5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Alicante, Spain. 6.  On 7 July 2004 the applicant, a police officer at the time, lent 20,000 Russian roubles (RUB) to M. The latter failed to repay the loan. On an unspecified date, in order to make her pay the debt, the applicant tricked M. into giving him her travel passport. 7.  On 14 January 2007 M. let K., a friend of the applicant’s, into her flat. K. asked her to repay the loan, which she could not do. Then the applicant broke into M.’s flat and beat her up. M. sustained a closed head injury and fractured ribs, and received treatment in hospital. 8.  On 15 January 2007 M. complained about the beating to the local department of the interior where the applicant was serving as a police officer. On 19 January 2007 she lodged a complaint with the prosecutor’s office, alleging that on 14 January 2007 the applicant had entered her flat against her will. 9.  On 1 February 2007 the prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation into M.’s complaint. 10.  On 5 February 2007 the applicant made an undertaking not to leave town. 11.  On 9 February 2007 the Volsk Town Court ordered that the applicant be temporarily removed from office. The applicant did not appeal. 12.  On 10 February 2007 the applicant was indicted on charges of unlawful entry and assault with bodily injuries. 13.  On 19 April 2007 the applicant was indicted on a charge of abuse of power. 14.  On 26 April 2007 the Volsk Town Court received the case-file. 15.  On 31 May 2007 the applicant gave an interview to the local newspaper alleging that one of the prosecutor’s witnesses had a grudge against him and had testified against him out of revenge. 16.  On 15 June 2007 the Volsk Town Court established that the applicant had made threats to M. and other witnesses with intent to intimidate them and ordered that the applicant be detained pending trial. On 2 July 2007 the Saratov Regional Court upheld the decision of 15 June 2007 on appeal. 17.  On 17 August 2007 the Town Court found the applicant guilty of unlawful entry, assault with bodily injuries and misappropriation of M.’s passport, and sentenced him to two years’ suspended imprisonment and a fine. He was released in the courtroom. 18.  On 1 November 2007 the Saratov Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. 19.  From 15 June to 17 August 2007 the applicant was detained alternately at the temporary detention centre in Volsk and in remand prison no. IZ-64/1 in Saratov. 20.  The applicant was detained in cell no. 6 at the temporary detention centre in Volsk from 15 to 16 June, 27 June to 3 July, 11 to 19 July and 27 July to 17 August 2007.
(a)  Description provided by the Government 21.  According to the Government, the cell where the applicant was detained measured 5.85 sq. m and contained two beds. During the first two periods of detention the applicant was held in the cell alone. During the second two periods another inmate was held there with the applicant. The cell had no windows and was lit with a 200-watt electric bulb. Nor was the cell equipped with a toilet; the inmates had to use a bucket, which was placed some 1.5 metres from the beds and 3.5 metres from the dining table. There was no screen separating the “toilet zone” from the rest of the cell. The temporary detention centre had no exercise yard and inmates detained there had to stay in their cells all the time.
(b)  Description provided by the applicant 22.  According to the applicant, he was detained in a windowless cell measuring 1.3 sq. m. The cell was not equipped with a toilet or running water. The applicant had to use a bucket placed in the cell as both a toilet and a sink. He was allowed to empty the bucket once a day. The mattress and a pillow given to him were dirty and smelt foul. No bed linen was provided. The cell was infested with rats. The ventilation system was on for no more than forty minutes a day. The constant fetid smell in the cell made the applicant sick and gave him headaches. When it rained, water leaked into one of the corners and flooded the cell. The concrete floors were always damp. The walls were covered with mould. Because of the dampness of the cell, the applicant developed painful breathing. 23.  There was no access to natural light. The cell was lit with a 40-watt electric bulb. The temporary detention centre had no outdoor exercise area and the applicant was confined to the cell for twenty-four hours a day. Breakfast consisted of hot water only. For dinner the inmates received cold leftovers from lunch. The food served for dinner often turned sour owing to the lack of refrigerators in the temporary detention centre. 24.  The Government’s submissions as regards the conditions of the applicant’s detention in remand prison no. IZ-64/1 in Saratov can be summarised as follows:
Period of detention
Cell no.
Surface area (in square metres)
Number of inmates
Number of beds
From 16 to 18 June
18 25.  Each cell had one window which ensured access to daylight. The windows were covered with metal bars with 200-sq. cm openings. All the cells in the remand prison were equipped with a ventilation system in good working order. The electric lighting was constantly on. From 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. the cells were lit with a 100-watt bulb and from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. with a 40-watt bulb for safety and surveillance purposes. 26.  Each cell had a water closet separated from the living area with a 1.5-metre high partition. The distance between the toilet and the beds/dining table was at least 2 metres. The inmates had the right to daily outdoor exercise lasting at least an hour.
(b)  Description provided by the applicant 27.  The applicant did not dispute the Government’s submissions as regards the periods of his detention in the remand prison and the numbering of the cells where he had been detained. He provided the following additional data regarding the size of the cells and the number of inmates:
Cell no.
Surface area (in square metres)
Number of inmates
18 28.  Each cell had a window covered with three layers of metal bars with 100-sq. cm openings. The window ensured access to daylight. The electric light was constantly on. There was no dining table in cell no. 117. The toilet was located in the corner of the cell no more than 1.5 m from the dining table and no more than 2 m from the nearest bed. The toilet was separated with brick walls without a door and offered no privacy. The ventilation system was not effective enough to evacuate the smell emanating from the toilet. No hot water was supplied; nor was there cold running water between 5.45 a.m. and noon. The inmates were allowed one hour’s outdoor exercise per day, which was cancelled in the event of rain. The food was of very poor quality and scarce. The pickled cabbage was rancid and smelled bad, the potatoes were black and rotten. The milk turned sour immediately or contained grey residue. The fish was rotten. No fruit or vegetables were served. 29.  According to the applicant, all the letters he sent to his family and friends were opened and censored. 30.  According to the Government, on the days of the applicant’s transfer between the remand prison and the temporary detention centre, he was provided with a dry food ration. He received 300 grams of biscuits, 30 grams of soup concentrate, 168 grams of main-course concentrate, 40 grams of sugar and 2 grams of tea. The inmates were placed in special vans and taken to the railway station. Being a former police officer, the applicant was placed in a van compartment alone. The travel time did not exceed twenty minutes. Upon arrival at the station, the inmates were placed in railway carriages. At all times, the applicant had an individual sleeping place. The train journey lasted from six to eight hours. The applicant was provided with hot water to be used with the food concentrates and drinking water. He was allowed to use the toilet. At the destination railway station, the inmates were again placed in vans and taken to the respective detention facility.
(b)  Description provided by the applicant 31.  According to the applicant, on the days on which he was transported between the remand prison and temporary detention centre, notably 27 June, 3, 11, 19 and 27 July 2007, the journey lasted from eight to sixteen hours. No food was provided. The inmates were placed in compartments measuring 1.2 to 2 square metres. During the first four transfers there were three inmates in the compartment, including the applicant, and during the fifth transfer there were four inmates, including the applicant. There were three berths in the compartment measuring 1.2 square metres and the applicant had to share his sleeping place with another inmate. During the journey, the detainees were given water once and were allowed to use the toilet once. For the rest of the time they had to use plastic bags or bottles in the compartment to answer calls of nature. The toilet in the railway carriage had no sink. 32.  The applicant submitted two statements from inmates V. and N. who had been transported with him on 3 and 11 July 2007 respectively. Both V. and N. confirmed the applicant’s description of the conditions in which they had been transported. In particular, V. submitted as follows:
“... on 3 July 2007 [the applicant] and myself were placed in a railway carriage ... to be transferred to remand prison no. IZ-64/1 in Saratov. We arrived at Saratov at around 2 a.m. (the journey lasted sixteen hours). During the trip we were allowed to use the toilet once and we received water once. We were held in a compartment measuring 2 square metres equipped with three berths. Other amenities, food or hot water were not available.” 33.  Following his removal from office pending criminal proceedings (see paragraph 11 above), the applicant brought a claim against the local department of the interior for lost earnings. 34.  On 26 September 2007 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Saratov granted the applicant’s claim and ordered the local department of the interior to pay to the applicant a monthly allowance in the amount of RUB 7,806.70 during his temporary removal from office, and for court and legal expenses. 35.  On 23 October 2007 the District Court amended the operative part of the judgment of 26 September 2007 and ruled that the local department of the interior should pay the applicant RUB 36,833.14 for unlawful temporary removal from office for the period between 1 July and 1 November 2007. 36.  On 15 November 2007 the Saratov Regional Court upheld the judgment of 26 September 2007 on appeal. 37.  On 13 December 2007 the bailiff received the writ of execution. 38.  It appears that there were certain technical errors in the text of the writ of execution and on 27 February 2008 the applicant asked the District Court to rectify them. 39.  On 18 March 2008 the District Court ordered the local department of the interior to pay the applicant arrears totalling RUB 36,833.17 in connection with the authorities’ failure to execute the judgment of 26 September 2007. On an unspecified date the applicant forwarded the relevant writ of execution to the bailiff’s office. 40.  On 21 April 2008 the bailiff closed the enforcement proceedings and returned both writs of execution to the applicant, noting that the execution of the judgments in the applicant’s favour was not within the competence of the bailiff’s office. 41.  On 25 September 2009 the District Court clarified the content of the judgment of 26 September 2007 and ordered the local department of the interior to pay the applicant arrears in the amount of RUB 68,059.90 for the period from 9 February to 1 November 2007. 42.  On an unspecified date the applicant asked the court to adjust the amount of the award in view of the lengthy period of non-enforcement of the judgments in his favour and to award him RUB 83,901.53 for lost earnings, RUB 1,248 for court expenses and RUB 1,000 for legal expenses. 43.  On 28 October 2009 the District Court granted the applicant’s claim and awarded him RUB 84,846.45, broken down as follows: RUB 82,597 for lost wages; RUB 1,248 for reimbursement of court expenses (travel and postage); and RUB 1,000 for reimbursement of legal expenses. 44.  On 22 April 2010 the applicant sent the writ of execution to a federal treasury department. On 18 May 2010 the sum of the award was transferred to his account. 45.  On 5 February 2008 the applicant instituted criminal proceedings against M., accusing her of libel. 46.  On 22 May 2007 the justice of the peace delivered a not-guilty verdict. On an unspecified date the verdict was upheld on appeal. On 9 October 2008 the Saratov Regional Court held a cassation hearing and upheld the verdict and the appeal judgment. 47.  On 21 January 2009 the prosecutor’s office refused to prosecute M. on perjury charges.