5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is currently serving a prison sentence in a correctional colony in the Rostov Region. 6.  On 26 February 1998 the prosecutor opened a criminal investigation against the applicant. 7.  On 3 March 1998 the applicant was arrested and detained in custody on suspicion of kidnapping and fraud. On 13 March 1998 he was released on bail. However, the applicant fled from the investigative authorities and re-offended. 8.  On 5 May 1999 the applicant was again arrested. Shortly afterwards, on 18 May 1999 he was detained on remand. 9.  On 22 May 1999 the applicant was charged under Articles 139 § 3, 126 § 3 and 163 § 3 of the Criminal Code with unlawful entry into a home, kidnapping and extortion. He was subsequently charged under Articles 127 § 3, 158 § 3, 159 § 3, 161 § 3, 162 § 3, 325 § 2 and 327 § 1 of the Criminal Code with illegal deprivation of liberty, theft, fraud, robbery, stealing and forgery of official documents. 10.  On 14 July, 7 September, 16 September and 30 November 1999 the Prosecutor of the Rostov Region extended the applicant’s detention until 24 September, 15 November, 18 December 1999 and 24 March 2000 respectively. Each time, consideration was given to the applicant’s criminal record, the gravity of the charges against him and his active role in a gang. 11.  On 20 March 2000 the case against the applicant was sent to the Rostov Regional Court for trial. 12.  On 29 March 2000 the Rostov Regional Court scheduled the opening date of the trial and ordered that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant and his co-defendants “should remain unchanged” in accordance with Articles 222, 223 and 230 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure. 13.  On 13 June 2000 the Rostov Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. On 2 November 2000, however, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial. The Supreme Court held that the preventive measure applied to the applicant “should remain unchanged”. 14.  On 1 December 2000 the Rostov Regional Court scheduled the new trial hearing and ordered that the preventive measure “should remain unchanged”. 15.  On 14 May 2001 the Rostov Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to sixteen years’ imprisonment, but on 16 January 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the conviction on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial. The Supreme Court held that the preventive measure applied to the applicant “should remain unchanged”. 16.  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”. 17.  On 1 July 2002 the Rostov Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 1 October 2002. It found as follows:
“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 15 May 1999, ... .
The Prosecutor requested that the defendants’ detention be extended by 3 months.
Having examined the Prosecutor’s request, 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, 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.” 18.  On 6 November 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the extension order, finding that it was sufficiently justified. 19.  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 above decisions was identical to that applied in the decision of 1 July 2002. 20.  The applicant appealed against each of the above extension orders to the Supreme Court arguing that the extension orders 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 decisions on appeal. 21.  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’ 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. 22.  On 10 March 2005, that is after the applicant’s conviction by the Regional Court (see paragraph 24 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. 23.  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; due to the illness of the representatives and their failure to appear before the court, and due to the illness of the applicant and co-defendants or following their complaints concerning their health. On one occasion the hearing was adjourned due to the failure of the authorities to transport the defendants to the courtroom. 24.  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, multiple counts of kidnapping and illegal deprivation of liberty, extortion, theft and burglary and sentenced him to thirteen years’ imprisonment. 25.  The applicant lodged an appeal. He claimed, inter alia, that the lay judges had unlawfully sat on the bench. The law had been changed and after 1 January 2004 the lay judges were no longer permitted to take part in the administration of justice. 26.  On 10 March 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia comprising three judges upheld 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 13 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 19-20 above). One other judge had previously examined the applicant’s case on appeal on 16 January 2002 (see paragraph 15 above). As to the applicant’s allegation about the allegedly unlawful composition of the tribunal, 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. 27.  From 7 July 1999 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 thirteen different cells. 28.  According to the Government’s observations of 31 January 2008, the cells where the applicant was held measured from 6.6 square metres (the punishment cell) to 54.5 square metres, and provided an average space of between three and four square metres per person. The design capacity of the cells was not exceeded. 29.  Windows in the cells were covered with metal screens (жалюзийные решетки), which were removed in December 2002. The cells were illuminated with 60-75 watt filament lamps (from two to four lamps per cell depending on the size of the 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. 30.  All cells were ventilated by a system of exhaust ventilation. Natural ventilation through windows was also available. The cells were equipped with a heating system providing an adequate temperature in line with sanitary norms. The average temperature during the summer was maintained at 22 degrees Celsius, and during winter at 18 degrees Celsius. 31.  The cells were equipped with wash basins, cold and hot water taps and lavatory pans elevated 35 cm above the floor and separated from the main area by a two-metre-high brick partition. The arrangement of lavatory pans assured the detainees privacy when using them. 32.  The cells were equipped with potable water tanks. The quality of the drinking water was regularly checked by the facility’s medical staff. 33.  In each cell the applicant had an individual bed and was provided with bedding (a mattress, a blanket, a pillow, two bed sheets and a pillow-slip) and towels. 34.  The cells were also equipped with dining tables and benches corresponding to the number of detainees, as well as shelves and bedside tables for storage of personal items and foodstuffs. 35.  The applicant could take a shower at least once a week. 36.  He was given food three times a day on the basis of the established legal norms. The quality of the food was monitored on a regular basis by the medical staff of the detention facility. 37.  The applicant was allowed a daily one-and-a-half hour outside walk. 38.  The authorities ensured that regular disinfections and disinfestations were carried out in the detention facility. 39.  In support of their observations the Government provided several certificates issued by the director of IZ-61/1 on 17 and 18 December 2007, statements by wardens (although not dated), a copy of the applicant’s prison card stating that he had been provided with bed sheets, cutlery and clothes, as well as a number of certificates concerning the food ration during the relevant period. 40.  The applicant claimed that the number of detainees considerably exceeded the design capacity of the cells and that the detainees had to sleep in shifts. 41.  The cells were dimly lit by two filament lamps. Access to daylight was restricted by metal screens and the arrangement of the bunks in two or three tiers. 42.  The windows were not equipped with fresh-air shutters, and, therefore, the cells could not be aerated and the air was heavy with smoke. 43.  The metal screens were not removed until April 2003, and the window panes started to be removed for better access to fresh air in summertime. 44.  The lavatory in the corner of the cell was elevated above the floor and separated by a 1.1-metre partition from the wash basin, but not from the living area. There was no screen at the entrance to the toilet. The applicant thus had to use the toilet in the presence of other inmates and be present while the toilet was being used by his cellmates. 45.  The applicant was never provided with any toiletries. 46.  The cells swarmed with cockroaches, bedbugs and lice and were never treated by the administration. 47.  In support of his statements the applicant produced written depositions by three former cellmates. They stated, in particular, that in 2002-2003 they had been detained together with the applicant in cell no. 48. The cell designed to accommodate ten persons housed up to fifty detainees at any one time. They also testified that they and the other detainees had slept in shifts. 48.  On 23 April 2005 the applicant was transferred to correctional colony Uch-398/5 of Konstantinovsk, the Rostov Region (ФГУ Уч-398/5 ГУФСИН России), to serve his sentence. 49.  Relying on the certificate issued by the director of Uch-398/5 on 25 December 2007 the Government submitted that the applicant is held in dormitory no. 5 measuring 334 square meters and equipped with 144 bunk beds. In 2005 the dormitory housed 135 convicts, in 2006, 132 convicts, and accommodates 144 convicts at the present time. 50.  All convicts are provided with bedding and toiletries. 51.  The premises of the dormitory have a sanitary unit separated from the main area and equipped with lavatory pans, cold and hot water taps and wash basins. 52.  The dormitory is equipped with sealed–up window frames allowing to a sufficient extent access to natural light and fresh air when the frames are opened. The premises of the dormitory are ventilated on a regular basis. 53.  In the daytime the dormitory is lit by thirty-seven 75 watt filament lamps and at night by four 60-75 watt security lights with tinted glass shades. 54.  The applicant receives food three times a day on the basis of the established legal norms. The quality of the food is regularly monitored by the facility’s medical staff. 55.  No persons infected with tuberculosis are kept in the correctional colony. 56.  The applicant alleged that the living areas are overcrowded, and that the sanitary conditions, ventilation and lighting are inadequate. He further submitted that he has to share living space with detainees suffering from tuberculosis.