5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment in the Kharkiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre (SIZO). 6.  In November 2003 the applicant met and started cohabiting with Ms T. 7.  On 2 June 2004 Mr D., a relative of Ms T., complained to the police that the applicant had robbed him of 1,100 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) (equivalent to about 165 euros (EUR)). 8.  In late July 2004 (the exact date is unknown) a TV set, an iron and a radio were stolen from the household of Ms G., an acquaintance of Ms T. Ms G. was away on a trip at the time and discovered the theft upon her return home a few days later. As the investigation later established, the theft had been committed by the applicant and Ms T. 9.  On 8 August 2004 Mr D. brought another complaint before the police, this time that the applicant and Ms T. had robbed him of UAH 2,700 (equivalent to about EUR 400) and two electric kettles. 10.  The three incidents in question took place in the Kharkiv region. The investigations into the incidents were joined into one criminal case against the applicant and Ms T. on suspicion of theft and robbery. At first, the suspects’ whereabouts could not be identified. 11.  In August 2004 the applicant was arrested by the Kharkiv police. The exact date of his arrest is unclear. According to the applicant, it was 10 August 2004. He did not, however, specify the time or circumstances of his arrest. As indicated by the investigator in his application for the applicant’s pre-trial detention (see paragraph 13 below), it was 11 August 2004. This was also the date from which the term of the applicant’s imprisonment was calculated according to the verdict of 13 April 2005 (see paragraph 59 below). However, according to the explanations of officers from the Kharkiv Police Department, it was on 12 August 2004, at about 2 a.m. (see paragraph 67 below). Also, as indicated in the verdict of 9 November 2011, the applicant was arrested on 12 August (see paragraph 29 below). There is no copy of the arrest report in the case file before the Court. 12.  According to the applicant, the Kharkiv police officers ill-treated him in the Merefa Temporary Detention Facility (ITT) with a view to making him confess to the alleged theft and robberies (for a more detailed account see paragraph 63 below). As a result, the applicant made a statement of confession, allegedly as dictated by the investigator. 13.  On 13 August 2004 the Kharkiv District Court – in a hearing which the applicant attended – remanded him in custody pending trial, having allowed an application to that end by the investigator. 14.  On the same date the applicant had his procedural rights explained to him and signed a waiver of legal assistance. 15.  On 17 August 2004 Ms T. was detained, too. According to her statements, she and the applicant had committed the theft in the household of Ms G. and the second robbery of Mr D. As to the first robbery, Ms T. submitted that, as far as she knew, the applicant had merely borrowed some money from Mr D. on 2 June 2004. 16.  On 31 August 2004 the applicant was indicted. 17.  On 9 September 2004 the case was referred to the Kharkiv District Court for trial. 18.  As the defendants had been transferred to Sevastopol on 20 September 2004 in order to attend the second set of proceedings (see paragraphs 40-62 below), no hearings took place until 11 July 2005. 19.  On 11 July 2005 the hearing was adjourned until 8 September 2005, as the court had allowed Ms T.’s request for the appointment of a lawyer. 20.  Two more adjournments followed, the second one being until 19 December 2005, owing to the absence of the victims and the witnesses, whose obligatory presence the police were ordered to guarantee. 21.  There is no information in the case file on any developments in the first set of proceedings until July 2009. 22.  On 24 July 2009 the judge in charge of the case withdrew, apparently owing to the fact that the applicant had initiated proceedings for damages against him in August 2008. The applicant’s claim was eventually dismissed on 7 December 2009. 23.  On 9 March 2011 the case was reassigned to another judge. 24.  On 26 May 2011 the applicant was taken to the Kharkiv SIZO. 25.  On 3, 5, 9 and 12 August 2011 he was given access to the case file. He requested more time, but the court rejected this request as unjustified. It noted that the applicant had been unreasonably slow, studying only about twenty pages per day, and that one such extension had already been granted to him. 26.  On 2 September 2011 the applicant sought the replacement of the lawyer appointed for him (it is not known when the applicant started to be represented by a lawyer in this set of proceedings). His request was allowed. 27.  Also on 2 September 2011, the applicant submitted at the court hearing that he had been ill-treated following his arrest on 10 August 2004. The prosecutor participating in the hearing considered this to be a serious allegation which had to be duly investigated. He therefore invited the court to instruct the prosecution authorities to investigate the matter. 28.  On the same date, the Kharkiv District Court instructed the Kharkiv Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office to investigate the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment (for more details see paragraph 70 below). 29.  On 9 November 2011 the Kharkiv District Court found the applicant guilty of theft and two counts of robbery and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment to be calculated from 12 August 2004 as indicated in the arrest report. That sentence was absorbed by the sentence of life imprisonment imposed in the judgment of 13 April 2005 (see paragraph 59 below). 30.  Relying on the ruling of Kharkiv Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office of 24 September 2011 (see paragraph 71 below), the trial court dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment in police custody. 31.  The applicant appealed. He complained that he had not had sufficient time for studying the case file, that the lawyer appointed by the court had not performed properly, that his father had not been allowed to represent him in the proceedings, and that he had been deprived of his right to submit a final plea as he had not been aware of the hearing date and had not been prepared. He also complained that he had been arrested on 10 August 2004, while the official date of his arrest was recorded as 12 August 2004. The applicant reiterated the allegation that he had been ill-treated by the Kharkiv police following his arrest. 32.  The prosecutor also appealed. He argued that the applicant had not in fact been provided with a proper opportunity to submit a final plea, and that this warranted a retrial. 33.  On 11, 13, 17 and 19 January 2012 the applicant was given access to the case file. 34.  On 19 June 2012 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 9 November 2011 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh examination, having found that the applicant had indeed not been allowed to make a final plea. 35.  On 7 August 2012, during a hearing in the Kharkiv District Court, the applicant requested that a further investigation be carried out in respect of his complaint of ill-treatment. He noted that he had been forced to confess to the theft and two counts of robbery, as well as the murder of a certain taxi driver. Later, however, the investigator had made him delete the incident regarding the taxi driver from the confession. 36.  On the same date, the court asked the Kharkiv Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office to investigate the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment once again. The investigation results are summarised in paragraphs 73-77 below. 37.  On 16 August 2012 the hearing was adjourned owing to the absence of the victims and witnesses. 38.  On 22 August 2012 there was a further adjournment until 27 September 2012. 39.  The Court has not been informed by the parties of any further developments as regards this set of proceedings. 40.  During an unspecified period at the end of July and the beginning of August 2004, the applicant and Ms T. were in Sevastopol for a seaside holiday. 41.  On the evening of 2 August 2004 there was a fire in a small country cottage (an illegal construction without electricity) in the village of Katcha, in the suburbs of Sevastopol. The dead body of the owner, Mr P., was discovered on the path leading to the building. His partner, Ms S., was discovered still alive next to his body. She died in the ambulance on the way to hospital (for more details see paragraph 59 below). 42.  On 3 August 2004 the Sevastopol police launched a criminal investigation into the matter. 43.  It is not known when and why the police started to suspect the applicant. 44.  According to the applicant, on 15 August 2004 the Sevastopol police visited and questioned him in the Merefa ITT. He allegedly confessed to the infliction of fatal injuries on Mr P. and Ms S. and to setting their property on fire. There is no reference to the applicant’s statements of that date, or to the fact that he gave such statements, in any of the documents in the case file. 45.  On 17 August 2004 Ms T. submitted, during her questioning by the Kharkiv police in respect of the theft and the robberies (see paragraph 15 above), that she and the applicant had been staying in the country house of Mr P. in Sevastopol. Mr P. had asked them to leave, which they did. However, having nowhere to go, the applicant and Ms T. had returned to Mr P.’s house in his absence. Late in the evening he and Ms S. had discovered their presence there, and Mr P. attacked the applicant with a stick. The applicant defended himself with an axe which happened to be at hand. According to Ms T., she had heard sounds of a fight, but did not see what happened next. When leaving the house, she had allegedly dropped the burning petroleum lamp by accident. 46.  According to the information note on the criminal proceedings’ progress, prepared by the Sevastopol City Court of Appeal on 5 October 2012, the following events took place during the course of the investigation:
-on 18 August 2004 the applicant wrote a confession addressed to the Head of the Nakhimivskyy District Police Department of Sevastopol, and gave explanations regarding the murder;
-on 30 August 2004 the applicant was questioned as a witness in respect of the murder of Mr P. and Ms S.;
-on 31 August 2004 a criminal case was opened against the applicant on suspicion of the double murder and destruction of property.
No documents or further details are available in the case file as regards the above-mentioned investigative measures and events. 47.  On 31 August 2004 the Sevastopol Prosecutor’s Office appointed a lawyer, Mr K., for the applicant. 48.  On the same date, the charges of double murder and property destruction were officially brought against the applicant, his procedural rights were explained to him, and he was questioned as an accused in the presence of the appointed lawyer. The applicant confessed to having inflicted injuries on the victims and to setting their property on fire, but insisted that he had acted in self-defence and had had no intention of killing them. 49.  On 15 September 2004 the Leninskyy District Court of Sevastopol (“the Leninskyy Court”) ordered the applicant’s detention for seventy-two hours with a view to ensuring his availability for the investigative measures associated with this criminal case. 50.  On 19 October 2004 the Leninskyy Court, in a hearing which the applicant attended, remanded him in custody as a preventive measure pending trial. On 29 October 2004 the Sevastopol City Court of Appeal upheld that ruling. 51.  On 26 October 2004 a new lawyer, Mr Du., was appointed for the applicant, replacing the one representing him earlier. 52.  On the same date, the investigator conducted a reconstruction of the crime with the participation of the applicant and his lawyer, two attested witnesses and a forensic expert. 53.  On 30 November 2004 the pre-trial investigation was declared complete and the applicant was provided with access to the case file. 54.  On 17 January 2005 the Sevastopol City Court of Appeal, sitting as a court of first instance, commenced the trial. The applicant was present at the hearing. 55.  On 21 January 2005 another hearing was conducted, at which the applicant lodged the following requests: to have the hearings audio-recorded; to have his father admitted as his representative in the proceedings; and to have the first and second sets of criminal proceedings against him joined into one case. The court allowed only the first request. 56.  On 9 February 2005 the applicant complained during the hearing that he had been ill-treated by the Kharkiv police following his arrest on 10 August 2004. 57.  On the same date, the court instructed the Sevastopol Prosecutor’s Office to investigate the matter. 58.  On 25 February 2005 the Sevastopol Prosecutor’s Office passed this assignment to the Kharkiv Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office. 59.  On 13 April 2005 the Sevastopol City Court of Appeal found the applicant guilty of double murder and property destruction and sentenced him to life imprisonment, which was deemed to have started running on 11 August 2004. The court relied, in particular, on the statements of a witness who had seen the applicant and Ms T. in the village of Katcha on the evening on 2 August 2004, those of a witness who had discovered the fire and the victims lying on the path near the burning building, and those of the fire brigade. The court also took into consideration the forensic examination report, according to which the saliva on several cigarette stubs found near the crime scene could have belonged to the applicant, and the forensic medical examinations of the victims. Both victims were found to have suffered multiple fatal blows of considerable strength. At the court hearing, the applicant sought the attendance of the ambulance doctor as a witness who could confirm that Ms S. was still alive when discovered, but he later withdrew that request. The applicant admitted having injured the victims with the back of an axe, but maintained that he had had no intention of killing them and that he had acted in self-defence. He also admitted having set the building on fire, but claimed that his intention was to draw attention to the victims so that somebody could help them. At the same time, the applicant complained that he had confessed due to fear of revenge by the police. The court noted that the applicant had been questioned by the prosecutor in the presence of his lawyer, which meant that there was no pressure on him. It also relied on the ruling of the Sevastopol City Prosecutor’s Office of 15 March 2005 (see paragraph 68 below). 60.  According to the applicant, the appointed lawyer had ceased assisting him after pronouncement of the verdict. The case file, however, contains a copy of a cassation appeal prepared on the applicant’s behalf by the lawyer appointed to represent him. The cassation appeal referred to the alleged distortion of the facts of the case. Furthermore, the lawyer submitted that the investigation into the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment had not been thorough enough. 61.  The prosecutor also appealed against the judgment, seeking mitigation of the sentence for the applicant. He submitted that the murder in question had not been premeditated, but had taken place in the heat of a dispute. Furthermore, the applicant had voluntarily confessed, which should have had a mitigating effect on his sentence. 62.  On 14 July 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 13 April 2005. On 3 March 2006 its ruling was served on the applicant. 63.  According to the applicant, following his arrest on 10 August 2004 he had been subjected to ill-treatment by the Kharkiv police. The applicant did not specify the time or circumstances of his arrest. According to him, he had been taken to the Merefa ITT, where several police officers had beaten him with rubber truncheons on his legs and arms, had twisted his arms behind his back while he was handcuffed and had hung him from an iron bar. They had also allegedly twisted his genitals. As submitted by the applicant, he had been in such pain that he fainted several times. He described his injuries as follows: bruises and sores on the forehead, back of the head and around the eyes, a split lip, and bruises on his back and the shoulders. His requests for medical examination and assistance had allegedly been ignored. 64.  As further submitted by the applicant, his bruises and sores had healed by the time of his transfer from the Merefa ITT to the Kharkiv SIZO. 65.  On 21 August 2004, upon his arrival at the Kharkiv SIZO, the applicant underwent a medical examination, which revealed no injuries. During that examination he complained of periodic headaches. 66.  According to the material in the case file, the applicant first complained of ill-treatment during the court hearing on 9 February 2005 (see paragraph 56 above). 67.  On 9 March 2005 the Kharkiv Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office delivered a ruling refusing to institute criminal proceedings in relation to the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment, which it considered unfounded. 68.  It appears from the record of the 24 March 2005 hearing of the Sevastopol City Court of Appeal (the first-instance court in the second set of criminal proceedings against the applicant) that on 15 March 2005 there was a further refusal to open a criminal case in respect of the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment, which was issued by the Sevastopol City Prosecutor’s Office. As noted in the record, the ruling of 15 March 2005 was announced at this hearing and remained uncommented on by the applicant and his lawyer. 69.  Following a request by the Kharkiv District Court of 2 September 2011, which was made in the context of the first set of criminal proceedings against the applicant (see paragraphs 26 and 27 above), the Kharkiv Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office carried out further investigations into the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment and on 24 September 2011 issued a refusal to open a criminal case. It noted, in particular, that at the time of the events the applicant had not lodged any complaint with the prosecution authorities in that regard. 70.  The applicant objected to the refusal and was informed that he was at liberty to challenge the ruling before the higher-level prosecution authorities and courts. The applicant did not do so. 71.  On 7 August 2012 the Kharkiv District Court again asked the Kharkiv Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office to investigate the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment (see also paragraphs 35 and 36 above). 72.  On 28 August 2012 the prosecutor applied to the court for permission to question the applicant, who at that time was detained in the Kharkiv SIZO. This application was allowed. 73.  On 3 September 2012 the applicant was questioned in respect of his allegation of ill-treatment, but refused to make any statements. 74.  On 6 September 2012 the Kharkiv Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office again refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment. 75.  On 20 September 2012 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office quashed the rulings of 24 September 2011 and 6 September 2012. 76.  On 25 September 2012 the applicant was questioned. He submitted that, following his arrest on 10 August 2004, he had been placed in a basement cell in the Merefa ITT. On 11 August 2004 he had been taken from his cell to a room with a table and two chairs, where he had been beaten by three men: one in police uniform and two others in civilian clothes. The applicant gave a detailed description of their appearance, the way they had ill-treated him and the injuries he had sustained (see paragraph 63 above). He noted that the investigator had not ill-treated him, but had threatened that his beatings would be repeated if he did not cooperate. 77.  Also on 25 September 2012 the Kharkiv Inter-District Prosecutor enquired of the Kharkiv SIZO administration whether the applicant had had any injuries when he had arrived at the SIZO in August 2004 and whether any medical assistance had been provided to him. 78.  On 27 September 2012 the head of the SIZO medical unit replied that, upon the applicant’s arrival on 21 August 2004, he had been examined by a doctor. The applicant had not had any injuries, was healthy and had raised no complaints. 79.  On 27 September 2012 the Kharkiv Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office once again refused to institute criminal proceedings against the Kharkiv police officials in respect of the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment, having discerned no corpus delicti in their actions. 80.  On the same date the applicant was notified of the aforementioned ruling. He was informed that he could challenge it before the higher-level prosecution authorities or courts but he did not do so. 81.  The applicant submitted that he had been detained in the Sevastopol ITT from 18 October to 2 November 2004, from 10 November 2004 to 22 January 2005, from 2 to 10 February 2005, and from 18 March to 13 April 2005. 82.  According to him, his cell there was severely overcrowded (about thirty inmates instead of the official maximum of eight), lacked natural light and was infested with insects. There was no hot water supply. Detainees were allowed to take showers only once in three weeks. Outdoor walks lasted for twenty minutes and did not take place every day. Furthermore, there was an insufficient number of sleeping places for all detainees, who therefore had to take turns to sleep. The toilet was not separated from the living area. The cell had no table. 83.  On 19 June 2009, 10 May 2011 and 25 January 2012 various documents of the Sevastopol ITT for 2004 and 2005 were destroyed upon expiry of the respective time-limits for their storage. 84.  Referring to the absence of documents, the Government found it impossible to provide any factual details as to the applicant’s detention in the Sevastopol ITT. 85.  The applicant was detained in the Kharkiv SIZO from 21 August to 25 September 2004, from 25 May 2005 to 14 February 2006, and from 26 May 2011 onwards (according to the most recent information as of November 2012).
(a)  The applicant’s account 86.  The cell was located in a semi-basement infested with rodents. It was extremely small, dark and damp, with a concrete floor, no ventilation and no radio. The toilet was not separated from the living area. There was no access to drinking water in the cell and no supply of essential hygiene requisites. The daily walks lasted for forty minutes instead of one hour.
(b)  The Government’s account 87.  The applicant’s cell, like any other cell for detainees serving a life sentence, was located on the first floor. All the cells were equipped with an artificial ventilation system. Rat extermination was carried out twice a year as might be required. In particular, rat extermination had been carried out in November 2011. As regards access to drinking water, in addition to the regular and centralised supply of water to washbasins, each cell was equipped with a 10-litre cooler for boiled water supplied from municipal utilities. All prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment were provided with soap. The daily walks lasted for one hour. 88.  The Government relied, in particular, on the Report on the Sanitary and Epidemiological Inspection of the SIZO dated 2 February 2012. In addition to the aforementioned information, it was also noted in the report that the SIZO population comprised 3,230 detainees whereas its capacity was in fact 2,930 persons. The space per detainee was 2.1 square metres. 89.  Another report relied on by the Government concerned the tap-water chemical analysis of 29 May 2012. It found the tap water in the SIZO to be fully suitable for drinking. 90.  The applicant was detained in the Dnipropetrovsk SIZO from 14 February to 1 March 2006, from 5 to 24 February 2007 and from 12 to 26 May 2011.
(a)  The applicant’s account 91.  The cell was located in a semi-basement and had a concrete floor. The cell was extremely small, dark and damp, without adequate ventilation or access to daylight. The toilet was not separated from the living area and was close to the table. Prisoners were handcuffed during their daily walks and cell searches. The nutrition was poor and did not vary.
(b)  The Government’s account 92.  The applicant was held in several different cells on the ground floor, namely:
-cell no. 3 k – 6.3 sq. m (2 beds);
-cell no. 03 – 6.3 sq. m (2 beds);
-cell no. 05 – 6.3 sq. m ( 2 beds);
-cell no. 02 – 6.3 sq. m (2 beds);
-cell no. 4 k – 6.4 sq. m (2 beds);
-cell no. 14 k – 6.0 sq. m (solitary confinement cell);
-cell no. 11 k – 6.1 sq. m (2 beds) 93.  Cells for life prisoners had a concrete floor with a painted surface. If inmates did not have bedroom slippers, the SIZO administration provided them. There was artificial ventilation, and the level of humidity was within the standards. The cells had windows and were equipped with functioning electric lamps. Toilets in each cell were separated by a solid partition. Detainees received nutrition in accordance with legally stipulated norms. Handcuffs were used at all times when a life prisoner was taken out of his cell. 94.  The Government based their account on the information note issued by the SIZO administration on 20 September 2012.