5.  The applicant was born in 1961 in Baku, Azerbaijan, and is currently serving a life sentence in Gobustan Prison. 6.  On 18 July 1997 the Baku City Court convicted the applicant of complicity in two counts of murder and complicity in arson and sentenced him to death and confiscation of property. On 19 August 1997 the Supreme Court upheld this judgment. 7.  Following the conviction, the applicant was transferred to the 5th wing of Bayil Prison, designated for convicts sentenced to death. Despite the existence of the death penalty as a form of punishment under the criminal law applicable at that time, the Azerbaijani authorities had pursued a de facto policy of a moratorium on the execution of the death penalty from June 1993 until the abolition of the death penalty in 1998. 8.  On 10 February 1998 Parliament passed the Law on Amendments to the Criminal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and Correctional Labour Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan in connection with the Abolition of the Death Penalty in the Republic of Azerbaijan, which amended all the relevant domestic legal provisions, replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment. The penalties of all convicts sentenced to death, including the applicant, were to be automatically commuted to life imprisonment. 9.  On 28 March 1998 the applicant was transferred to Gobustan Prison. 10.  As from his arrival at Gobustan Prison on 28 March 1998 until his placement in solitary confinement on 14 February 2008, the applicant was held, with one other inmate, in cells measuring approximately 9-10 sq. m. During his detention, he changed cells several times and shared them with different inmates. The standard cell had two beds, a small bedside cupboard, and one small table and two chairs fixed to the cell floor. The toilet area was separated from the rest of the cell by a one-metre-high stone wall. The floor and ceiling were made of stone and concrete respectively. The temperature inside the cell was very high in summer and very low in winter. Central heating was available, but inadequate. 11.  The window, which had metal bars, had no window pane in it and, in winter, was covered with a transparent polyethylene film. The air inside was stale and the cell could not be naturally ventilated. Until 2001, the inmates were not allowed to possess or use ventilators. Likewise, until 2001, the inmates were not allowed to possess a radio. Subsequently, small radios and ventilators were allowed. The food served in the prison was often of poor quality and lacked sufficient meat and vitamins, and the menu was unvaried and monotonous. 12.  The inmates were allowed only fifteen to thirty minutes of outdoor exercise per day. There were no other recreational or educational activities. 13.  Since 14 February 2008 he has been in solitary confinement, without any formal decision, in a former “punishment” cell measuring 7.78 sq. m. The applicant was not provided with a copy of the decision placing him in that cell. 14.  Following the information request of the applicant’s mother (M.R.), by a letter of 27 February 2008 the prison governor informed her that it was impossible to send her copies of the decisions on punishment measures applied to the applicant, as these documents were confidential and could be requested by the courts or a relevant higher authority. 15.  By a letter of 10 April 2008 from the prison authority, M.R. was informed that the placement of the prisoners in cells was carried out according to the Prison Internal Disciplinary Rules and that the conditions of the applicant’s cell complied with the legislation. 16.  The applicant was detained in a cell measuring at least 8 sq. m and designated for two inmates throughout his detention in Gobustan Prison. 17.  The window of the applicant’s cell can be opened from the inside. The window is large enough and does not prevent natural light and fresh air from coming in. The cell is also equipped with electric lights, a ventilator and a radio set. 18.  He also has the right to watch TV for four hours a day and six hours a day at weekends and on holidays. The prison has a library that the prisoners can use. The sanitary conditions are acceptable and the food served is of good quality. The applicant has the right to one hour’s outdoor exercise a day. 19.  Since 1 September 2000, the inmates are entitled, on a yearly basis, to one long (from one to three days) and three short (of up to four hours each) personal visits and four food parcels (of up to 31.5 kg each) from relatives, and six telephone calls (of up to ten minutes each). They are able to spend up to 3.3 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) per month on staple items. 20.  Since 24 June 2008 the number of visits by relatives has been increased to two long and six short visits a year, the number of food parcels to eight, and the number of telephone calls to twenty-four. The monthly spending limit has been increased to AZN 25. The prisoners’ correspondence is not limited. 21.  The applicant was placed alone in a cell in February 2008, because he did not get on with other prison inmates and always attracted dislike. In this regard, the Government submitted that the applicant had committed nineteen breaches of discipline between 28 March 1998 and 28 January 2010. 22.  It appears from the documents submitted by the Government that the first decision to place the applicant alone in a cell was taken by the prison authorities on 25 July 2008. The duration of the solitary confinement was not specified in that decision. The applicant’s placement alone in a cell was justified as follows:
“The inmate Rzakhanov Shakir Hajimurad oglu, during the execution of his sentence, attracts dislike, intentionally breaches the internal rules of regime in the prison, tries to abscond, incites the inter-ethnic conflicts and by creating psychological tensions between the life sentenced inmates and by other means, tries to disturb the normal functioning of the establishment. He tries to join other inmates in his unlawful actions. Currently, as he is against the measures taken in the prison in order to ensure the respect of the regime, he sends to various State and non-governmental organisations defamatory information and complaints and tries to achieve his goal this way. In addition, the inmate Rzakhanov could not get on with inmates with whom he had previously shared the cell and intentionally created the situation of conflicts.” 23.  The second decision in this respect was delivered on 4 August 2009 which is almost identical in its wording to the decision of 25 July 2008 and reiterates the same reasons for the applicant’s placement alone in a cell. Following the decision of 4 August 2009, the applicant’s placement alone in a cell was extended every two months by a new decision of the prison authorities. 24.  In all the decisions, the justifications for the applicant’s placement alone in a cell are almost identical to those described in the decision of 25 July 2008. 25.  The applicant’s placement alone in a cell ended on 16 December 2010. 26.  On 16 and 20 March 2006 the applicant sent complaints concerning the medical service, the quality of the bread and the toilet facilities to the Ministry of Justice. By a letter of 26 April 2006 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that the quality of the bread had been checked by the delegation of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the CPT) and it met the quality requirements. The Ministry of Justice instructed the prison administration to examine the applicant’s other complaints so that the appropriate measures could be taken. 27.  On an unspecified date, M.R. lodged an action with the Garadagh District Court. She complained about the general conditions of detention of her son and his placement in solitary confinement. She also complained that her son’s cell did not meet the standard requirements, as there was no sunlight in the cell and the cell’s window was very small. 28.  On 31 October 2008 the Garabagh District Court dismissed the claim. After visiting the prison, the judge held that the general conditions of detention of the applicant met all the relevant requirements. He described the applicant’s cell as follows:
“The applicant’s cell is the cell no. 221 situated in the unit no. 4. The cell is on the right side of the entrance of the unit. The living space of the cell measures 2.75 x 2.90 metres. There is a window in the upper part of the cell which measures 1.50 x 0.21 metres. This window is open and the air is coming in without hindrance from it. Opposite to this window, there is also a transom measuring 0.30 x 0.40 metres at the same level over the entrance door. This transom was covered by the inmate Rzakhanov with a transparent polyethylene film. The inmate states that it was done in order to prevent the move of the air coming from the window in the cell. The floor of the cell is made of wood. The toilet, situated in the middle of the cell, is separated from the bed. The water supply is permanent in the cell. The artificial lighting system is functioning in the cell. The pipe which is a part of the common heating system of the unit passes through the cell under the window and is fixed to the wall. The inmate says that there is no problem of heating when it is cold. There is a TV set on the right side of the cell...” 29.  As regards the particular complaint on the size of the window, the judge noted that despite the fact that the size of the window of the applicant’s cell did not meet the established standards, the window in question was large enough and did not prevent natural light and fresh air from coming in. 30.  As to the applicant’s placement alone in a cell, the judge considered it lawful. In this connection, he noted that by a decision of 25 July 2008 the applicant was placed alone in a cell for breach of disciplinary rules. The judge further noted that the inmate with whom the applicant had been detained died in December 2006 and after his death the applicant asked the prison authorities not to be placed with another inmate for a year. A year later the applicant refused to share his cell with another inmate. Another inmate (M.D.) was later placed in the same cell as the applicant, however the applicant began to complain to the authorities, asking for a single cell. Afterwards the applicant asked to be placed in the same cell as inmate M.I., however this request was dismissed by the prison administration for security reasons. 31.  On 30 March 2009 the Court of Appeal and on 27 October 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance court’s judgment of 31 October 2008. 32.  On an unspecified date in 2009 the applicant lodged a new action with the Garabagh District Court, complaining about his conditions of detention. 33.  On 20 November 2009 the Garabagh District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. 34.  On 19 March 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal and on 12 November 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance court’s judgment of 20 November 2009. 35.  On 11 January 2004 the applicant was taken to the office of one of the senior officers of the prison guard. He was first admonished for sending “too many complaints to the Constitutional Court”. He was then handcuffed and beaten with rubber truncheons and wooden clubs by several prison guards, including the prison governor. The beating lasted around forty minutes. He was then dragged out and placed in a punishment cell, where he was held until 14 January 2004. He received no medical aid. The applicant’s mother learned of his ill-treatment. 36.  On 15 January 2004 the applicant was visited by the Ombudsman, in the presence of his lawyer, relatives and the prison governor. The applicant did not specify the purpose of the Ombudsman’s visit. According to the applicant, the Ombudsman did not take any action, despite having seen the signs of ill-treatment on his body. 37.  On 17 January 2004 the applicant was visited by the delegation of the Council of Europe’s Ago Group which is a monitoring group of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe working on the honouring of commitments by Azerbaijan. The applicant told them about the alleged ill-treatment. The delegation also met the applicant’s mother. The delegation informed the Deputy Minister of Justice of its concerns with the applicant’s complaints. The Deputy Minister of Justice promised to launch an investigation. However, no adequate investigation took place. 38.  In July or August 2004 the applicant was taken to the Medical Facility of the Ministry of Justice for a forensic examination. However, the forensic experts attempted to hide the injuries by taking X‑rays of his uninjured leg instead of the injured leg. Therefore, he refused to undergo further examination and was taken back to the prison. 39.  On 11 January 2004 prison guards found a letter in which the applicant called on other prisoners to go on hunger strike. Following this, the prison guards tried to carry out a search on the applicant who objected to this search. 40.  On the same day, the prison administration decided to transfer the applicant to a punishment cell for a period of fifteen days. On 26 January 2004 the applicant was released from the punishment cell following the end of the period of fifteen days. 41.  As to the meeting with the Ombudsman, on 14 February 2004 the applicant met the Ombudsman in the presence of his mother and lawyer. This meeting was filmed and the video submitted to the Court. It appears from the video that in this meeting the applicant was questioned by the Ombudsman, in the presence of his mother and lawyer, about the allegations of ill-treatment. He told the Ombudsman that he had not been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment by prison guards during his detention in Gobustan Prison. 42.  The Government finally submitted that the Ago Group delegation of the Council of Europe could not meet the applicant on 17 January 2004, because this delegation visited Gobustan Prison three times, on 14 May 2002, 11 July 2003 and 4 February 2004, within the framework of its annual visit to Azerbaijan. 43.  In the summer of 2004 the applicant sent complaints to the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Justice about his alleged ill‑treatment by the prison guards. 44.  Following the applicant’s complaint to the Prosecutor General’s Office, an investigation was launched by the Garadagh District Prosecutor’s Office. On 24 November 2005 the Deputy Prosecutor of Garadagh District refused to institute criminal proceedings, finding that the applicant had not been beaten on 11 January 2004. In particular, the prosecutor noted that there was no evidence that the applicant had been ill-treated by prison guards. No appeal was lodged against this decision. 45.  On 28 May 2006 M.R. lodged, on behalf of the applicant, a civil lawsuit with the Garadagh District Court, seeking compensation for the ill‑treatment to which he had been subjected by prison guards. On 9 June 2006 the Garadagh District Court refused to admit the complaint, because it did not meet the procedural requirements set out in Article 149.2.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”). In particular, M.R. failed to specify the respondents and indicate their names and address. No appeal was lodged against this decision. 46.  On an unspecified date M.R. lodged a new action with the Garadagh District Court, seeking compensation for the alleged ill-treatment. On 22 September 2006 the Garadagh District Court refused to admit the lawsuit because it did not comply with the formal requirements set out in Articles 149 and 150 of the CCP. The court noted that it was not possible to establish who had signed the application and that there were no documents relating to the allegations in the case file. The court also pointed out that the applicant should apply to the prosecuting authorities in respect of the alleged criminal acts of the prison guards, and a civil action should meet the procedural requirements set out in Article 149 of the CCP. No appeal was lodged against this decision.