova Penitentiary issued a report upon the applicant’s request stating that his conduct was satisfactory and that he had had no disciplinary sanctions; that he showed respect for internal rules; that he had regular contact with his family, especially his wife, daughter and sister; and that he had good psychological stability and good social skills, being generally more spontaneous and sincere then tactful or discrete. 35.  The applicant was subsequently transferred to Mărgineni and Ploieşti Penitentiary.