5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is serving a life sentence in Varna Prison. 6.  The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 7.  On 10 November 1989 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court confirmed this sentence on 15 January 1990. The applicant was placed in Pleven Prison and was not executed because a presidential moratorium on the execution of death sentences was introduced in the meantime. 8.  After the death penalty was abolished in Bulgaria, the Vice-President commuted the applicant’s sentence to life imprisonment on 21 January 1999. On 7 June 1999 the authorities placed the applicant under a “special regime” to serve his sentence, and on 11 June 1999 they transferred him to Varna Prison, where he remained until June 2004. Between June 2004 and June 2007 the applicant was detained in Pleven Prison, and on 27 June 2007 he was transferred again to Varna Prison, where he was at the time the most recent information was submitted to the Court, in late 2013. 9.  At times he shared his cell with other life prisoners who were serving their sentences under the “special regime”. 10.  According to the applicant, throughout the entire period of his detention he has been held in cells not equipped with sanitary facilities, and has only been allowed to go to the toilet three times a day. During the rest of the time he has had to relieve himself in his cell in a bucket which he could wash out once a day. The prison authorities have not provided him with chemicals for disinfecting the bucket. 11.  He has been permanently locked in his cell. 12.  According to the Government, between 2004 and 2007 in Pleven Prison the applicant was placed in a cell which was only locked at night. This allowed him unlimited access to the toilet, situated in the wing’s corridor, between 5.30 a.m. and 8 p.m. Furthermore, toilets and sinks with running water were installed in all cells in Pleven Prison in 2008. 13.  In Varna Prison the applicant was allowed to go to the lavatory more than three times a day. In particular, he had access to sanitary facilities and hot water also when he was taken out of his cell for his hour’s exercise in the open air. Without specifying further, the Government also stated that this was also the case when he took part in the weekly prison activities. A toilet and a sink with running water were installed in his cell in August 2012. 14.  Between 7 June 1999 and 6 December 2005 the applicant was held under the most restrictive “special regime”. Under this regime prisoners were locked permanently in their cells, and could only communicate with other life inmates and not with the general prison population. In December 2005 a Commission for the Execution of Sentences changed the applicant’s regime to the lighter “enhanced regime” which became called the “severe regime” with the adoption of the Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act in June 2009. He was able to take part in religious discussions for up to an hour a week and to play table tennis for half an hour up to twice a week. 15.  The Government submitted annual psychological assessments of Mr Radev in respect of 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013. According to those assessments, the applicant demonstrated anti-social behaviour and periodically engaged in conflict with other inmates, whom he also incited to go on hunger strike as a means of pressuring the prison authorities into taking decisions favourable to them. According to the Government, the applicant had been disciplined twenty-six times for breaching the internal rules, and had only received four good-conduct awards. On six occasions he was punished for keeping an unauthorised mobile telephone and/or charger and SIM cards for it in his cell; once for keeping an item which could be used to make a hand-knife; and another time for keeping a small foldable hand-knife. On two occasions the punishments were for violent altercations with other life prisoners. One of those occasions was described by the prison authorities as “not having escalated to the level of lasting tension, but rather being a momentary emotional outburst not uncommon for both the inmates involved”. In the other incident, the physical engagement had been preceded by verbal arguments on the part of both prisoners, and the prison guards rapidly managed to separate the inmates and defuse the tension. When the applicant considered a situation was detrimental to him, he usually threatened legal action, and sometimes attempted self-harm or suicide as a means of “persuading” the prison authorities. He was emotionally unstable and had a tendency to contest the decisions of the prison authorities. Because of all this the prison authorities were not considering a change in the applicant’s prison regime. 16.  After the Government had submitted their observations to the Court, the applicant complained that he was serving his sentence in inadequate material conditions. In particular, there was insufficient fresh air and lighting in his cell, which itself was dilapidated and infested with cockroaches, and it was impossible for him to maintain personal hygiene as he had no access to hygienic or cleaning products. He was permanently handcuffed when outside his cell, the food was rather poor, and so was the medical care provided to him in prison. Lastly, no work had been offered him, nor did he have any meaningful occupational activities. 17.  Between 2007 and 2011 the applicant brought several claims for damages under the State and Municipalities’ Responsibility for Damage Act 1988 (“the SMRDA”) in connection with various aspects of his conditions of detention. The Supreme Administrative Court rejected all of them as inadmissible, finding in particular either that the prison authorities had not acted unlawfully or that the applicant had not established that he had suffered as a result of those conditions.