5.  The applicant was born in 1970. He is serving a prison sentence in detention facility no. IK-10, located in the town of Mendeleyevsk, the Republic of Tatarstan. 6.  On 1 May 2005 the applicant was arrested by the police of the town of Naberezhnye Chelny on suspicion of having taken part in several robberies and murders. 7.  The applicant was detained pending criminal proceedings and on 13 April 2006 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan found the applicant guilty of two murders. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia on 3 October 2006. 8.  The applicant alleged that on three separate occasions during the course of criminal proceedings against him police officers ill-treated him. 9.  According to the applicant, in the morning of 4 May 2005 police officers B. and N. had taken him to the fourth floor of a police station and put pressure on him to confess. They had put a plastic bag on his head and punched him in the stomach and neck, preventing him from breathing. At around 10 p.m. he had been taken back to his cell. 10.  The applicant also submitted that at around 7 a.m. the next morning he had passed out in an interview room as a result of those beatings and stress. On regaining consciousness, he had found a wound on his head. Later he had been provided with first aid, administered by ambulance doctors. 11.  On 5 May 2005, having examined the applicant, one of the ambulance doctors made the following entry in the medical record:
“... reason for the call [of the ambulance]: epilepsy... Diagnosis [of the applicant]: following a syncope, bruising of the forehead ... measuring around 2 to 0.2 cm. The wound is not bleeding...Complaints [of the applicant]: weakness and vertigo. According to the [applicant’s] statements, he lost consciousness and during the fall, injured himself against a doorpost. He connects this to a stuffy room and three nights of insomnia ...” 12.  On 10 May 2005 the applicant asked the Naberezhnye Chelny Town Prosecutor (“the prosecutor’s office”) to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the alleged ill-treatment by the police officers. 13.  In response, the prosecutor’s office questioned police officers B. and N., who denied the applicant’s allegations. They referred to the interrogation records in which the applicant had made no complaints of ill‑treatment. 14.  On 20 May 2005 the prosecutor’s office dismissed the applicant’s request, having found as follows:
“... The applicant’s allegations are not confirmed by the results of the investigation carried out by the prosecutor’s office ... On 5 May 2005 [the applicant] went to the police voluntarily and submitted statements of confession... During his interrogation he confessed to the crime in the presence of his defence counsel. He confirmed these statements during a reconstruction performed at the crime scene ... On 19 May 2005 during a cross-examination with witness Z., [the applicant] again confirmed his statements of confession in the presence of his defence counsel. No complaints were made by him [at that time].
Police officers ... B. and N. were also questioned in the context of the investigation carried out by the prosecutor’s office. They submitted that during the interview with [the applicant] they had not put pressure on him and had not applied force against him. [The applicant] had confessed to the crime voluntarily. Moreover, in accordance with the interrogation records, [the applicant] had no complaints against the police officers or the prosecutor’s office ...” 15.  In June and August 2005 the applicant resubmitted his complaint to the prosecutor’s office. He requested the questioning of five of his cellmates, who he said could confirm his submissions. 16.  By decisions of 20 June, 29 July and 4 August 2005 the applicant’s complaints were dismissed. In all three decisions the prosecutor’s office decided not to carry out further investigations, holding that the claims were substantially the same as those which had been previously examined. 17.  The decision of 20 June 2005 stated that:
“... During the check the arguments of the applicant about the use of physical violence by police officers remain without objective confirmation. In such circumstances the complaint ... cannot be accepted.” 18.  The decision of 29 July 2005 stated that:
“... An earlier complaint of this kind about the actions of policemen had been examined by the prosecutor’s office of the town of Naberezhnye Chelny. Upon its results, the decision of 20 May 2005 refusing to institute criminal proceedings is taken. The allegations of the [applicant] remained without substance ...” 19.  The applicant also raised the complaint about the ill-treatment by police officers before the trial court in his criminal case. 20.  By a first instance judgment of 13 April 2006 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan found the applicant guilty of having murdered two persons. In respect of his complaint of ill-treatment on 4-5 May 2005, the court noted, among other things, that:
“... during the forensic examination of 20 May 2005 [the applicant] did not have any bodily injuries. This expert examination is carried on the next day after the investigation action with the participation of [the applicant] during which he confessed to his involvement in the murder ... and confirmed his earlier confessions ...
The medical certificates from the detention ward submitted to the court on request from the defence about the detention of [the applicant] and the fact of a call for the emergency doctors does not confirm that any physical violence has been applied to him. [The applicant] submitted in this connection that ... these injuries he received as a result of the fall in his cell in the state of the loss of consciousness ...
In such circumstances the court considers the complaint of [the applicant] in the trial hearing about the use of violence by policemen ... as a way to try to avoid responsibility for the acts committed [by him] ...” 21.  The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia on 3 October 2006. 22.  In the meantime, on 9 September 2006, the applicant contested the decision of 20 May 2005 before the Naberezhnye Chelny Town Court. He stated that the investigation in respect of his complaint had been seriously deficient. 23.  On 5 February 2007 the Town Court disallowed his complaint concerning ill-treatment and the related investigation. It held that the applicant’s submissions had already been examined in the context of the criminal case against him. 24.  On 23 March 2007 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan upheld that decision on appeal. 25.  The applicant also tried to challenge the decision of 29 July 2005 (see paragraphs 16 and 18) in court, but to no avail. The Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan dismissed the applicant’s complaint by a final decision of 17 August 2007. The court noted that:
“... The complaint of [the applicant] about the use of inadmissible methods of investigation has already been examined by the courts in two instances... [the relevant decisions being properly reasoned]. In such circumstances, [the court] does not see any grounds for [accepting the applicant’s appeal] ...” 26.  The applicant submits that on 28 June 2005 police officers ill-treated him, forcing to acknowledge his involvement in a different criminal episode. He was allegedly hit in the neck and on the head, and later put in a metal cage, where he spent the whole night. 27.  The applicant submitted that the next morning he was handcuffed in a remote room of the police station, a plastic bag was placed over his head and he was beaten up again. After being punched in the perineum, he fell on the floor and cut his wrists with a razor. He was then provided with medical aid by doctor G. 28.  On 30 June 2005 the applicant was examined by a doctor, who drew up report no. 2647:
“... According to [the applicant’s] statements, he has been detained from 1 May 2005. [Allegedly] the police officers did not beat him up. On 29 June 2005 he slashed his wrists with a razor. The wounds were bandaged in a detention facility.
Objectively: on the inside of the lower third of the right forearm and around the wrist there are [six] linear transversal wounds with smooth lips and pointed ends, the base of which are covered with dried blood, measuring respectively 3, 3, 3, 4, 2 and 0.5 cm. On the inside of the lower third of the left forearm there is a linear transversal wound with smooth lips, pointed left end and “M”-shaped right end, the base of which is covered with dried blood. The depth of the wound is 0.3 cm. On the upper abdomen there are [four] parallel linear transversal scratches, covered with a brown crust at skin level, measuring respectively 6, 4, 4 and 4 cm. On the forehead there are transversal scratches, covered with an emergent brown crust with disrupted ends and desquamation. The scratches on the left side of the forehead measure respectively 2 and 5 cm. The scratches on the right side of the forehead measure respectively 4 and 2 cm. There is a similar scratch on the cheekbone measuring 7 cm. There is an oval transversal violet bruise on the right side of the tip of the nose. The bruise measures 1 to 0.5 cm. It has blurred borders. On the lower third of the front-left shoulder there is a round violet bruise with blurred borders measuring 6 by 6 cm. On the front right shoulder there is an area of dark-red focal haemorrhage measuring 5 by 5 cm.
Conclusions: ...the wounds to the right wrist and left forearm were inflicted by a sharp object from one to three days before the expert examination. The scratches on the stomach were inflicted by being hit with blunt hard objects with a limited rough surface from two to three days before the expert examination. The scratches on the head were inflicted by being hit with blunt hard objects with a limited damage‑causing surface from five to seven days before the expert examination. The bruises on the head, left shoulder, and right shoulder were inflicted by being hit with blunt hard objects with a limited damage-causing surface from one to three days before the expert examination ...” 29.  After the above-mentioned events, the applicant lodged a complaint with the prosecutor’s office alleging that he had beaten up by police officers on 28-29 June 2005. 30.  On 7 July 2005 the prosecutor’s office dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence of ill-treatment. The relevant part of the decision read as follows:
“At around 9.30 a.m. on 29 June 2005 in an office of the detention ward, [the applicant] slashed his wrists.
In the course of the investigation it was established that [the applicant] had been charged with the murder of L. and that he was being detained pending trial. 31.  It appears that the same allegations were rejected by the prosecutor’s office also in its decision of 9 February 2006, holding that essentially the same complaint had already been dealt with. That decision was upheld by the Town Court on 3 August 2007 and it does not appear that the applicant brought appeal proceedings against the decision of 3 August 2007. 32.  On 4 December 2007 the decision of 7 July 2005 was upheld by the Town Court. The decision stated as follows:
“... There was a check into [the applicant’s] allegations ... at the same time eyewitnesses were questioned, including [the applicant himself], who did not make any complaints... The decision itself is reasoned... based on objective data and on the merits is correct ...” 33.  This decision was later upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan on 25 December 2007. The court noted that:
“...As could be seen from the case file materials, the decision ... is reasoned and ... well-justified in view of the collected objective data ...” 34.  In his observations of 9 June 2011, the applicant stated that on 4 August 2005 he had been ill-treated by prison officers in the detention ward. 35.  On 11 August 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint about that incident with the prosecutor’s office. 36.  The prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s allegations. On 23 March 2007 the refusal was upheld by a final decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan. 37.  Since his arrest on 1 May 2005 the applicant has remained in detention. He was initially held in the temporary detention ward of the Department of the Interior in the town of Naberezhnye Chelny, Republic of Tatarstan (“the detention ward”). 38.  The parties agree that the applicant was held in the detention ward on the following dates:
Start date 
End date
 
3 May
7 September 2005
19 September
14 October 2005
19 October 
28 October 2005
30 November 
9 December 2005
14 December 
23 December 2005
26 December 2005
11 January 2006
13 January 
30 January 2006
1 February 
27 February 2006 39.  It appears from the case file that in the intervals between the above‑mentioned periods of detention, the applicant took part in various investigative measures carried out in the context of his criminal case. 40.  On 27 February 2006 the applicant was transported to another prison facility. 41.  The parties presented different accounts of the conditions in the detention ward. 42.  The applicant provided the following information concerning the conditions of his detention:
Period of detention
Cell no.
Surface area
(in square metres)
Number of inmates
From 3 May to 6 June 2005
7 12.4
6-10
From 30 December 2005 to
11 January 2006; from 13 to
30 January; and from 1 to
27 February 2006
22 43.  The applicant alleged that the conditions of his detention in the cells had not varied. Inmates had taken turns to sleep owing to the shortage of sleeping places. No bedding had been provided. The cells had been infested with insects. There had only been cold water in the showers. It had been difficult to breathe in the cells owing to the smoke and high humidity. Inmates had been provided with food once a day on plastic plates, sent by their relatives. He had had no access to fresh air and exercise. 44.  The applicant maintained that each cell had had a window measuring 25 cm by 25 cm, protected by an iron grill. The cell had been lit by a small bulb, which was constantly switched on. In several cells the toilet area had not been partitioned from the living area and had been close to sleeping places and a table. The ventilation had been poor. There had been no heating in winter. In the summer it had been very hot in the cells. Furthermore, some of the applicant’s inmates had been infected by HIV, tuberculosis and hepatitis C. 45.  The Government did not dispute that during the relevant time the detention ward, which was designed for 110 detainees, had contained 184 detainees who had had no possibility of taking walks. The Government did not submit information about the cells in which the applicant had been detained and the number of inmates in each of those cells. According to the Government, cell no. 4 had two sleeping places, and cells no. 6, 7, and 22 had four sleeping places. They submitted that at all times the applicant had had an individual sleeping place and bedding. Each cell had had one window measuring 25 cm wide by 25 cm high, and had been equipped with one lamp. The toilets in the cells had been separated from the living area by a 1.2-metre high wall. All cells in the detention ward had been equipped with mandatory ventilation in good working order. The heating system had functioned properly. The temperature in the cells had been between 18ºC and 20ºC in the winter and between 26ºC and 28ºC in the summer. The cells had been disinfected every three months. The applicant had had access to hot water, a laundry and a regular bath service. He had been provided with nutrition and tableware in line with the requirements of the domestic law. 46.  In his letters of 23 and 30 May 2006 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor’s office about the conditions in which he had been held in the detention ward. 47.  On 26 July 2005 and 6 June 2006 respectively the prosecutor’s office rejected the complaints, having acknowledged the problem of overcrowding, lack of sleeping places and poor sanitation. The decision of 26 July 2005 stated:
“... The inquiry established that during June 2005 ... the cells were overcrowded from 1,5 to 2 times. The full capacity [of the facility] is 110 persons, whilst in reality during the inquiry there were 162 persons [in it]. The inmates do not have access to information – there are no means of radio broadcasting. The disinfection of the cells ... does not allow to attend the established norms of hygiene and sanitary norms ...”
The decision of 6 June 2006 gave a similar description of the situation in the facility in question and also stated that:
“... the prison administration is [objectively] unable to provide each inmate with a sleeping place, as specified in [the relevant rules] ...
It follows that there were no breaches of the law in the actions of the [relevant prison officials] and there are no grounds to take any measures [by the prosecutor’s office] in this connection ...”
In both decisions the prosecutor drew the attention of the prison authorities to those issues, without taking any other measure in connection with the problem. 48.  On 2 November 2006 the applicant and several of his fellow inmates lodged a collective complaint concerning the same grievances. 49.  In its reply of 20 November 2006, the prosecutor’s office held that there was no need to intervene, despite the overcrowding of the detention ward. The decision stated:
“... in order to bring [the prison] in line with the federal legislation, a complete overhaul of it is required. The maximum capacity is 110, but due to [various reasons it is not rare for it to contain] up to 140 persons... for these reasons the prison administration is unable to provide each inmate with a separate sleeping place ...” 50.  In his letter of 15 January 2008 addressed to the prosecutor’s office, the applicant repeated his complaints about the conditions in which he had been held in the detention ward. 51.  The prosecutor’s office dismissed his claim on 8 February 2008. 52.  On 26 June 2008 the applicant resubmitted the same complaints to the prosecutor’s office. 53.  By a decision of 30 June 2008 the claim was again dismissed. The prosecutor’s office noted that the authorities were planning to renovate the detention ward and also stated that:
“... The inquiry carried out showed that there were no socio-medical counter‑indications in respect of the continued detention of inmates in [that facility]. The conditions of detention ... are incompliance with the respective standards, set out for this category of establishments ...”