5.  The applicant was born in 1980. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  On 21 November 2005 the applicant’s wife’s car was stolen. G. contacted the applicant and asked for money for return of the car. The applicant reported this to the police and on 25 November 2005, under instructions from police officers, he gave the money to G. and recorded the conversation on audio tape. On the same day G. was arrested. On 5 June 2006 G. was charged with theft and extortion, mainly on the basis of the aforementioned evidence. On 14 July 2006 the criminal case was referred to the court. 8.  Meanwhile, on 7 November 2005 the Aizkraukle District Prosecutor’s Office brought charges against the applicant concerning repeated misappropriation. 9.  On 16 November 2005 the applicant entered a plea of guilty and confirmed that the examination of evidence was not necessary. He explicitly refused the assistance of defence counsel. On the same day the criminal case was referred to the court.
10  On 4 January 2006, during the hearing, the applicant confirmed that defence counsel and examination of witnesses were not necessary. The Aizkraukle District Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to three years’ and nine months’ imprisonment. The applicant was taken to Central Prison from the courtroom. 11.  On 26 January 2006 the Zemgale Regional Court examined the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of the lower court. According to the records of the hearing the applicant said in his statement to the court that he had been beaten up on his way to the prison and that it had happened because of his previous cooperation with the police. 12.  In his appeal on points of law of 16 February 2006 the applicant complained about the severity of the sentence. He also mentioned his cooperation with police, and that as a result he had suffered bodily injuries in prison. 13.  On 23 February 2006 the applicant asked the Prosecutor General to reduce his final sentence. He mentioned, inter alia, that because of his cooperation with the police he had encountered problems in prison, specifically that his nose had been broken and he had also sustained other body injuries. In March 2006 he sent a similar request to the Aizkraukle District Court. 15.  On 1 September 2006, at the request of the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Aizkraukle District Court reduced the applicant’s sentence by one year, owing to the fact that he had helped to disclose a serious criminal offence. 17.  The applicant arrived at Central Prison on 5 January 2006 and was placed in a filtering cell with eleven other inmates. 18.  According to the applicant, during the night of 5-6 January 2006 he was physically and sexually assaulted by his fellow inmates: his nose was broken and he was raped. He complained about this to the Central Prison doctor, who rendered medical assistance but refused to draw up a medical report in this connection; similarly, a prison guard refused to initiate an investigation into the assault. 20.  According to a report drawn up by the head of the medical unit of the Prison Administration, on 6 January 2006 the applicant was examined by the Central Prison doctor, who recorded the applicant’s complaints about inflammation of the duodenum. On 16 January 2006 the applicant had a prophylactic examination by the same doctor, who assessed him as in good health and fit for work in the prison canteen. 21.  On 14 March 2006 the applicant asked the Prison Administration to transfer him to specialised detention facilities in Matīsa Prison, arguing that he had been receiving threats from those he had testified against. 22.  On 21 March 2006 an officer of the Security Department of the Prison Administration met the applicant. According to the report drawn up by the officer during the meeting the applicant complained about possible threats, in that the people he had testified against were known to some of his fellow inmates. The applicant denied having any problems in Central Prison where he was employed in the canteen. 23.  Further, according to the same report, in a telephone conversation on 22 March 2006 a police officer in charge of G.’s criminal case confirmed that the applicant was cooperating, and acknowledged that the applicant might therefore encounter problems in prison, but he refused to confirm this in writing. With the agreement of the deputy head of the Prison Administration it was decided to transfer the applicant to Jēkabpils Prison. The report also stated that on 22 March 2006 a representative of the Prison Administration had advised the head of Jēkabpils Prison by telephone to take the applicant “under control”. 25.  On 13 August 2006 the applicant complained to the Ombudsman (the Bureau for the Protection of Human Rights at that time) that he had been ill-treated on 6 January 2006 in Central Prison. At the Ombudsman’s request in September 2006 the Prison Administration requested information from Central and Jēkabpils Prisons about the applicant’s situation there. 26.  On 25 September 2006 the head of Jēkabpils Prison reported that when the applicant arrived his personal file did not contain any indication that he required isolation from other inmates, and that he had not raised any complaints about physical ill-treatment while detained in Jēkabpils Prison. It was also noted that according to the prisoners’ internal classification the applicant was “kreisais” (someone who had allegedly, inter alia, cooperated with the law enforcement authorities). 27.  On 27 September 2006 the head of Central Prison informed the Prison Administration that the applicant had never complained about the incident of 6 January 2006. The letter contained statements from three of the eleven fellow inmates with whom the applicant had been placed on 6 January 2006; they all denied any ill-treatment of the applicant. 28.  Relying on the above reports, on 3 October 2006 the Prison Administration informed the Ombudsman’s Office that there was no information about the applicant’s ill-treatment. 29.  In response to the request of the Government Agent, on 2 November 2007 the Office of the Prosecutor General stated that they had not received any complaints from the applicant concerning ill-treatment in Central Prison on 6 January 2006 or in any other prison. The letter confirmed that by virtue of section 6 of the Law of Criminal Procedure the Office of the Prosecutor would have decided on the opening of criminal proceedings if it had received a complaint from the applicant of physical or sexual ill-treatment or a refusal by the prison administration to review the complaint. 30.  Aiming to ensure that the applicant attended G.’s trial, on 4 September 2006 the prosecutor in charge asked the Prison Administration to transfer the applicant from Jēkabpils Prison to Rīga. In her letter the prosecutor noted that G. had been detained in Central Prison and that his criminal case contained compelling information that G. had previously intimidated the applicant. Therefore the Prison Administration was asked to transfer the applicant to the specialised detention facilities in Matīsa Prison. The prosecutor referred to a report addressed to the Office of the Prosecutor General which confirmed the attempt to intimidate the applicant. 31.  It appears that on two occasions the applicant had been transferred to Matīsa Prison in Rīga in order to attend G.’s trial. 32.  In September and October 2006 the Prison Administration dismissed the applicant’s requests to allow him to continue serving the rest of his sentence in Matīsa Prison.