5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Moscow. 6.  On an unspecified date the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and manslaughter and remanded in custody pending investigation and trial. 7.  On 29 November 2001 the Orekhovo-Zueyvo Town Court, located in the Moscow Region, found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. According to the Government, on 3 March 2004 the applicant’s sentence was reduced to eleven years and seven months’ imprisonment. 8.  On 6 December 2000 the applicant was placed in remand prison no. IZ-49/7 in Yegorievsk, Moscow Region, where he was held until June 2001. According to the applicant, he was detained in overcrowded cells where the inmates had to take turns to sleep. They were not provided with bed sheets or crockery. The cells were infested with insects and mice. The food was of a low quality. 9.  In June 2001 the applicant was held for sixteen days at remand prison no. IZ-50/7 in Moscow. He was placed in cell no. 7. It housed 100 detainees and was equipped with twenty-eight sleeping places. He was then transferred to transit prison no. IK-18 in the Republic of Mordoviya, where he was diagnosed with tuberculosis. The hospital where the applicant was admitted was, according to him, overcrowded and the quality of the food there was inadequate. 10.  In July 2001 the applicant was transferred to medical colony ZhKh 385/3 in the Republic of Mordoviya. He submitted that the treatment he received there was irregular. 11.  On 10 January 2002 the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no. IK-17 in the Republic of Mordoviya. The applicant submitted that the heating had been insufficient, that there had been no lavatory in the building and that the personal space available to the applicant in the dormitory had been below two sq. m. He had been allowed to take a shower once a week. There had been a tap with cold water and a tap with hot water. The applicant had to use a bucket to mix the water to wash himself. 12.  In January-March 2004 the applicant was held at remand prison no. IZ-50/7 in Moscow. According to the applicant, he was detained in satisfactory conditions and received adequate medical assistance. 13.  Following the supervisory review of the applicant’s conviction, he was sent to serve a prison sentence in correctional colony no. IK-1 in Tambov, where he was held from 12 April 2004 to 29 December 2009.
(a)  General conditions of the applicant’s detention at the colony
(i)  The description provided by the applicant 14.  The applicant was placed in a building with two dormitories. The dormitory he was assigned to measured 104 sq. m. He shared it with sixty‑one other inmates. Most of the space in the dormitory was taken up by two-tier bunk beds placed close to the windows, which prevented natural light and fresh air from coming into the dormitory. The dormitory was always humid and stuffy. There was one lavatory in the building. The individual toilets were separated by twenty-centimetre high partitions and offered no privacy. The applicant, who suffered from haemorrhoids, had to apply medication, such as suppositories, in plain view of other inmates. The lavatory and the washroom were dirty and humid at all times. The bed sheets provided by the colony were made of a gauze-like fabric normally used for wood finishing and caused skin irritations and itching. The inmates were allowed to take a shower once a week. The water in the showers was lukewarm. According to the colony’s schedule, two hundred inmates were given three hours in which to take a shower. There were no laundry facilities and the inmates also had to use that time for washing their clothes. The food was poor and of a low quality. 15.  In response to a complaint lodged by the applicant’s representative, the regional prosecutor’s office conducted an inquiry into the conditions of detention at the correctional colony. As regards the dormitories, on 19 November 2007 the prosecutor informed the applicant and his representative as follows:
“The inquiry conducted in respect of the dormitories has established that their sanitary conditions are satisfactory. The natural and artificial lighting complies with applicable standards (daylight bulbs are in working order). ... there is a recreation room with a TV set, chairs and a table with board games. The lavatory consists of two separate rooms. The first one contains eight sinks and a tub for feet washing. The second room measures 8.5 sq. m and contains 6 individual toilets. It is true that the majority of the dormitories (built in the 1940-50s) where the convicts reside, including those assigned to unit 11, fell short of the [statutory] personal space standards. This fact has been repeatedly brought by the prosecutor’s office to the attention of the head of correctional colony no. IK-1 and the head of the regional department of corrections. In order to rectify the situation, it is necessary to construct new dormitories for the convicts or to reduce the number of the convicts detained at the colony ... .” 16.  In response to an additional complaint lodged by the applicant’s representative, on 5 September 2008 the regional prosecutor’s office submitted the following information concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention:
“Currently [the applicant] is assigned to unit 3. ... The dormitories for units 3 and 13 have a surface area of 165 sq. m. As of 18 August 2008 ..., there were 98 convicts [in the dormitories]. The personal space available to each convict was below the statutory standard of 2 sq. m.” 17.  In response to a further complaint made by the applicant about the conditions of his detention at the correctional colony, the regional prosecutor’s office conducted another inquiry and on 11 November 2009 informed the applicant of its results as follows:
“It was established in the course of the inquiry, that as regards certain dormitories, the administration of correctional colony no. IK-1 in the Tambov Region has failed to fully comply with the requirements of [applicable legislation] as regards the personal space assigned to each convict.”
(ii)  The description provided by the Government 18.  The Government provided the following information as regards the applicant’s detention at the correctional colony. 19.  The applicant was assigned to unit 11 (the number was later changed to 13) from 12 April 2004 to 4 May 2005, from 26 April 2006 to 4 January 2007 and from 4 January 2007 to 29 December 2009. The unit measured 427.5 sq. m including a living area of 138.6 sq. m. The dormitory had sixty two-tier bunk beds. 20.  From 4 May 2005 to 26 April 2006 the applicant was assigned to unit 2. The unit measured 543.5 sq. m including a living area of 295.9 sq. m with fifty-six two-tier bunk beds. 21.  According to a certificate issued by the administration of the correctional colony on 4 August 2010, the number of the convicts detained with the applicant was as follows:
Year
Number of convicts per unit
2004
54-60
2005
48-59
2006
51-57
2007
44-60
2008 
43-54
2009
51-60 22.  At no time had the number of convicts assigned to a dormitory exceeded the number of sleeping places there. The dormitories had a sufficient number of windows to ensure an adequate supply of fresh air. Unit 2 had twelve windows and unit 11 had twenty windows. There were no metal bars on the windows. The dormitories were lit with four 100-watt daylight bulbs and one 60-watt night light bulb installed above the entrance door. The daytime lighting was on from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. 23.  Units 2 and 11 had separate bathrooms with four and five individual toilets respectively. They were separated by one-metre high and eighty-centimetre wide partitions. 24.  The convicts were allowed to move freely within specially designated areas – measuring from 479.44 sq. m to 830.23 sq. m – in accordance with their individual schedules. They could also take part in morning exercise sessions lasting at least fifteen minutes if weather conditions permitted.
(b)  Conditions of the applicant’s detention at the colony hospital 25.  According to the applicant, he was admitted to the colony hospital on several occasions. The most recent period in which he had been admitted was from 8 to 23 April 2008. The cells there were dirty and infested with insects. The hospital did not have a yard and he did not have the opportunity to go for a walk or to exercise outdoors. The food was of a low quality. 26.  According to the Government, from 1 to 20 September 2004 and from 14 September to 13 October 2005 the applicant was admitted to ward 11, measuring 32 sq. m and equipped with six beds. From 11 to 23 May 2005 and from 5 March to 30 April 2010 the applicant was held in ward 14, measuring 31.8 sq. m and equipped with six beds. Each of the wards had a window covered with metal bars. The wards were equipped with a ventilation system. The lighting was similar to that used in the main dormitory units. The lavatory was located by the door and separated by a brick wall from the living area of the ward.
(c)  Medical assistance
(i)  The applicant’s medical file submitted by the Government 27.  According to the medical file submitted by the Government, the applicant underwent a medical examination upon his arrival at correctional colony no. IK-1 and had regular consultations with doctors during his detention there. 28.  In 2004-2009 the applicant received both inpatient and outpatient treatment for haemorrhoids, chronic gastroduodenitis, eczema, gastritis, bronchitis, tuberculosis and flu. On numerous occasions he consulted a general practitioner, a neurologist, a phtisiologist, a dentist, a surgeon, a urologist, an otolaryngologist, and had blood, sputum, and urine tests, X-ray and EKG examinations, and an ultrasound scan of his abdominal area and kidneys. In 2005 the doctors considered him cured of tuberculosis. The applicant was advised to undergo colorectal surgery, which he repeatedly refused to do out of fear of the risk of dying during the operation or suffering post-operative complications, or as a result of what he considered to be a poor relationship with the administration of the correctional colony. According to the file, the applicant also submitted that he had been suffering from haemorrhoids for twenty years. 29.  The applicant’s application for disability was considered in 2004, 2005 and 2007. Following a medical examination, the application was refused. The relevant reports which found the applicant fit for employment were issued on 22 December 2004, 30 November 2005 and 1 October 2007. According to the applicant, the reports indicated that he had ability to work with limitations in view of his health condition and could not perform heavy labour. 30.  On 11 December 2007 the applicant considered that his condition had been deteriorating and asked the administration of the colony for inpatient treatment and a comprehensive examination in order to assess his disability. His request was to no avail. 31.  According to the applicant, in 2009 the colony could not provide him with required medication on a regular basis. In August 2009 the applicant did not receive suppositories to treat his haemorrhoids. Vitamins were also mostly unavailable. 32.  On 15 January 2010 the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no. IK-8 in the Tambov Region. 33.  On 30 July 2007 the applicant unsuccessfully challenged in court a prosecutor’s refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the administration of correctional colony no. IK-1 in Tambov. The final relevant decision was taken on 29 November 2007 by the Tambov Regional Court. 34.  On 25 September 2007 the Regional Court dismissed without consideration on the merits a claim for damages brought by the applicant against correctional colony no. IK-1 in Tambov. The court noted that the applicant had failed to pay court fees. 35.  According to the applicant, on several occasions during the period between November 2007 and the end of 2009 the administration of the colony refused to dispatch his letters addressed to the Court owing to his failure to pay for postage. The applicant, who had no cash in his account and was not employed, had to ask other inmates for financial support. 36.  According to the Government, on 31 July 2006 and 14 September 2007 the applicant asked the administration of the correctional colony to pay for the dispatch of his letters addressed to the Court. His request was granted. 37.  On 29 October 2007 his letter to the Court was dispatched by a lawyer representing one of the inmates. 38.  On 24 January 2008 the head of the colony informed the applicant that another letter submitted by him and addressed to the Court could not be dispatched free of charge. Subsequently, the supervising prosecutor informed the applicant’s representative that no federal budget funds had been allocated to provide free stationery to inmates. 39.  In December 2008 a human rights NGO transferred 200 Russian roubles to the applicant’s account. 40.  In June 2009 the NGO sent postal stamps and envelopes to the applicant upon his request.