6.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Moscow. 7.  The applicant worked for a real-estate agency in Moscow. In early 2007 the Moscow police were tipped off that M., the representative of a private company, was looking for a way to obtain State registration of the company’s property rights to certain premises. As registration had been previously refused, M. needed someone who would be able to prepare a registration package in a professional manner and who would preferably have connections in the Federal Registration Service. M. approached the applicant, who introduced him to a middleman prepared to “solve the problem” on the condition that M. give them 250,000 US dollars to bribe officials of the registration service, plus 15,000 US dollars as their fee. 8.  The police opened an inquiry into corruption in the Federal Registration Service. The phone lines of the middleman and three other people, but not the applicant’s line, were tapped. 9.  However, as it turned out, the applicant and the four other individuals had never intended to use any money to bribe State officials but rather had planned to divide the entire sum between themselves. One of them was an official with the Moscow registration service, who was to observe the progress of the application for registration as it was being processed by his colleagues and report back to his accomplices. 10.  On 25 April 2007 the applicant and the other individuals were arrested by the police when M. brought them the last instalment of money in exchange for the registration certificate. All the accomplices were charged with attempted fraud, of which M. was stated to be the victim. 11.  On 17 July 2008 the Moscow Simonovskiy District Court convicted the applicant and his co-defendants as charged and sentenced them to five years’ imprisonment. During the trial the applicant maintained that he had had no intention of defrauding M. and that he had merely facilitated M.’s contacts with the middlemen. 12.  On 20 October 2008 the Moscow City Court upheld the conviction on appeal. 13.  Between 28 April 2007 and 5 November 2008 the applicant was held in remand prison no. IZ-77/1 in Moscow.
(a)  Description provided by the Government
(i)  Cell population 14.  As regards cell population, the Government produced certificates prepared by the remand prison administration and extracts from the remand prison’s population register. The information contained therein can be summarised follows:
Cell no.
Period of detention
Surface area (in square metres)
Number of inmates
Number of beds
109
From 28 April to 4 May 2007 15.  In view of certain amendments made on the face of the documents provided in respect of cell population, the Court asked the Government to submit a complete copy of the remand prison’s population register. 16.  On 7 December 2011 the Government informed the Court that the prison’s population register covering the period between 28 April 2007 and 15 April 2008 had been lost.
(ii)  Other aspects 17.  According to the Government, all cells in the remand prison were equipped with mandatory ventilation in good working order. In addition, the windows were equipped with vents to ensure natural ventilation of the premises. All cells had a sink and a toilet which was separated from the living area by a 1.2 m high partition. The dining table was located at least 1 m away from the toilet. The metal bars installed on the windows did not prevent access to daylight through the glass window panes. During the day, the lighting was on from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. At night lower-voltage bulbs were used to maintain lighting in the lavatory. The applicant was allowed to exercise for at least one hour per day. The remand prison was equipped with fifty-eight exercise yards measuring from 15.4 square metres (sq. m.) to 85.17 sq. m. The yards were arranged in such a way as to provide the inmates with the opportunity for physical exercise. They were equipped with benches and were sheltered from the rain.
(b)  The applicant’s submissions 18.  The applicant accepted the veracity of the information submitted by the Government as regards the cell numbers and size, the number of sleeping places per cell and the periods of his detention there. As regards the cell population, the applicant submitted as follows:
Cell no.
Period of detention
Surface area (in square metres)
Number of inmates
Number of beds
109
From 28 April to 4 May 2007 19.  According to the applicant, the cells did not have natural or mandatory ventilation. Windows were covered with thick metal bars and did not open. The electric lighting was constantly on. It was dim and insufficient. The metal bars on the windows prevented access to daylight. 20.  He further submitted that cells nos. 109, 277, 202, 219 and 223 were not equipped with a toilet. Instead there was a hole in the floor which was not separated from the living area of the cell. In the other cells the toilet pan was not separated from the living area and was located in the immediate proximity of the dining table. The applicant was allowed exercise outside on a daily basis. It lasted from forty minutes to an hour and took place in a special yard. Too many inmates (from ten to fifteen) were brought to the yard at the same time, which made physical exercise impossible. The food was of low quality. The inmates were allowed one shower per week for no longer than fifteen minutes. There was no hot water supply in the cells. On many occasions inmates infected with tuberculosis, hepatitis or meningitis were placed in the same cell as the applicant. 21.  On 20 July 2007 the applicant felt pain in the small of his back and numbness in his left leg with partial loss of motor activity. He was seen by a surgeon, who recommended an X-ray of the lower lumbar region. 22.  On 13 August 2007 the applicant was transferred to the prison hospital in connection with osteochondrosis of the lumbosacral region of the spine, aggravated by radiculopathy. He received treatment for ten days and was told to use a walking cane.
(b)  Tuberculosis 23.  On 5 May and 2 November 2007 the applicant underwent a chest x‑ray test. On 6 November 2007 he had a tomography scan. According to the applicant’s medical records, the test results were negative. 24.  On 18 March 2008 the applicant was admitted to the prison hospital, where he was to undergo treatment for osteochondrosis. On 28 March 2008 the applicant had another x-ray examination which spotted certain changes in his lungs. 25.  From 8 April to 7 September 2008 the applicant received special anti-tuberculosis inpatient treatment. Subsequently, the applicant continued to receive outpatient treatment. 26.  On 14 November 2008 the applicant was transferred to medical correctional facility LIU-3 where he underwent further treatment. He was released on parole on 30 November 2009. 27.  On 1 December 2009 the applicant underwent an examination in an outpatient clinic in Moscow. He had a computer tomography test which “did not exclude the possibility of infiltrative tuberculosis with one area of disaggregation”. The applicant did not provide any further follow-up on his condition.