5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Lagos, Nigeria. 6.  On 27 September 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery. On 28 September 2007 the Krasnogvardeiskiy District Court of St Petersburg authorised his detention pending investigation. The court noted that the applicant was suspected of having committed a serious offence entailing a custodial sentence of up to seven years, that he did not have a permanent place of residence or employment in St Petersburg and that, if released, he might re-offend or abscond. The applicant appealed. 7.  On 9 October 2007 the applicant was charged with robbery. 8.  On 22 October 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint against the investigator, claiming that he had been charged belatedly. He argued that he should have been released in view of the applicable rules of criminal procedure, which provided that, if a suspect was not charged within ten days of his arrest, he was to be released immediately. 9.  On 26 October 2007 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint lodged on 22 October 2007, noting that the appeal proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention authorised by the court order of 28 September 2007 were still pending. On 29 January 2008 the City Court upheld the decision of 26 October 2007 on appeal. 10.  On 1 November 2007 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the court order of 28 September 2007 on appeal. 11.  On 21 December 2007 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 27 January 2008. On 26 February 2008 the City Court upheld the relevant decision on appeal. The applicant remained in custody during the criminal proceedings against him. 12.  On 1 April 2008 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. 13.  On 22 July 2008 the City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. 14.  Following the applicant’s arrest, the investigator in charge of his case seized the applicant’s Nigerian passport, which was supposed to be filed together with the other materials concerning the criminal investigation. It appears that the passport was lost. 15.  In response to a complaint lodged by the applicant, the regional department of the interior carried out an inquiry, which confirmed the applicant’s allegations about the loss of the passport. The investigator was subjected to a disciplinary sanction. On 5 September 2010 the applicant was informed accordingly. As regards the issuance of a new passport, the applicant was advised to contact the Nigerian consulate. 16.  It appears that the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to bring a civil action against the domestic authorities for the loss of his passport. On 17 December 2010 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claims against the Ministry of Finance. The applicant appealed. He did not inform the Court about the outcome of the appeal proceedings. 17.  As regards the timeframe of the applicant’s detention, the Government provided the following information:
Period of detention
Type of detention facility
From 28 September 2007 to 29 February 2008
Remand prison no. IK-1 (former remand prison no. IZ-47/1) (from 19 to 24 December 2007, from 3 to 7 January, from 16 to 21 January, and from 31 January to 2 February 2008 the applicant was held in a disciplinary cell)
From 29 February to 21 March 2008
Regional prison hospital
From 21 March to 4 August 2008
Remand prison no. SIZO-1 (from 14 to 21 July 2008 the applicant was held in a disciplinary cell)
From 4 August 2008 to 2 November 2009
Correctional colony no. IK-6
From 2 to 16 November 2009
Remand prison no. SIZO-1
From 16 November 2009 to 11 February 2010
Correctional colony no. IK-6
From 11 February to 27 September 2010
Remand prison no. SIZO-1 (on 18 February 2010 the applicant was held in a disciplinary cell; from 24 June to 28 July 2010 the applicant was held in a hospital ward)
From 27 September to 7 October 2010
Correctional colony no. IK-6
From 7 October 2010 to 14 February 2011
Remand prison no. SIZO-1
From 14 February to 5 March (?) 2011
Correctional colony no. IK-6
From 21 March to 6 June 2011
Remand prison no. SIZO-1
From 6 June to 1 August 2011
Correctional colony no. IK-5
From 1 August to 26 September 2011
Remand prison no. SIZO-1 18.  On 26 September 2011 the applicant was released, having served his prison sentence. 19.  According to the Government, all the cells in the remand prison, except for the hospital wards, measured 8.4 square metres. They were equipped with four beds. The number of inmates detained with the applicant never exceeded four persons in each cell. 20.  The Government submitted the following excerpts from the remand prison population register:
Date
Cell number
Cell population, including the applicant
26 October 2007
300
1
19 November 2007
79
3
19 November 2007
108
1
27 November 2007
108
3-4
5 January 2008
Disciplinary cell
1
13 January 2008
108
2
17 January 2008
Disciplinary cell
1
2 February 2008
Disciplinary cell
1
14 December 2008
108
3
15 February 2010
114
3
18 February 2010
114
2
19 February 2010
Disciplinary cell
1
2 March 2010
30
2
14 March 2010
53
2
5 May 2010
53
2
16 July 2010
21 (hospital ward)
7-8
12 August 2010
69
2
27 August 2010 
749
4
20 September 2010
752
4 21.  All the cells were equipped with a ventilation system in working order. The windows in the cells had small vents, which could be kept open to ensure access to fresh air. The metal grills on the windows with openings measuring 10 by 20 cm did not prevent access to daylight. 22.  During the daytime the cells were lit with a 60-75-watt electric bulb. During the night the cells were lit with a 40-watt electric bulb. The temperature in the cells was maintained at +22oC in the summer and +18oC in the winter. 23.  The toilet in each cell was separated from the living area by a 1.5‑metre high wooden partition and a door, which ensured sufficient privacy. The distance between the toilet and the dining table was at least 2 metres. There was a sink with hot and cold running tap water. 24.  The meals provided to the detainees were in compliance with ration and quality standards. The applicant was allowed to take a fifteen-minute shower at least once a week. The bed sheets were changed weekly. The inmates were allowed daily outdoor exercise for at least an hour.
(b)  The applicant’s submissions 25.  According to the applicant, he was held in cells nos. 42, 101, 142, 149, 741, 742 and 778 of the remand prison. All the cells were of the same size and the conditions of detention were the same. 26.  The cells were overcrowded and the inmates had to take turns to sleep. On many occasions persons suffering from hepatitis or HIV-infected inmates were placed in the same cell. The toilet was not separated from the living area of the cell. The ventilation did not function. It was hot in the summer and cold in the winter. The food was of a low quality. The inmates were not provided with toiletries. The mattresses and bed sheets were of a poor quality. The light was constantly on. The inmates were allowed only one-hour’s daily exercise. 27.  The Government submitted the following information as regards the applicant’s detention in the correctional colony:
Period of detention
Unit no.
Total surface in square metres (including exercise area)
Number of inmates assigned to the dormitory
Total number of sleeping places per unit
Sanitary facilities per unit
From 4 to 21 August 2008
Quarantine
295 (189?)
47
50
5 wash sinks
4 toilets
6 urinals
From 21 August to 9 September 2008
Unit 11 (section 2)
363
57
100
10 wash sinks
4 toilets
1 urinal
From 9 September to 2 November 2009
Unit 16 (section 2)
578
45
100
6 wash sinks
6 toilets
6 urinals
From 16 November 2009 to 5 February 2010
Unit 16 (section 2)
578
36
100
See above
From 5 to 11 February 2010
Disciplinary cell
8 (surface area of the cell alone)
1
2
No data
From 27 September to 7 October 2010
Quarantine
295 (189?)
48
50
See above
From 14 February to 5 March (?) 2011
Quarantine
295 (189?)
30
50
See above 28.  At all times the applicant was provided with an individual bed. The windows in the dormitories ensured adequate access to daylight. The lavatory was separate from the living area of the units. Each toilet was located in a separate cubicle. The quarantine section had five wash sinks, four toilets and six urinals. In unit 11 there were ten wash sinks, four toilets and one urinal. In unit 16 there were six wash sinks, six toilets and six urinals. The temperature and lighting were adequate. The inmates had access to an outdoor exercise area in accordance with the schedule.
(b)  The applicant’s submissions 29.  According to the applicant, the dormitories were overcrowded and he did not have an individual bed. He was assigned to a dormitory measuring 46 sq. m and housing from twenty-five to thirty inmates. On many occasions persons suffering from hepatitis or HIV-infected inmates were placed in the same dormitory. The bathroom in the building housing 150 persons was equipped with three toilets. The inmates were allowed one shower per week. The shower room measured 36 sq. m and was equipped with fourteen shower heads. Each person had from approximately seven to thirteen minutes to take a shower.