5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Tula. 6.  On 16 November 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of extortion. 7.  On 18 November 2004 the Proletarskiy District Court of Tula authorised his pre-trial detention. The court noted as follows:
“... in view of the nature of the charges against [the applicant], the investigating authorities have compelling reasons to believe, that [he] may, if released, abscond, continue to commit crimes, or intimidate witnesses to impede the establishment of the truth ...
Having regard to the nature of the charges against [the applicant], [the court] does not consider it possible to apply a less severe preventive measure than detention.” 8.  On 29 November 2004 the applicant was charged with robbery. 9.  On 14 January 2005 the Tsentralniy District Court of Tula extended the applicant’s detention pending investigation until 13 April 2005. The court accepted the reasoning of the investigator, who suggested that the applicant might, if released, continue to commit crimes, intimidate witnesses to interfere with the administration of justice, or abscond. On 9 February 2005 the Tula Regional Court upheld the decision of 14 January 2005 on appeal. 10.  On 12 April and 13 May 2005 the District Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 16 May and 28 June 2005 respectively. On both occasions the court used the following reasoning:
“... [the court] does not consider it feasible to release [the applicant], given that he has committed several serious offences and may continue to commit crimes, intimidate witnesses to interfere with the administration of justice, or abscond.” 11.  On 23 June and 21 July 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 28 July and 28 August 2005 respectively. In each of the detention orders the court noted as follows:
“[The court] does not consider it feasible to release [the applicant], given that he has committed several offences, some of which were very serious, and may, if released, continue to commit crimes, intimidate witnesses to interfere with the administration of justice, or abscond.” 12.  On 5 August 2005 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 23 June on appeal. 13.  According to the Government, in 2004-2005 a number of witnesses complained to the investigator that the applicant had threatened them while at liberty. According to the applicant, it was the investigator who encouraged the witnesses to complain. On an unspecified date the witnesses confirmed the applicant’s allegations in court. 14.  On 2 August 2005 the District Court received the case file for the trial, which involved six defendants, including the applicant. 15.  On 24 August 2005 the District Court fixed the trial date for 28 September 2005 and extended the detention of five of the defendants until 28 February 2006. The court noted, in particular, as follows:
“Having regard to the fact that Ch., [the applicant], M., K., and A. are charged with particularly serious offences ..., they may continue to commit crimes, intimidate witnesses to interfere with the administration of justice, or abscond. The court does not discern any reason why they should be released.” 16.  On 2 September 2005 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 21 July 2005 on appeal. 17.  On 28 September 2005 the Regional Court considered an appeal lodged by the applicant against the court order of 24 August 2005 and upheld it in substance, changing the end date of the applicant’s detention to 2 February 2006. 18.  On 1 February 2006 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 2 May 2006. The court referred to the gravity of the charges against the applicant, noting that he might, if released, continue to commit crimes and put pressure on witnesses. On 17 March 2006 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 1 February 2006 on appeal. 19.  On 24 April 2006 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 2 August 2006, reiterating verbatim its reasoning of 1 February 2006. On 26 May 2006 the Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal. 20.  On 1 August 2006 the District Court extended the detention of five of the defendants, including the applicant, until 2 November 2006. The court stated as follows:
“Having heard the parties to the proceedings and having studied the material in the case file, the court does not discern any reason why the earlier imposed preventive measure in the form of custody should be lifted or replaced.
[The defendants] are charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences ... The court has not received any information to suggest that the defendants are unfit for detention on health grounds.” 21.  On 1 September 2006 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 1 August 2006 on appeal. 22.  On 1 November 2006 the District Court extended the detention of five of the defendants until 2 February 2007. The court reiterated that they had been charged with particularly serious offences and might continue to commit crimes, intimidate witnesses to interfere with the administration of justice, or abscond. On 9 November 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 1 November 2006. 23.  On 13 December 2006 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 1 November 2006 on appeal. 24.  On 1 February 2007 the District Court extended the detention of the applicant and three of his co-defendants until 2 May 2007. The court noted as follows:
“... the court concludes that ... the [defendants’] pre-trial detention should be extended ... [They] are charged with particularly serious and serious criminal offences. If released, the defendants may continue to commit crimes or put pressure on witnesses and the victims.
The [defendants’] release from custody would seriously hamper the examination of the case. The reasons justifying the remand of the defendants in custody have not ceased to exist.” 25.  On 26 April 2007 the District Court extended the detention of the applicant and three of his co-defendants until 2 August 2007. The court stated as follows:
“... the court concludes that ... the [defendants’] pre-trial detention should be extended ... [They] are charged with particularly serious and serious criminal offences. A number of witnesses have not yet been questioned. If released, the defendants may put pressure on witnesses and the victims.
The [defendants’] release from custody would seriously hamper the examination of the case. The reasons justifying the remand of the defendants in custody have not ceased to exist.” 26.  On 16 May 2007 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 1 February 2007 on appeal. 27.  On 31 July 2007 the District Court extended the detention of the applicant and three of his co-defendants until 2 November 2007. In particular, the court noted as follows:
“... the court concludes that ... the [defendants’] pre-trial detention should be extended ... [They] are charged with particularly serious and serious criminal offences. Prosecution witnesses B. and E. have not yet been questioned. If released, the defendants may put pressure on witnesses; given the character of each of the defendants, they may abscond, continue to commit crimes, intimidate witnesses and other parties to the proceedings, or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice. ... The [defendants’] release from custody would seriously hamper the examination of the case. The reasons justifying the remand of the defendants in custody have not ceased to exist.” 28.  On 15 August 2007 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 26 April 2007 on appeal. 29.  On 30 October 2007 the District Court extended the detention of the applicant and three of his co-defendants until 8 February 2008. The court reasoned as follows:
“... the court concludes that ... the [defendants’] pre-trial detention should be extended ... [They] are charged with particularly serious and serious criminal offences. Witness E., expert witnesses and lay witnesses who participated in the investigation ... have not yet been questioned. If released, the defendants may put pressure on witnesses; given the character of each of the defendants, they may abscond, continue to commit crimes, intimidate witnesses and other parties to the proceedings, or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice. ... The [defendants’] release from custody would seriously hamper the examination of the case. The reasons justifying the remand of the defendants in custody have not ceased to exist.” 30.  On 21 December 2007 the Regional Court adjourned an appeal by the applicant against the detention order of 30 October 2007 to ensure his participation in the hearing. On 26 December 2007 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 31 July 2007 on appeal. 31.  On 23 January 2008 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 30 October 2007 on appeal. 32.  On 31 January 2008 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 2 March 2008. The court referred to the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the complexity of the case. On 27 February 2008 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 31 January 2008 on appeal. The applicant was convicted by the District Court on 28 February 2008 (see paragraph 36 below). 33.  Following the applicant’s arrest on 16 September 2004 and the preliminary investigation, on 2 August 2005 the criminal case file, comprising seventeen volumes of documents, was received by the District Court for the trial. 34.  The six defendants, including the applicant were charged with numerous counts of fraud, robbery, threats to kill, extortion and money laundering. The trial court was to question fifty witnesses and to study substantial volumes of documentary evidence. The court held one-hundred‑and-twenty-five hearings. 35.  The Government provided the following information as regards adjournments of the trial hearings:
Date
Reason for adjournment
28 September and 31 October 2005
The applicant asked for additional time to study the case file.
From 1 to 5 December 2005
The trial was stayed.
From 7 December 2005 to 30 January 2006
The trial was stayed.
30 January 2006
The applicant and his lawyer asked for certain witnesses to be summoned for questioning.
20 February 2006
A number of defendants could not attend the hearing on account of illness.
From 29 March to 24 April 2006
The trial was stayed.
From 17 to 24 May 2006
The trial was stayed.
24 May 2006
The judge was on sick leave.
29 June 2006
The defendants remanded in custody were not transported to the courthouse.
14 July 2006
One of the defence counsel failed to appear.
6 September 2006
The defendants remanded in custody were not transported to the courthouse.
20 September 2006
One of the defence counsel failed to appear.
4 October 2006
One of the defence counsel failed to appear. According to the Government, witness F. failed to appear from that day on in court until the appeal hearing.
From 11 to 25 October 2006
The trial was stayed.
25-26 October 2006
One of the defence counsel failed to appear.
20 and 27 March 2007
One of the defence counsel failed to appear.
24 and 26 April 2007
One of the defence counsel failed to appear.
6, 13 and 14 June 2007
One of the defence counsel failed to appear.
24 and 31 July 2007
One of the defence counsel failed to appear.
2 August to 11 September 2007
The judge was on annual leave.
11 September 2007
One of the defence counsel failed to appear. 36.  On 28 February 2008 the District Court found the applicant guilty of extortion and fraud, and sentenced him to three-and-a-half years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed, maintaining his innocence. 37.  On 15 May 2008 the applicant was released upon having served his sentence. 38.  On 24 December 2008 the Regional Court reclassified the applicant’s conviction without changing the imposed sentence. 39.  From 16 to 18 November 2004 the applicant was detained in a temporary detention unit at the regional police headquarters. According to the Government, the applicant was held in a cell measuring 18.36 square metres. The cell had four sleeping places, but the applicant was the only occupant. A vent in the window permitted access to fresh air. There were two windows in the cell covered with metal grills, which did not prevent access to daylight. The toilet was located in the left corner of the cell, some 2.7 metres away from the dining table and some 2.4 metres away from the nearest sleeping place. It was separated from the living area of the cell by a 1.35-metre-high wooden partition. 40.  According to the applicant, there was no running tap water in his cell. The lighting was insufficient, and he was not given the opportunity to take any outdoor exercise. 41.  The Government provided the following information as regards the conditions of the applicant’s detention in remand prison no. IZ-71/1 in Tula from 19 November 2004 to 15 May 2008:
Period of detention
Cell no.
Surface area in square metres
Number of beds
Number of inmates
From 19 November 2004 to 18 March 2005
20 10.7
6
2-4
From 2 July to 1 August 2007
36
35
21
14-16
From 1 August 2007 to 15 May 2008
48
29
12-14
7-10 42.  All the cells in the remand prison were equipped with a ventilation system ensuring adequate fresh air circulation. 43.  The windows in the cells were covered with metal grills, which did not prevent access to daylight. The cells had electric lighting, which was constantly switched on. From 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. the cells were lit with 60-watt bulbs. This night lighting was used for surveillance purposes and to facilitate the use of the toilet. 44.  The toilet was located in the corner of each cell, some 2.5 metres away from the nearest bed and some 3 metres away from the dining table. It was separated from the living area of the cell by a 1.5-metre-high wooden partition and a wooden door, which ensured sufficient privacy for the person using it. 45.  Inmates were allowed at least an hour’s daily outdoor exercise in designated exercise areas measuring 30.8 square metres on average. The exercise areas were covered with metal wire mesh, with openings measuring 17 x 17 square centimetres. 46.  The applicant was not confined to his cell all the time. On numerous occasions he met with the investigator for questioning and participation in other investigative activities. He had meetings with his lawyers and visits from his family. According to copies of the relevant records of the remand prison, none of the meetings or visits lasted any longer than two hours. The Government’s submissions on the issue can be summarised as follows:
Year
Number of meetings
2004
The applicant had four meetings with his lawyer and one meeting with the investigator. He had two family visits.
2005
On fifteen occasions the applicant met with his lawyers. He had forty-eight meetings with the investigator and three family visits.
2006
The applicant had twelve meetings with his lawyers and two meetings with the investigator. He had six family visits.
2007
The applicant had thirty-three meetings with his lawyers. He met with the investigator twice.
2008
The applicant met with his lawyers four times. He met with the investigator twice and two family visits.
(b)  The description provided by the applicant 47.  According to the applicant, the number of inmates detained in remand prison no. IZ-71/1 in Tula was much higher than the number suggested by the Government. In particular, he submitted that in cell no. 20 the number of inmates had been between six and seven, and in cell no. 36 between sixteen and twenty-two people had been detained with him. 48.  The lighting in the cells was constantly switched on. There was one window in each cell, but it did not permit much access to fresh air, as the ventilation system did not comply with the accepted standards. Water was available from 6.30 a.m. to 9 a.m., from 12 noon to 3 p.m., and from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. The toilet was separated from the living area of the cells by a 1-metre-high partition, but it offered no privacy. The cells were infested with insects. The administration took no measures to exterminate them. The inmates were allowed a one-hour walk per day. The exercise area did not have any sports equipment. The food was of a poor quality. There were no refrigerators in the cells. On several occasions inmates suffering from tuberculosis and AIDS were placed in the same cells as non-infected inmates.