6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently detained in Iaşi Prison. 7.  By a decision of 22 December 1997 the Suceava County Court convicted the applicant of murder, sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment and ordered, as a safety measure, compulsory psychiatric treatment until he had fully recovered. Since 1985 the applicant had been periodically hospitalised at the “Socola” psychiatric hospital in Iaşi for different psychiatric conditions (a medical certificate was submitted in this connection). The decision of the County Court was upheld by the Suceava Court of Appeal on 1 July 1998 and became final on 18 December 1998 with a decision of the Supreme Court. 8.  The applicant began serving his sentence in Iaşi Prison and was subsequently transferred to Botoşani, Craiova, Jilava, Rahova, Tulcea, Poarta Albă, Giurgiu and Arad Prisons, as well as to the Jilava, Rahova, Târgu Ocna and Poarta Albă Prison Hospitals. 9.  The parties disagree as to the detention conditions in Rahova Prison and whether the applicant was submitted or not to ill-treatment by prison staff. 10.  The applicant was admitted to Rahova Prison on 9 December 2005 following a stay in Jilava Prison Hospital, where he had been kept under medical observation after a suicide attempt. This was not his first suicide attempt. 11.  Upon arrival at Rahova Prison he was locked up in solitary confinement cell no. 200, which was used to punish detainees for breaching the internal regulations of the prison. 12.  Cell no. 200 was described by the applicant as follows. The mattress and blanket were filthy, covered with human excrement and urine, stained with blood and full of lice, bedbugs and dust. The smell was unbearable. There was only one window, in which the glass was broken. The cold was extreme, yet he only had one layer of clothes until 28 December 2005, when he received a second set of clothes. Although he reported that the window was broken, the prison administration took no action. The cell had no hot water supply, the applicant could only take cold showers and there was no soap. He was not given toilet paper. As a result of the conditions of detention in cell no. 200, the applicant contracted scabies, developed pneumonia and suffered bites from lice and bedbugs which became infected. As evidence, the applicant sent to the Court a piece of the mattress, which is extremely dirty and blood‑stained. From 9 December to 28 December 2005, the applicant claims he did not eat or drink anything because he had not been given any crockery. 13.  On 30 December 2005 the applicant was transported to the court in a metal cage with poor ventilation and in extremely cold conditions, despite the fact that he was very weak and unable to stand up. Upon return to Rahova Prison he was placed in a regular cell. 14.  On 27 January 2006, as the result of a quarrel with another inmate, the applicant was brutally beaten by masked officers. He was then handcuffed and taken to the medical ward, where the nurse claimed the applicant showed no signs of having been subjected to violence. He was then taken back to solitary confinement, this time in cell no. 500. 15.  The toilet in cell no. 500 was locked and the prison guards refused to allow the applicant to use it. In protest, on 30 January 2006 he swallowed 200 barbiturate pills which he had kept hidden. On the same day, he was transported to Floreasca Hospital. He returned to Rahova Prison after a few days and upon his return he was again placed in solitary confinement. The applicant did not indicate when he was taken back to a regular cell. 16.  On 7 April 2006, after another quarrel with his cellmates, the applicant was placed in solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure. He was placed in cell no. 300. Although this disciplinary measure was limited to five days, he remained in cell no. 300 until sometime in July or August 2006. 17.  The applicant was detained in Rahova Prison from 8 December 2005 to 6 September 2006. He was placed in solitary confinement from 8 to 30 December 2005 in cell no. 200, from 27 to 31 January 2006 in cell no. 500, and from 7 April 2004 to an unspecified date in cell no. 300. 18.  According to the information provided by the National Prison Administration (NPA) and the director of Rahova Prison, the applicant was placed in cell no. 200 upon arrival at Rahova Prison because the other detainees refused to share a cell with him, and not as a disciplinary sanction. His placement in solitary confinement in cells nos. 500 and 300 was decided on because the applicant had been aggressive towards his fellow detainees and they had objected to his presence in the regular cells. 19.  With regard to the detention conditions in cells nos. 200 and 500, they measured 10.875 square meters, had two beds and a window measuring 0.72 square meters. The cells were naturally ventilated, had a sink and a toilet, and cold water was always available. Hot water was only provided for two hours every week. Detainees were responsible for cleaning the cells and they were provided with cleaning products by the prison administration. The cells had cast iron radiators that were connected to the central heating system. During winter, the temperature in the rooms was 18 degrees Celsius and heating was available depending on the weather outside. Detainees were allowed daily walks of one to three hours’ in the prison yards. The eight prison yards each measured 262.5 square meters. Additionally, detainees were allowed to engage in sports activities twice a week. 20.  According to the information provided by the director of Rahova Prison, in December 2005 the applicant was diagnosed with infected scabies (scabie suprainfectată) and was treated with sulphur ointment and antibiotics. According to the applicant’s medical file, on 16 January 2006 he was still complaining of pruritus and receiving medication for skin lesions. 21.  With regard to the incident of 27 January 2006, the applicant had been sanctioned for causing a short circuit in his cell and for making death threats to fellow detainees. When he was informed that he would be transferred to solitary confinement cell no. 500, he protested violently and the members of the intervention unit handcuffed him. After 10 minutes, when he had calmed down, the handcuffs were removed and he was taken to the medical ward. The medical staff did not detect any traces of ill-treatment. 22.  On 30 January 2006 the applicant was transported to Floreasca Hospital because he was feeling dizzy and claimed that he had swallowed several pills. According to the transfer note (bilet de transfer) issued by the hospital on the same day, the applicant was placed in intensive care in the toxicology unit, where he underwent specific medical procedures. The transfer note did not indicate any signs of physical violence on the applicant’s body. The applicant was transferred to Rahova Prison hospital. A copy of the medical file submitted by the Government included a handwritten note by the applicant stating that he had been informed of the hospital regulations and that he refused to be hospitalised in the prison hospital. 23.  He consequently returned to solitary confinement cell no. 500 in Rahova Prison on the same day. On 31 January 2006, after another suicide attempt, he was examined by the prison medical staff, who noted that his state of health was good. The applicant received a disciplinary warning, but he was placed in a regular cell on the same day. 24.  The Government did not indicate the exact duration of the applicant’s stay in cell no. 300 but insisted that this measure was of a temporary nature and it had been decided on because all the other detainees objected to the applicant’s presence in the regular cells. 25.  With respect to the allegedly degrading conditions in solitary confinement in Rahova Prison, the applicant lodged several complaints, mainly with the NPA. He also sent similar complaints to the Romanian President, the Parliament, the Ministry of Justice and the Constitutional Court. These complaints were forwarded to the NPA. 26.  In reply, on 17 December 2005 and 25 January 2006 the NPA informed the applicant that his rights had not been restricted as a result of the prison regime. 27.  With regard to the incident of 27 January 2006, the applicant lodged criminal complaints with the Bucharest District Court and the Bucharest Military Prosecutor’s Office. He complained against the prison director, V.L., who the applicant believed had ordered the beatings and the solitary confinement. 28.  On 7 June 2006 the Bucharest District Court heard the applicant in the presence of a court-appointed lawyer. On the same day, the first-instance court referred the matter to the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court. 29.  On 26 June 2006 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court referred the matter to the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal on account of the fact that V.L. was a magistrate. 30.  On 6 July 2006 the prosecutor in charge of the file noted that the applicant had lodged several identical complaints and decided to join them together. 31.  By a decision of 8 November 2006 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaints on the ground that V.L. had not breached his professional code of conduct. It appears that the applicant received a copy of that decision on 28 November 2006. He did not contest it before the domestic courts. 32.  Neither the applicant nor the Government provided the Court with any information on the outcome of the proceedings before the Bucharest Military Prosecutor’s Office. 33.  On 8 November 2006, while detained in Botoşani Prison, the applicant sent a request to the prison administration for fifteen envelopes, together with stamps, to a total value of 15 Romanian lei, in order to correspond with the Court. Although he was given five envelopes, the applicant alleges that the combined value of the stamps was not enough to cover the cost of sending a letter to the Court. The applicant did not lodge a complaint with the authorities under Law no. 275/2006.