5.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Yekaterinburg. 6.  The applicant was a member of the National Bolsheviks Party. 7.  On 14 December 2004 a group of about forty members of the National Bolsheviks Party occupied the waiting area of the Presidential Administration building in Moscow and locked themselves in an office on the ground floor. 8.  They asked for a meeting with the President, the deputy head of the Presidential Administration and the President’s economic advisor. Through the windows they distributed leaflets with a printed letter to the President that listed his ten alleged failures to comply with the Constitution and contained a call for his resignation. 9.  The intruders stayed in the office for one-and-a-half hours until the police broke down the blocked door and arrested them. They did not offer any resistance to the authorities. 10.  On 16 December 2004 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant’s detention, relying on the gravity of the charges, the circumstances in which the offences imputed to him had been committed, the methods employed by the offenders, the applicant’s lack of residence registration in Moscow or the Moscow region, and the risks of him absconding, reoffending, putting pressure on witnesses or interfering with the investigation in some other way. 11.  On 21 December 2004 the applicant was charged with the attempted violent overthrow of the State (Article 278 of the Criminal Code) and intentional destruction of and damage to property in a public place (Articles 167 § 2 and 214). 12.  On 11 February 2005 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow extended the applicant’s detention until 14 April 2005, referring to the gravity of the charges, the circumstances in which the offences imputed to him had been committed and the fact that applicant’s residence registration was in Yekaterinburg rather than in Moscow or the Moscow region. The court concluded that the applicant might abscond, reoffend or interfere with the proceedings. 13.  The applicant appealed, asking the court to apply a more lenient preventive measure. He submitted that the District Court’s findings had not been supported by concrete facts. On 31 March 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified. 14.  On 15 February 2005 the charges against the applicant were amended to participation in mass disorder, an offence under Article 212 § 2 of the Criminal Code. 15.  On 14 April 2005 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 14 July 2005 for the following reasons:
“There are no reasons to vary the preventive measure. Taking into account the gravity of the charges and [the applicant’s] individual situation, the court considers that there are sufficient indications that [he], once released, might abscond.
At the same time, bearing in mind that the parties to the criminal proceedings have already started studying the case file, the extension asked for by the prosecution appears to be excessive and must be limited to three months. This period will be sufficient for all parties to the proceedings to effectively study the entire case file.” 16.  In his statement of appeal the applicant asked to be released. He submitted that he could no longer interfere with the investigation as it had been completed. He also referred to his clean criminal record. On 15 June 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, sufficiently reasoned and justified. 17.  On 7 June 2005 the investigation was completed and thirty-nine people, including the applicant, were committed for trial. 18.  On 20 June 2005 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow scheduled a preliminary hearing for 30 June 2005 and held that all the defendants should meanwhile remain in custody. 19.  On 30 June 2005 the Tverskoy District Court held a preliminary hearing. It rejected the defendants’ requests to be released and ordered that they should remain in custody pending trial, citing the gravity of the charges against them and the risk of their absconding or obstructing justice. 20.  The trial started on 8 July 2005. 21.  During a hearing on 27 July 2005 the applicant and his co-defendants lodged applications for release. On the same date the Tverskoy District Court rejected the requests, finding that their detention was lawful and justified. The applicant appealed. In his appeal submissions he asked to be released. He submitted, in particular, that he had no criminal record, had a permanent place of residence and had positive character references. On 5 October 2005 the Moscow City Court rejected his appeal and upheld the decision of 27 July 2005. 22.  On 10 August 2005 the applicant and his co-defendants filed new applications for release. On the same date the Tverskoy District Court rejected the requests. It held:
“The court takes into account the defence’s argument that an individual approach to each defendant’s situation is essential when deciding on the preventive measure.
Examining the grounds on which ... the court ordered and extended detention in respect of all the defendants without exception ... the court notes that these grounds still persist today. Therefore, having regard to the state of health, family situation, age, profession and character of all the defendants, and to the personal guarantees offered by certain private individuals and included in the case file, the court concludes that, if released, each of the defendants might abscond or obstruct justice in some other way ...
In the court’s view, in these circumstances, having regard to the gravity of the charges, there are no grounds for varying or revoking the preventive measure in respect of any defendant ...” 23.  On 2 November 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified. 24.  On 8 December 2005 the Tverskoy District Court found the applicant and his co-defendants guilty of participation in mass disorder. It sentenced the applicant to three years’ imprisonment, but suspended the sentence and placed him on probation for three years. The applicant was immediately released. 25.  On 29 March 2006 the Moscow City Court upheld the conviction on appeal. 26.  From 16 December 2004 to 8 December 2005 the applicant was held in remand centre no. IZ-77/2 in Moscow. 27.  According to the applicant, the remand centre was overcrowded. His cell measured about 15 square metres and housed four to six inmates. The light in the cell was never turned off, disturbing the applicant’s sleep. The cell was infested with cockroaches. It was equipped with a lavatory pan. The pan was separated from the living area by a partition of a metre in height, with the result that the person using the toilet was in view of other inmates. The applicant was allowed to take a shower once a week. Hot water was often unavailable. The applicant had a daily walk of about an hour. The exercise yard was covered and measured 15 square metres. 28.  According to the Government, from 16 to 20 December 2004 the applicant was held in cell no. 42, which measured 8.6 square metres and housed two to four inmates. From 20 December 2004 to 22 April 2005 he was held in cell no. 94, which measured 58.7 square metres and housed eighteen to twenty-two inmates. From 22 April to 21 June 2005 he was held in cell no. 36, measuring 13.2 square metres and housing four to six inmates. From 21 June to 6 December 2005 he was held in cell no. 63, which measured 8.6 square metres and housed two to four inmates. From 6 to 8 December 2005 he was held in cell no. 62, which measured 8.3 square metres and housed two to four inmates. The applicant had a separate bunk at all times and was provided with bedding. In support of their position, the Government submitted certificates issued by the remand centre governor on 18 November 2010 and selected pages from the prison population register which recorded, for each day, the number of sleeping bunks and the number of inmates in each cell, and the total number of inmates in each of the eight wings of the remand centre. 29.  Relying on certificates of the same date from the remand centre governor, the Government further submitted that all cells were equipped with toilet facilities which were separated from the living area by a partition. There was forced ventilation in the cells. The windows were large and were not blocked by shutters. The cells had sufficient artificial light, which was located so as not to disturb the sleep of the inmates. There were no insects or rodents in the detention facility, as all the cells were disinfected every three months. Inmates had an hour-long daily walk in the exercise yards, which were sufficiently large to allow each inmate to do physical exercise. The showers were working properly and hot water was available at all times.