5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Krasnoyarsk. 6.  On 4 July 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of extortion. On 6 July 2003 the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk dismissed the prosecutor’s request to place the applicant in detention and ordered his release on an undertaking not to leave his place of residence. 7.  On 3 September 2003 the applicant was charged with extortion on several counts. In December 2003 the case was referred to the Central District Court of Krasnoyarsk for trial. 8.  On 5 January 2004 the District Court received the case file. On 9 January 2004 the court scheduled the trial for 19 January 2004. 9.  On 12 October 2004 the District Court decided to place the applicant and his co-defendants Zh. and T. in detention pending trial. On 16 November 2004 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the detention order. The applicant remained in custody pending trial. 10.  During the period between 19 January 2004 and 3 February 2005 the District Court scheduled thirty-nine hearings. The Government provided the following information concerning the adjournments:
 
Date of hearing
Reasons for adjournment
19 January 2004
Certain witnesses failed to appear and /or the parties asked for additional witnesses to be heard.
11 March 2004
Newly appointed counsel asked for additional time to study the case file.
26 March, 19 and 28 April, 6 and 14 May 2004
Certain witnesses failed to appear and /or the parties asked for additional witnesses to be heard.
28 May 2004
The prison guards failed to ensure two co-defendants’ presence.
5 June 2004
One of the co-defendants’ counsel failed to appear.
7, 9 and 16 June 2004
Certain witnesses failed to appear and /or the parties asked for additional witnesses to be heard.
17 June 2004
One of the co-defendants’ counsel failed to appear.
21 June 2004
The applicant failed to appear.
22, 24 and 25 June, 1 July 2004
Certain witnesses failed to appear and /or the parties asked for additional witnesses to be heard.
7 September 2004
Certain witnesses failed to appear and /or the parties asked for additional witnesses to be heard. Counsel B., representing one of the victims, failed to appear.
14 September 2004
Counsel B., representing one of the victims, failed to appear.
23 September and 5 October 2004
Certain witnesses failed to appear and /or the parties asked for additional witnesses to be heard.
14 October 2004
The prison guards failed to ensure two co‑defendants’ presence.
28 October, 10 and 17 November 2004 
The parties asked for additional time to prepare certain documentary evidence.
1 December 2004
Counsel B., representing one of the victims, failed to appear.
9 and 15 December 2004
The parties asked for additional time to prepare certain documentary evidence.
24 December 2004
One of the co-defendants’ counsel failed to appear 11.  On 14 February 2005 the District Court convicted the applicant and his co-defendants on several counts of extortion and acquitted them on one count. The applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. On the same date the applicant appealed against his conviction. 12.  On 24 May 2005 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 14 February 2005 and referred the case back to the trial court for examination by a different panel. It held, in particular, that the trial court had failed to duly establish the circumstances of the case and to apply the criminal law correctly. 13.  On 15 June 2005 the District Court returned the case to the prosecutor, at his request, to be joined to the cases against other defendants. On 30 June 2005 the district deputy prosecutor joined the cases in respect of five defendants, including the applicant. The case-file comprised sixteen volumes. 14.  On 4 July 2005 the case was again referred to the District Court. During the period between 18 August 2005 and 15 May 2006 the District Court held nineteen hearings. The Government provided the following information concerning the adjournments:
Date of hearing
Reasons for adjournment
13 September 2005
One of the defendants’ counsel failed to appear.
26 September, 27 October, 22 and 28 December 2005, 15 and 16 February, 2, 17 and 23 March and 6 April 2006
Certain witnesses failed to appear. 15.  On 15 May 2006 the District Court found the applicant and his co‑defendants guilty on several counts of extortion. The applicant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. 16.  On 10 October 2006 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 15 May 2006 on account of procedural breaches and referred the case to the trial court for fresh examination. 17.  On 16 October 2006 the District Court set the case for trial. During the period between 16 October 2006 and 30 January 2008 the District Court held thirty-seven hearings. The Government provided the following information concerning the adjournments:
Date of hearing
Reasons for adjournment
24 October 2006
The prison guards failed to ensure one of the co‑defendants’ presence in court.
14 November 2006
Certain witnesses failed to appear and /or the parties asked for additional witnesses to be heard.
17 November 2006
One of the defendants’ counsel failed to appear.
27 November, 1 and 8 December 2006, 10, 26 and 30 January, 2 February, 2 March, 9 and 23 April 2007
Certain witnesses failed to appear and /or the parties asked for additional witnesses to be heard.
27 April 2007
Some of the defendants’ counsel failed to appear.
18 July 2007
One of the defendants’ counsel failed to appear. 18.  On 2 August 2007 the District Court, at the prosecutor’s request, suspended the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the ground that the applicant was undergoing intensive treatment for tuberculosis and his ill health prevented him from participating in the examination of the case. By the same decision the District Court held that the applicant was to remain in detention. The examination of the criminal charges against the applicant’s co-defendants continued and, by a final decision of 15 November 2007, they were convicted. 19.  On 9 January 2008 criminal proceedings against the applicant were resumed. 20.  On 30 January 2008 the District Court found the applicant guilty of extortion and sentenced him to five years and ten months’ imprisonment. On 13 May 2008 the Regional Court upheld that judgment. 21.  On 4 September 2008 the Minusinskiy Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region ordered the applicant’s release on parole. 22.  The applicant was detained pending trial in remand prison no IZ‑24/1 in Krasnoyarsk. On several occasions he was transferred to a temporary detention centre for investigation purposes. Furthermore, the applicant spent certain time in hospital where he underwent anti‑tuberculosis treatment. In support of their submissions the Government produced excerpts from the remand prison populations register reflecting the situation in the applicant’s cell on one day per month for 2006-2007. They further indicated that the prison population register for 2003-2005 had been destroyed. The relevant information provided by the Government is summarised below:
Type of facility
Period of detention
Cell no.
Cell surface area (sq. m)
Number of inmates
Number of beds
Remand prison no. IZ-24/1
From 12 October 2004 to 3 February 2006 
60
136
33
46
No data available
8
12
Temporary detention centre
From 3 to 6 February 2006
No data provided
Remand prison no. IZ-24/1
From 6 February to 31 March 2006
60
136
33
46
No data available
8
12
Temporary detention centre
From 31 March to 2 April 2006
No data provided
Remand prison no. IZ-24/1
From 2 April to 23 May 2006
60
136
33
46
No data available
8
12
Temporary detention centre
From 23 to 27 May 2006
No data provided
Remand prison no. IZ-24/1
From 27 May to 5 June 2006
60
136
33
46
No data available
8
12
Temporary detention centre
From 5 to 13 June 2006
No data provided
Remand prison no. IZ-24/1
From 13 June to 10 July 2006
60
136
33
46
No data available
8
12
Temporary detention centre
From 10 to 19 July 2006
 
No data provided
Remand prison no. IZ-24/1
From 19 July to 8 August 2006
60
136
33
46
No data available
8
12
 
From 8 August to 8 September 2006
The period not accounted by the Government
Remand prison no. IZ-24/1
From 8 September to 23 October 2006
60
136
33
46
No data available
8
12
From 23 October to 20 November 2006
63 45.75
10-12
12
From 20 November 2006 to 12 January 2007
60
33
6-8
8
Temporary detention centre
From 12 to 20 January 2007
No data provided
Remand prison no. IZ-24/1
From 20 January to 5 February 2007
60
33
6-8
8
From 5 to 8 February 2007
198 25.85
2-6
6
Regional specialised anti-tuberculosis prison hospital
From 8 February to 1 March 2007
No data provided
Remand prison no. IZ-24/1
From 1 March to 21 June 2007
211 24.75
2-6
6
Regional specialised anti-tuberculosis prison hospital
From 2 July to 18 October 2007
No data provided
Remand prison no. IZ-24/1
From 18 October 2007 to 14 February 2008
197 24.75
2-6
6
Regional specialised anti-tuberculosis prison hospital
From 14 to 21 February 2008
No data provided
Remand prison no. IZ-24/1
From 21 February to 3 June 2008
197 23.  The applicant submitted that, in addition to the cells indicated by the Government, he was detained in cells nos. 155, 104, 109, 73, 201, and 196. The conditions of detention in the remand prison were unsatisfactory. He did not have sufficient personal space and had to share cells with detainees suffering from tuberculosis. 24.  During the time the applicant was detained in the remand prison he underwent medical examinations and check-ups on a regular basis. At no time was he detained with inmates suffering from tuberculosis. 25.  On 31 January 2007 the applicant underwent a chest X-ray test and was diagnosed with tuberculosis. 26.  On 8 February 2007 the applicant was admitted to a regional specialised anti-tuberculosis prison hospital where he was treated for tuberculosis until 1 March 2007. He was then transferred to the remand prison hospital where he continued further treatment. 27.  The applicant again underwent treatment in the regional prison hospital from 2 July to 18 October 2007 and from 14 to 21 February 2008. The treatment was conducted in strict compliance with national standards. Upon discharge from the hospital, the applicant continued to receive outpatient treatment and undergo examinations at the remand prison hospital. In particular, he underwent regular chest X-rays, a sputum smear test and clinical and biochemical blood tests. The test results demonstrated a positive effect of the anti-tuberculosis treatment. 28.  After the applicant’s conviction became final, he was transferred to medical correctional facility LIU-32 in the Krasnoyarsk Region to serve his sentence and receive further treatment for tuberculosis. His subsequent examinations and tests carried out in June 2008 showed that the applicant was no longer in need of anti-tuberculosis treatment.
(b)  Submissions by the applicant 29.  Upon arrival in the remand prison, the applicant underwent a medical examination, including a chest X-ray, which established that he was in good health. Further medical examinations performed on 15 April and 19 November 2005 and 17 May 2006 revealed that his heart and lungs were healthy. 30.  Upon his release on 4 September 2008 the applicant received an extract of his medical record, which stated that on release he had been diagnosed with tuberculosis of the upper lungs in the induration phase. 31.  On 27 June 2007, when the criminal proceedings against the applicant were still pending and he was in custody, the applicant brought proceedings for damages against the Ministry of Finance. He claimed that the criminal proceedings against him had been excessively long and that as a result of his lengthy detention in unsatisfactory conditions in the remand prison he had contracted tuberculosis. 32.  On 28 May 2008 the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk dismissed the applicant’s claim in full. The court held that the length of the proceedings was justified by the complexity of the case, as well as by the joining of several criminal cases and the suspension of the proceedings against the applicant pending his treatment for tuberculosis. As regards the applicant’s allegations concerning his infection with tuberculosis, the court established that the applicant had received proper medical treatment for tuberculosis. The court further noted that the applicant had not described the conditions he had been detained in, why those conditions had not met legal requirements, with which detainees suffering from tuberculosis he had been detained and when he had been in contact with those detainees. It further held that the mere fact of contracting tuberculosis was not enough to entitle him to damages, since for such entitlement to come into play the damage incurred had to be the result of concrete unlawful actions. 33.  On 28 July 2008 the Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal. 34.  Section 23 of the Detention of Suspects Act of 15 July 1995 provides that detainees should be kept in conditions which satisfy sanitary and hygienic requirements. They should be provided with an individual sleeping place and given bedding, tableware and toiletries. Each inmate should have no less than four square metres of personal space in his or her cell. 35.  Moreover, detainees should be given, free of charge, sufficient food for the maintenance of good health in line with the standards established by the Government of the Russian Federation (section 22 of the Act). 36.  Article 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) provides that in order to ensure the proper administration of criminal proceedings, the courts have the power to compel the parties to the proceedings to cooperate by means of measures such as escorting them to a courtroom or imposing fines. The former can be applied to witnesses if they fail to honour court summonses without valid reasons (Article 113 of the CCP). A fine can be imposed on a party in the event of his or her failure to fulfil procedural obligations (Article 117 of the CCP). 37.  Under Article 258 of the CCP, the penalties which a judge may impose on any party, including a defendant, who acts in a manner that disturbs order in the courtroom are (1) a warning, (2) removal from the courtroom, or (3) a fine. Article 258 § 3 establishes that the trial, including the parties’ closing arguments, may be conducted in the defendant’s absence. In such a case, the defendant must be brought back to the courtroom to make his or her final submissions. The judgment must always be pronounced in the defendant’s presence.