5.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Stary Krym. 6.  In February 2005 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC) instituted criminal proceedings against several police officers, including the applicant, on charges of abuse of authority. The applicant and his co-defendants were suspected, in particular, of ill-treating suspects and their relatives on various occasions (in particular, beating them up, shutting one of them in a car boot, hitting one of them with a car bumper, etc.) as well as of unlawful entry into premises and expropriation of belongings. 7.  On 28 February 2005 the applicant was arrested in connection with these proceedings. 8.  On 3 March 2005 the applicant was brought before the Central District Court of Simferopol (the “District Court”) which, having regard to the submissions of the prosecutor and the applicant’s lawyer, decided to extend the applicant’s detention until 10 March 2005. The District Court further ordered that more information on the applicant be obtained to decide on his further detention. 9.  On 10 March 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention for two months, stating that, regard being had to the nature and repetitive character of the criminal acts imputed to him, there was a high likelihood that he would engage in further criminal activity and would use his position to obstruct the investigation and pressure witnesses. 10.  On 22 March 2005 the Court of Appeal of the ARC (“the Court of Appeal”), following an appeal by the applicant, upheld the decision of 10 March 2005, stating that the District Court had duly considered all the circumstances of the case. 11.  On 26 April 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 28 June 2005, stating that there was a need for more investigation and that the applicant’s personal situation had not changed. 12.  On 17 May 2005 the Court of Appeal, having considered an appeal by the applicant against the decision of 26 April 2005, dismissed it, finding that the charges against the applicant were particularly serious ones and that there was a high risk that he would obstruct the investigation or abscond. That court did however rectify the District Court decision by ordering the applicant’s detention until 26 June 2005. 13.  On 24 June 2005 the prosecutors’ office referred the case to the Chairman of the Court of Appeal to determine which trial court would consider it. 14.  On 4 July 2005 the Chairman of the Court of Appeal referred the case to the Feodosiya Town Court (hereafter “the Town Court”) for trial. 15.  On 10 August 2005 the Town Court committed the applicant for trial. The court ordered that the applicant remain in detention, without specifying the period or providing any reasoning. 16.  On 4 January 2006 the Town Court, having examined the case in the course of proceedings in which the applicant was represented by an advocate of his choice, found the applicant guilty of abuse of position as charged, and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. The court also prohibited the applicant from occupying a law-enforcement post for three years. 17.  On 25 May 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 4 January 2006. 18.  On 30 November 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicant as unsubstantiated. 19.  The applicant did not raise, either in his appeal or his subsequent cassation appeal, the complaint that he had not been provided with sufficient time and facilities to prepare his defence. 20.  For some unspecified periods of time the applicant was detained in the Simferopol SIZO. From 25 August 2005 to 5 January 2006 and from 25 January to 5 February 2006 the applicant was held in the Feodosiya Temporary Detention Centre (“the Feodosiya ITT”). 21.  According to the applicant, during this period he shared a five‑square-metre cell with four to eight other detainees. The toilet and the washstand in the cell were not separated from the living quarters. The cell had no windows, no table, and no chairs, and the ventilation was unsatisfactory. In terms of sleeping arrangements, the cell had a single wooden board. Once every ten to twelve days the detainees were taken out for about half an hour’s exercise. At other times they remained confined to their cell. On several occasions the applicant complained to various authorities about the conditions of his detention, but his complaints were to no avail. 22.  According to the Government, the Feodosiya ITT had seventeen cells and was capable of accommodating thirty-seven inmates. All the cells were located in the basement and were well lit by electric light, enabling the detainees to read. The cells were equipped with a ventilating system ensuring circulation of air. They were also furnished with wooden planks for sleeping, tables, toilets and wash-stands. The detainees were provided with pillows and mattresses. During his stay in detention, the applicant was provided with meals, time for outdoor exercise, medical assistance and access to bathing facilities.