4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Taganrog, the Rostov Region. 5.  On 18 December 1998 the applicant was arrested and allegedly beaten up by the police officers. On the same day he was remanded in custody on suspicion of robbery. 6.  On 21 December 1998 the charges were brought against the applicant and he was provided with a legal-aid counsel. 7.  On 14 March 2000 the applicant was released on a written undertaking not to leave the town. 8.  On 13 June 2000 the Rostov Regional Court convicted the applicant of robbery and imposed a suspended sentence of five years' imprisonment on him. On 2 November 2000, however, the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial. 9.  On 14 May 2001 the Rostov Regional Court convicted the applicant of fraud, kidnapping, illegal deprivation of liberty, extortion, burglary and theft and sentenced him to seven years and six months' imprisonment. The applicant was taken straight from the courtroom to the detention unit. 10.  On 16 January 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgment of 14 May 2001 on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial. The Supreme Court held that the preventive measure applied to the applicant “should remain unchanged”. 11.  On 12 February 2002 the Rostov Regional Court listed the new trial hearing for 27 February 2002 and ordered that the preventive measure applied to the applicant “should remain unchanged”. 12.  On 1 July 2002 the Rostov Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 1 October 2002.
“The defendants [the applicant and four other persons] are charged with kidnapping, illegal deprivation of liberty, burglary and other crimes.
They have been in custody: ..., [the applicant] – since 18 December 1998, ...
The Prosecutor requested that the defendants' detention be extended by 3 months.
Having examined the Prosecutor's request, and having heard the parties to the proceedings, the court considers it necessary to extend the defendants' detention by 3 months, that is, until 1 October 2002 inclusive, because they are charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences.
Under Articles 255 and 256 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, the defendants' detention on remand is extended by 3 (three) months, that is, from 1 July 2002 to 1 October 2002.” 13.  On 6 November 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the extension order, finding that it was sufficiently justified. 14.  On 1 October and 31 December 2002 and 31 March, 26 June, 25 September and 15 December 2003 the Rostov Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 1 January, 31 March, 30 June, 26 September, 25 December 2003 and 15 March 2004 respectively. The wording of the decisions was identical to that applied in the decision of 1 July 2002. 15.  The applicant appealed against each of the above-mentioned extension orders of the Supreme Court arguing that they were not sufficiently reasoned and that the court had not taken into consideration his individual situation. On 12 February, 14 May, 16 July, 16 October and 24 December 2003 and 31 March 2004 respectively, the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the above-mentioned decisions on appeal. 16.  In the meantime, on 19 February 2004 the Rostov Regional Court, composed of presiding judge Mr Zh. and lay judges Ms S. and Ms M., extended the applicant's detention until 19 May 2004. The court used the same stereotyped wording and referred to the seriousness of the charges against the applicant. The applicant again appealed against the extension to the Supreme Court. 17.  On 10 March 2005, that is, after the applicant's conviction by the Regional Court (see paragraph 19 below), the Supreme Court of Russia discontinued the examination of the applicant's appeal because he had been convicted in the meantime by the Regional Court. 18.  As regards the trial proceedings in the period from 27 February 2002 to 25 February 2004, the case was adjourned on over fifty occasions: at the request of the applicant and his co-defendants, who wished to study the case file or the records of the hearings; at the requests of the applicant and his co-defendants for the replacement of their representatives and the need for the newly appointed representatives to study the case file; owing to the illness of the representatives and their failure to appear before the court; and owing to the illness of the co-defendants or following their complaints concerning their health. On one occasion the hearing was adjourned on account of the failure of the authorities to transport the defendants to the courtroom. 19.  On 17 May 2004 the Regional Court, composed of presiding judge Mr Zh. and lay judges Ms S. and Ms M., found the applicant guilty of multiple counts of fraud, kidnapping, illegal deprivation of liberty, extortion, theft and burglary and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment. 20.  The applicant lodged an appeal. He claimed, inter alia, that the lay judges had sat on the bench unlawfully. The law had been changed and after 1 January 2004 lay judges were no longer permitted to take part in the administration of justice. 21.  On 10 March 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia, sitting as a bench of three judges, reduced the applicant's sentence to five years' imprisonment and upheld the rest of the judgment on appeal. One of the judges of the Supreme Court had previously examined the applicant's case on appeal on 2 November 2000 (see paragraph 8 above) and had also examined, on 16 October 2003, the appeal against the decision of 26 June 2003 to extend the applicant's detention until 26 September 2003 (see paragraphs 14-15 above). One other judge had previously examined the applicant's case on appeal on 16 January 2002 (see paragraph 10 above). As to the applicant's allegation that the composition of the tribunal was unlawful, the court found that the trial had begun before 1 January 2004 and that the participation of two lay judges in the determination of the criminal charge against him had been in accordance with the principle of continuity of the trial. 22.  From 25 May to 8 December 2001 and from 11 February 2002 to 23 April 2005 the applicant was held in detention facility IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don (Учреждение ИЗ-61/1 г. Ростова-на-Дону УИН МЮ РФ). Throughout this period the applicant was held in the following cells:
(a)  cell no. 21 measuring 54.5 square metres and designed to accommodate 13-16 detainees;
(b)  cell no. 46 measuring 59.6 square metres and designed to accommodate 13-16 detainees;
(c)  cell no. 48 measuring 54.2 square metres and designed to accommodate 10-15 detainees;
(d)  cell no. 57 measuring 68.4 square metres and designed to accommodate 16-18 detainees;
(e)  cell no. 90 measuring 58.2 square metres and designed to accommodate 16-18 detainees;
(f)  cell no. 92 measuring 46.2 square metres and designed to accommodate 12-14 detainees;
(g)  cell no. 109 measuring 54.2 square metres and designed to accommodate 11-14 detainees;
(h)  cell no. 114 measuring 44.5 square metres and designed to accommodate 10-12 detainees; and
(i)  cell no. 84 (punishment cell) measuring 6.6 square metres and designed for one person.
(a)  The Government's account 23.  The Government were unable to provide any precise information on the number of persons detained together with the applicant, because the relevant documents had been destroyed following the expiration of the time-limit for storing them. They submitted, however, that the design capacity of the cells had not been exceeded. 24.  In each cell the applicant had an individual bed and was provided with bedding (two bed sheets, a pillowslip, a blanket, a mattress and a pillow) and tableware (a cup, a spoon and a plate). 25.  The dimensions, number and location of the windows in the cells corresponded to the established legal norms and allowed sufficient access of daylight. Until December 2002 the windows were covered with metal screens (жалюзийные решетки) installed to prevent communication between cells. 26.  The cells were illuminated with 60-75 watt filament lamps (four lamps per regular cell, one lamp per punishment cell), which were on from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. At night-time the cells were lit by 60-75 watt security lights with tinted glass shades. 27.  All cells were ventilated by a system of exhaust ventilation. Natural ventilation through windows was also available. 28.  The cells were equipped with potable water tanks, cupboards for storage of foodstuffs, lavatory pans separated from the main area of the cells by partitions, water taps, dining tables and benches corresponding to the number of detainees, radio receivers, electric plugs and ventilation equipment. 29.  The food was served three times a day in accordance with the established legal norms. The quality of the food was monitored on a regular basis by the medical staff of the detention facility. 30.  The applicant was allowed a daily one-hour outside walk in a specially equipped exercise yard. 31.  In support of their observations the Government provided several certificates issued by the director of IZ-61/1 on 7 November 2008 and statements by prison wardens (although not dated). They also submitted documents attesting to the destruction of registration logs in respect of the cells in IZ-61/1 (журналы покамерного размещения) for the years 2001‑2003 following the expiry of the three-year time-limit for storing them.
(b)  The applicant's account 32.  The applicant claimed that the number of detainees exceeded the design capacity of the cells by three to five times and that the detainees had to sleep in shifts. 33.  Most cells where the applicant was detained were equipped with a small window. Access to daylight was restricted by metal screens and the arrangement of the bunks in two or three tiers. 34.  The electric lighting was too dim to enable the inmates to read. 35.  The ventilation system did not function most of the time. 36.  The bedding was hardly ever changed; no tableware, toilet paper or personal hygiene items were provided to the applicant. 37.  The food was scarce and of poor quality. It was always poorly presented. 38.  The exercise yards were unequipped and too small to accommodate all the detainees properly. 39.  In support of his statements the applicant produced written depositions by four former cellmates who had been detained with him in different cells between 2001 and 2005. In particular, Mr B. stated that he had been detained with the applicant in cell no. 90. The population of the cell had exceeded its design capacity by three to five times. Mr G. stated that he had been detained with the applicant in cell no. 109, which accommodated from 22 to 46 detainees at any one time. Mr F. stated that he had been detained with the applicant in cell no. 109 in a later period. The cell used to accommodate up to 105 detainees. Finally, Mr V. submitted that he had been detained with the applicant in cell no. 114, which accommodated from 25 to 40 detainees. All of the above-mentioned witnesses testified that they and the other detainees had slept in shifts. They further testified to the appalling sanitary conditions in the cells, poor access to daylight, inadequate electric lighting, absence of natural ventilation and malfunctioning of the artificial ventilation system. The applicant further submitted a photograph of cell no. 114, taken on an unspecified date in 2004, in support of the above-mentioned statements. 40.  The Government submitted that the detention unit (конвойное помещение) of the Rostov Regional Court is situated in the semi-basement of the premises. It has eight individual cells measuring 1-1.5 square metres and three collective cells measuring six, ten and twelve square metres and designed for two, six and eight detainees respectively. The detention unit is equipped with two lavatory pans and wash stands (one for detainees and one for those escorting them). All cells are equipped with benches, artificial ventilation and central heating. The cells are illuminated with filament lamps. The detainees are provided with dry rations (сухой паек) when taken to the courthouse. They receive hot food in accordance with the schedule before their departure from, and after their return to, the detention facility. 41.  The Government supported their submissions with the results of an inspection of the technical equipment of the premises of the Rostov Regional Court of 21 March 2008, a certificate issued by the director of IZ‑61/1 on 7 November 2008, the results of an inspection of the detention unit of the Rostov Regional Court of 12 November 2008 and recent photographs of the inspected premises (photocopies).
(b)  The applicant's account 42.  The applicant submitted that between 2001 and 2004 he had been transported between the Rostov Regional Court and the detention facility on over one hundred and seventy-five occasions. 43.  The journey to and from the courthouse took several hours. 44.  At the courthouse the applicant was detained in a small windowless cell without ventilation or heating. The cell was not equipped with a lavatory or a wash stand. 45.  No food was provided to the applicant at the courthouse.