5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently serving a term of imprisonment in correctional colony IK-4, Tula Region. 6.  On 6 April 2001 the Moscow City Court convicted the applicant of robbery and murder and sentenced him to thirteen years’ imprisonment. 7.  On 3 August 2001 the applicant was sent to correctional colony IK-4, Tula Region (ФБУ “Исправительная колония № 4” УФСИН по Тульской области), to serve his sentence. 8.  Between 2001 and 2010 the applicant was repeatedly disciplined for breaching colony rules, including by placement in punishment cells or SHIZO (ШИЗО) and solitary confinement cells or PKT (ПКТ). In August 2006 the applicant was declared a “persistent rule-breaker” and placed in the colony’s strict regime unit (СУС). 9.  Between December 2007 and December 2010 the applicant was held in solitary confinement cells almost uninterruptedly, the disciplinary measure being applied every time on account of the applicant’s refusal to return to the strict regime unit. The applicant was never provided with copies of the decisions placing him in the PKT, as it was not required under domestic law. 10.  On 12 March 2010 the Plavskiy District Court, Tula Region, reviewed the qualification of the applicant’s conviction in connection with the entry into force of amendments to the Criminal Code. 11.  On 30 June 2010 the Tula Regional Court, having examined the above judgment on appeal, reduced the applicant’s sentence to twelve years and ten months’ imprisonment. 12.  On 27 January 2011 the applicant was transferred from the strict regime unit to a regular unit. 13.  On numerous occasions between December 2007 and December 2010 the applicant was held in solitary confinement in PKT punishment cells in correctional colony IK-4, Tula Region. The dates of the applicant’s stay in various PKT cells as from December 2007 until December 2010 are given in the table below:
 
Cell no.:
Dates of stay:
14
12 December 2007 – 12 March 2008
14
14 March - 14 August 2008
5
29 August – 29 November 2008
14
8 March – 8 April 2009
2
25 April – 25 May 2009
14
26 June – 26 September 2009
10
27 January – 27 March 2010
17
6 May – 7 December 2010 14.  Cell 10 measured 6.7 square metres and cells 14 and 17 measured 12.1 square metres. No information was provided regarding the measurements of cells 2 and 5. 15.  Each cell was lit by two 40-watt filament lamps from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. and by a 40-watt security light from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. Natural lighting was available through windows measuring 90 by 50 cm and covered with grids on both the inside and the outside of the cell. 16.  The cells were not equipped with ventilation as such. However, natural ventilation was available through window vents. 17.  The cells were equipped with central heating. The average winter temperature was maintained at 18 degrees Celsius and the average summer temperature at 20-25 degrees Celsius. 18.  In each cell the lavatory was situated in the corner and was separated from the living area by a brick partition 1.4 to 1.5 metres high. It was separated from the bunk beds and the dining table by sufficient distance. 19.  The applicant was provided with hot meals three times a day in accordance with the established legal norms. Once a week he could take a shower. After each shower the applicant was provided with clean linen. 20.  The cells were rodent-free. Regular monthly disinfections, delousing and disinfestations were carried out in the facility. 21.  The applicant enjoyed daily outside exercise, limited to one and a half hours. The PKT exercise yards, which measured 13.8 to 15.7 square metres, provided shelter from rain yet provided access to fresh air and daylight. 22.  The applicant was found fit to be detained in PKT punishment cells on 14 March, 6 and 14 June and 29 August 2008, 25 April and 26 August 2009, and 27 January, 27 February and 6 July 2010. The doctors never assessed the applicant’s physical or psychological capacity to deal with long-term solitary confinement, as it was not part of their duties. 23.  The Government supported their submissions with documents issued by the director of IK-4 on 24 February and 2 and 10 March 2011, a document issued by the director of IK-2 on 28 February 2011, and the applicant’s medical file. 24.  The Government were unable to provide any information as to the effect that the long-term solitary confinement has had on the applicant. 25.  The applicant alleged that the windows in the cells provided very limited daylight. The cells were stuffy and damp, cold in winter and hot in summer. The central heating did not function. 26.  The food was very dull and consisted mainly of cooked cereal. 27.  The cells were overrun by rats. 28.  The applicant was not allowed to receive visits from members of his family or to receive parcels from outside. His access to reading material was restricted. He could not use his sleeping place during the day without special permission to that effect from a doctor. 29.  The applicant submitted that he was not fit to stay long in solitary confinement. He referred to a document issued by the colony’s psychological laboratory on 11 November 2004 which, having carried out a psychological examination of the applicant, arrived at the following conclusions:
“...Recommendations: 2.  It should be taken into consideration that [the applicant] operates more productively in a dynamic and diverse environment associated with constant communication. 30.  On 28 May 2008 the applicant challenged before the court the lawfulness of his placement in a PKT punishment cell on 14 March 2008. He claimed, in particular, that such a measure was incompatible with his severe health problems and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant asked the court to examine the case in the presence of his representative. 31.  On 26 June 2008 the applicant’s representative was informed that the off-site court hearing would take place on 30 June 2008 at 9.30 a.m. in correctional colony IK-4. 32.  On 30 June 2008 at 9.30 a.m. the representative arrived at the colony for the hearing. With him was an expert from the Defence of Prisoners’ Rights Fund (“the Fund”) who the applicant also wanted to act in his defence. However, the director of the colony did not allow either of them on the premises of the colony, since the applicant’s representative was carrying a dictaphone, a mobile phone, a camera and a laptop, which he refused to leave at the entrance, and because the person from the Fund did not have any documents determining her status in the proceedings. 33.  The hearing started at 11.30 a.m. without the applicant’s representative. 34.  The court read out the request from the applicant’s representative for the hearing to be held at Plavskiy District Court, Tula Region, on the grounds that it would be unlawful to hold the hearing of the case in a closed controlled-access facility. 35.  The representative of the colony submitted that all those wishing to participate in the hearing could do so and asked that the above request be dismissed. 36.  The court dismissed the request in question, stating that the domestic law did not provide for the possibility of transfer of convicts so that they could participate in the hearing of their civil cases. 37.  The court observed that the hearing could be held without the applicant’s representative. The applicant objected. 38.  The representative of the colony submitted that the applicant’s representative had not been allowed into the colony because he was carrying a dictaphone, a mobile phone, a camera and a laptop without having obtained permission to use such equipment. 39.  The court decided to proceed without the applicant’s representative. 40.  The applicant refused to participate in the hearing without the representative. He stated that he would make no submissions, as he feared for his own safety, and left the hearing room. 41.  The court proceeded without the applicant. Having examined the material of the case and heard the representative of the colony, the court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court held that the decision to transfer the applicant to the PKT punishment cell had been lawful and that it had not breached the applicant’s rights. 42.  The applicant appealed. He complained, inter alia, that the hearing of his case in the first instance had taken place on the premises of a closed controlled-access facility to which his representative had been unlawfully denied access, which amounted to a violation of his right to defence and breached the principle of equality of arms. The applicant requested that the examination of his case on appeal be carried out in the presence of both himself and his representative. 43.  On 11 September 2008 Tula Regional Court, having examined the case-file material, the arguments put forward by the applicant and having heard the applicant’s representative, upheld the judgment of 30 June 2008 on appeal. The court held that the applicant’s representative had refused to abide by the requirements of the facility’s management that he should be granted access, and that the applicant had himself chosen to leave the courtroom. 44.  On 13 October 2008 the applicant’s representative challenged before the court the applicant’s ten months’ almost uninterrupted confinement in PKT punishment cells. Citing Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant’s representative claimed that the applicant’s confinement in the PKT significantly affected his physical and mental health, and has been causing him distress and anguish exceeding the legally acceptable level. He relied, in particular, on the limitation of the time for outside walks, restrictions on receiving parcels from the outside and family visits, poor nutrition, restrictions on reading material, and inadequate medical assistance. 45.  On 17 November 2008 the Plavskiy District Court, Tula Region, having examined the lawfulness of application of the disciplinary sanctions to the applicant, dismissed the claim. The court found that the applicant’s health did not prevent him from being detained in the PKT punishment cells, and that placement there did not amount to a violation of the applicant’s rights and freedoms. The court did not establish a causal link between the decisions to place the applicant in the PKT punishment cells and the latter’s health problems. The complaints of inadequate medical assistance were found unsubstantiated. 46.  On 5 March 2009 the Tula Regional Court upheld the above judgment on appeal. 47.  On 13 October 2008 and 17 February 2009 the applicant’s representative challenged the lawfulness of the decision of the head of IK-4 to refuse to hand over to the applicant a human rights magazine. On 5 March 2009 and 9 September 2009 respectively the Tula Regional Court, as the final court of appeal, dismissed the applicant’s challenge finding the decisions lawful. 48.  On 6 September 2010 the applicant’s representative complained to the Tula Region Prosecutor’s Office supervising compliance with the law in correctional facilities about the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the PKT punishment cells. On 5 October 2010 the Prosecutor’s Office found the above complaint unsubstantiated. 49.  The applicant’s medical file indicates that from his arrival at the IK‑4 facility on 3 August 2001 the applicant was treated by a psychiatrist of the medical unit for “personality disorder of hysterical type and organic disorder of the central nervous system, of complex origin”. He regularly received outpatient treatment at the correctional colony’s medical unit. 50.  On numerous occasions throughout his detention in IK-4 the applicant received inpatient treatment for various conditions: consequences of craniocerebral injury, psychopathy, hysterical personality disorder, psychotic disorder, paranoid disorder, asthenovegetative syndrome, encephalopathy, hyperopia, partial optic nerve atrophy, osteochondrosis, chronic gastritis, duodenitis, arthrosis of left mandibular joint, chronic orchiepididymitis, chronic prostatitis, varix dilatation of lower limbs, gallbladder deformation, urine acid diathesis, chronic pancreatitis, gastrointestinal tract dyskinesia and heel spurs. The applicant underwent this treatment at the medical unit of IK-4, the Tula Regional prison hospital at correctional colony IK-2, and the Interregional Psychiatric Hospital in Smolensk. 51.  On several occasions the applicant underwent inpatient ophthalmological examination and treatment in the regional prison hospital for his hyperopia and partial optic nerve atrophy. In particular, specialised ophthalmological treatment was provided to the applicant between 26 July and 2 August 2002, between 26 February and 4 March 2004, between 2  and 11 November 2005, between 20  and 26 April 2007, between 22 and 28 February 2008, between 11  and 21 April 2008, and between 3 and 10 April 2009. On 10 February 2011 the applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist at the regional prison hospital and diagnosed with partial atrophy of the optic nerves, hyperopia and hypermetric astigmatism. Inpatient treatment was recommended. The case file contains no further information regarding this issue. 52.  In August 2009 the applicant was diagnosed with oblique fracture of the instep bone of the right foot. The head of the IK-4 medical unit informed the applicant of the diagnosis. The applicant, however, denied the injury and submitted that he had hurt himself in 2000. The applicant was given crutches and prescribed bed rest. 53.  In November 2008 the IK-4 medical unit referred the applicant to the regional prison hospital for a check-up and treatment for rapidly deteriorating eyesight and atrophy of optic nerves. 54.  Since three months later the applicant had still not been transferred to the regional prison hospital, on 5 March 2009 the applicant’s representative challenged before the court the failure of the administration of the IK-4 correctional colony to send the applicant to the regional prison hospital. 55.  On 25 March 2009 the Plavskiy District Court, Tula Region, allowed the claim and obliged the IK-4 administration to send the applicant to the regional prison hospital for examination and treatment of his eyesight problems. 56.  From 3 April to 10 April 2009 the applicant underwent treatment in the regional prison hospital. 57.  It appears from the Government’s submissions that between 2004 and 2010 the applicant made numerous complaints to the Tula Regional Prosecutor’s Office of inadequate medical assistance in the IK-4, to no avail. Neither party provided copies of the relevant complaints or replies to them. 58.  In January 2009 the IK-4 correctional colony authorities requested that the applicant be transferred to a prison. 59.  On 27 January 2009 Plavskiy District Court, Tula Region, decided to transfer the applicant to a prison for two years. The hearing took place in the colony. The applicant’s representative was not granted access, because he had a dictaphone, a mobile phone, a camera and a laptop with him. The applicant refused to participate in the hearing, giving as reasons his health and the absence of his representative. He requested that the hearing be adjourned, without success. The representative of the colony made oral submissions to the court. 60.  On 15 April 2009 the Tula Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal in view of a violation of the applicant’s right to defence, and remitted the case for a fresh examination. 61.  On 16 June 2009 Plavskiy District Court decided to transfer the applicant to prison for two years. The applicant was properly represented by counsel. 62.  On 19 August 2009 Tula Regional Court quashed the judgment of 16 June 2009 on appeal, because the court had failed to examine the disciplinary offences committed by the applicant and the validity of the sanctions imposed on the latter as a result. 63.  On 26 November 2009 Plavskiy District Court again decided to transfer the applicant to prison for two years. The court held that there was no evidence that such a transfer would be incompatible with the applicant’s state of health. 64.  On 24 March 2010 Tula Regional Court quashed the judgment of 26 November 2009 on appeal, because the court had failed to examine the circumstances in which disciplinary sanctions had been imposed on the applicant in 2007 and 2008. 65.  On 21 June 2010 Plavskiy District Court decided once more to transfer the applicant to prison for two years. 66.  On 30 September 2010 the case was moved to a new territorial jurisdiction and the case was transferred to Shchekinskiy District Court, Tula Region. 67.  On 24 November 2010 the Shchekinskiy District Court refused the applicant’s transfer to a prison. The court held that the disciplinary sanctions imposed on the applicant in the period between 2004 and 2008 had been unlawful and unjustified, so as the decision to declare the applicant a “persistent rule-breaker” and his transfer to the strict regime unit. On 12 January 2011 the Tula Regional Court upheld the above decision on appeal. 68.  However, on 14 June 2011 the Presidium of the Tula Regional Court quashed the decision of 24 November 2010, as upheld on appeal on 12 January 2011, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. 69.  On 22 July 2011 the Shchekinskiy District Court discontinued the proceedings in view of the fact that the administration of the colony had withdrawn its request for the applicant to be transferred to a prison regime.