6.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Chişinău. 7.  The applicant has been detained, with short interruptions, since October 2000. In a previous case (see Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, 19 June 2007) the Court found a violation of, inter alia, Article 3 in respect of the applicant’s conditions of detention and Article 8 in respect of the refusal of his requests for longer visits by his wife. 8.  In the present application, the applicant complained about his conditions of detention, which according to him had not changed since the Court’s judgment of 2007 referred to above. 9.  Allegedly as a result of the very poor prison conditions, he had become ill with severe thrombophlebitis, septic pneumonia and anaemia. He had often paid for various types of medication himself. He had officially been recognised as Category 2 disabled, with special dietary needs. 10.  The applicant also complained of the failure to provide him with food of a sufficient quantity and quality, as prescribed by the domestic regulations. In a letter to the governor of Prison no. 15 on 21 October 2008, the applicant asked to be informed whether he had been given any kind of meat, fish, butter or cheese since his arrival to that prison on 17 June 2008 and if so, in what quantities and on how many occasions. In its reply of 31 October 2008 the Prisons Department confirmed that he had not been given meat or butter since 17 June 2008, because the prison in which he was detained (Prison no. 15) had not received such products during the relevant period. In a letter from the Ministry of Justice dated 16 October 2008 the applicant was informed that he would receive additional products as prescribed by the doctors, such as milk, meat and fish. Other dairy products and eggs would be distributed “in accordance with availability”. 11.  The applicant also complained about the conditions of his detention during his frequent transfers from one prison to another and while being escorted to court hearings. In particular, he mentioned that when he had been escorted to a hearing, he had been away from his prison from 7-7.30 a.m. until 7-7.30 p.m., that is, he had left the prison and returned there before and after mealtimes. No food had been given throughout the day to those escorted to court hearings. Since he has had several hundred court hearings in recent years, he has been deprived of food on a regular basis. In order to allow detainees to receive some food on court days, the Prisons Department adopted Order no. 142d allowing relatives to provide food to those detainees who were taken to court on the relevant day. The applicant was informed by a letter dated 24 October 2008 that this order had subsequently been annulled. The applicant also complained that on court hearing days he had waited for hours for his trial in a very small cell with no access to natural light, no water and no access to a toilet. 12.  According to the applicant, the cells were infested with parasitic insects and rats and public funds were not fully used to ensure better conditions of detention. The applicant also complained of insufficient medical assistance, as confirmed by the many complaints he had made to various authorities. 13.  The applicant also instituted court proceedings claiming damages for inhuman conditions of detention. On 11 May 2007 the Buiucani District Court partly allowed the applicant’s claims and found a violation of his right not to be held in inhuman conditions of detention. The court awarded him 2,700 Moldovan lei (MDL, the equivalent of 162 euros (EUR) at the time). On 8 December 2008 the Chişinău Court of Appeal reduced that award to MDL 100 (EUR 7.58). The parties did not inform the Court of any appeal against that judgment. 14.  According to the Government, in prisons nos. 3 and 15 the applicant had been detained in cells with adequate living space that had been sufficiently lit, ventilated and heated. He had received three hot meals a day as prescribed by the applicable regulations, had regular access to showers and had his bed linen changed regularly. 15.  Food was provided to all the detainees, including those brought to court hearings, in which case food was reserved and distributed so as not to coincide with movement to and from the court hearings. 16.  The applicant submitted that the Complaints Committee (“the Committee”) had not worked properly and in particular had not issued him with any decision in respect of his complaints. Without a decision from the Committee, his complaints could not be examined by the courts. The only replies which he had received from the Committee had referred to the forwarding of his complaint to the authority against which it had been directed. Some of his complaints concerned punishments imposed on him by the prison administration that he considered unlawful. 17.   Moreover, under the by-laws of the Committee, a detainee’s representative had the right to attend the Committee’s meeting when his or her complaint was discussed. However, the applicant and his representative had never been informed of any meeting concerning his numerous complaints lodged with the Committee. The applicant did not give any details with a view to identify the specific proceedings concerned by his complaint under Article 6 of the Convention. The case file contains several court decisions cancelling punishments applied to the applicant by the prison administration. According to the applicant, he was not always escorted to court hearings because the courts did not always order for him to be escorted to the hearings. 18.  The applicant has regularly asked to be allowed to be visited by his family (both short and extended visits), to which he is entitled as a convicted prisoner. These requests have been rejected. 19.  On 17 June 2008 the applicant was transferred to Prison no. 15, where he also asked to have extended family visits. He relied on the Court’s judgment of 19 June 2007 in the case of Ciorap, cited above. 20.  In reply to a complaint dated 8 July 2008, the Prisons Department informed the applicant on 21 July 2008 that as he was being held in Prison no. 15 as an “initial regime” prisoner, for the first nine months of his detention after conviction, he was not entitled to extended visits. The applicant was convicted for the last time on 29 December 2005. 21.  In a letter of 5 September 2008 the Chişinău Prosecutor’s Office reminded the applicant that he had been given permission to meet with his wife on four different occasions between 17 June and 22 August 2008 and that only extended visits were prohibited under the initial prison regime. The applicant was also reminded that the meeting room used for short visits did not have any physical barrier so that direct contact between the applicant and his visitors had been possible. 22.  The applicant complained to the investigating judge, asking to be allowed the same visiting hours as persons held in “normal detention”, as opposed to “initial detention”. On 5 December 2008 the investigating judge allowed his complaint, following which the applicant was allowed to be visited by his family. 23.  In parallel civil proceedings, on 31 January 2009 the Rîşcani District Court partly allowed the applicant’s claims and found, inter alia, a violation of his right under Article 8 of the Convention as a result of “the refusal to enforce the judgment of [the Court] of 19 June 2007”, since he had not been allowed family visits from June to December 2008. The court ordered the prison administration to allow the applicant to have family visits in the future. 24.  The applicant did not submit any information as to the subsequent progress of the proceedings in this case. 25.  The Government enclosed with their observations copies of judgments in the cases of Drugaliov v. the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Finance; Gristiuc v. the Ministry of Finance and the Prisons Department; and Ciorap v. the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor General’s Office, all cases in which the applicants were awarded compensation for ill-treatment and/or inhuman conditions of detention. 26.  The relevant parts of the report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the CPT) concerning its visit to Moldova from 20 to 30 September 2004 read as follows (unofficial translation):
“83. Except in the Lipcani Re-education Colony for Minors, where the efforts made in this respect are to be highlighted, the quantity and quality of prisoners’ food everywhere is a source of deep concern. The delegation was overwhelmed with complaints about the lack of meat and dairy products. The findings of the delegation, regarding both the stocks of food and the menus, confirm the credibility of these complaints. The delegation’s observations also confirmed that in some places (Colonies 3 and 4) the food served was revolting and literally inedible (for example containing insects and parasites). This is hardly surprising given the generally bad state of the kitchens and their modest equipment.
The Moldovan authorities have always claimed financial difficulties in ensuring that prisoners receive adequate food. The Committee nevertheless insists that this is a basic requirement that the State must provide for persons in its care, and that nothing can absolve it of this responsibility. Failure to meet this obligation is all the more unacceptable as, under legislation, working prisoners in the establishments visited contribute to the cost of feeding themselves and their fellow-prisoners. ...” 27.  In its report for 2010 (page 142 et seq. – “Conditions of detention” chapter), the Centre for Human Rights in Moldova (“the Centre”, which is the Moldovan Ombudsman institution) found, inter alia, that:
“... [T]he Prisons Department informed the ombudsman that meat and fish products were provided [to detainees] whenever that was possible. At the same time, that authority stated that, owing to the difficult financial situation, during 2010 the detainees in Prison no. 17 in Rezina received 75% of the necessary meat products and 80% of fish products. In this connection, the Minister of Justice submitted information concerning the amount spent on food for detainees in 2010. This figure amounted to MDL 24.05 million, while the required sum for the same period of time was, according to the Ministry of Finance when presenting the draft Budget law, MDL 29.05 million. The daily amount spent on food for a detainee in 2010 was MDL 10.24 [approximately EUR 0.6], while the daily required sum was MDL 12.35. This fact was often cited by prison administrations as the reason for the impossibility of providing detainees with meat and fish. ...
...
Non-observance of the statutory living space (4 square metres) in the living blocks of the institution has become an unpleasant problem; it has transformed into a systemic deficiency of the prisons in the entire country. ...
The same situation was observed during a visit to Prison no. 13 in Chişinău on 9 September 2010. In some cells the living space was not proportionate to the number of detainees. ...”