6.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Novosibirsk. He is currently serving a sentence in correctional facility IK-18 of the Novosibirsk Region. 7.  On 6 April 1993 the applicant was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. 8.  On 10 June 1996 the applicant swallowed a piece of electrode and was admitted to the surgical unit of medical penitentiary institution LIU-10, Novosibirsk («лечебно-исправительное учреждение № 10», hereafter LIU-10). He had a chest X-ray and was diagnosed with infiltrative tuberculosis of the upper lobes of the lungs in the active phase. The applicant was treated with ethambutol[1] and isoniazid[2]. 9.  On 28 May 1998 the applicant was discharged from LIU-10 to Prison UF-91/21, Novosibirsk («УФ-91/21», hereafter UF-91/21) with a diagnosis of infiltrative tuberculosis resulting in fibrosis and dense foci in the upper lobes of the lungs. 10.  On 12 April 2000 the applicant was again placed in LIU-10 on account of suspected relapse of tuberculosis. After a medical examination he was diagnosed with infiltrative tuberculosis of the upper lobes of the lungs with dense foci and prescribed with streptomycin, isoniazid, rifampicin[3], ethambutol, pyrazinamide, methionine, diasoline, vitamin B6 and sodium thiosulfate. On 3 May 2000 the applicant stated in writing that he refused to take the prescribed treatment. According to the Government, the course of treatment continued. 11.  Having been granted amnesty, the applicant was released from LIU‑10 on 16 August 2000. 12.  According to the Government, on his release from detention the applicant failed to apply for registration to the centre for prevention of tuberculosis (“the prophylactic centre”). The applicant submitted that his attempt to register at the prophylactic centre had been futile as he had had no valid permanent residence registration. 13.  On 4 June 2001 the applicant was placed on the list of the prophylactic centre of Krasnozersk Hospital and diagnosed with focal tuberculosis of the upper lobes of the lungs in the resorption and induration phase. 14.  On 29 June 2001 the applicant presented himself at the prophylactic centre. He underwent a medical examination and was issued with a certificate confirming that he was fit to work as an operator of agricultural machinery. 15.  On 28 October 2001 the applicant was arrested on charges of infliction of bodily injuries and incarcerated in the temporary detention facility of the Krasnozerskiy District Department of the Interior of the Novosibirsk Region. Upon the arrest he was not given blood tests for hepatitis C. 16.  On 29 October 2001 the applicant complained to his guards that he was spitting blood. They escorted him to the prophylactic centre of Krasnozersk Hospital. The applicant had a chest X-ray and was diagnosed with clinical recovery from tuberculosis resulting in infrequent calcifications. No medical evidence of haemoptysis (coughing blood) was found. 17.  On 14 November 2001 the applicant was transferred to remand centre SIZO No. 2, Kuybyshev, the Novosibirsk Region, and underwent a medical examination there. 18.  On 26 February 2002 the Krasnozerskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region convicted the applicant and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. 19.  On 8 April 2002 the Novosibirsk Regional Court amended the judgment on appeal and reduced the sentence to seven years’ imprisonment.
(b) Detention in prison UF-91/13 20.  On 26 April 2002 the applicant was transferred to serve his sentence in Prison UF-91/13, Novosibirsk (УФ-91/13, hereafter UF-91/13). 21.  On 31 July 2002 the applicant was placed in LIU-10 and diagnosed with clinical recovery from pulmonary tuberculosis resulting in fibrosis and dense foci, stenocardia and extra-systolic arrhythmia. On 8 August 2002 he was discharged from LIU-10 and transferred back to UF‑91/13. 22.  On 30 September 2002 the applicant went on hunger strike, which led to a deterioration in his state of health. On 7 October 2002 the applicant declined the prison authorities’ offer to place him in hospital. On 9 October 2002 the applicant was admitted to the prison infirmary of UF-91/13 and ended his hunger strike. According to the Government, while in the UF-91/13 infirmary, the applicant did not keep to the prescribed diet and refused to undergo certain tests or take treatment. On 23 October 2002 he was discharged from the UF-91/13 infirmary for failure to comply with its rules. 23.  On 13 January 2003 the applicant was transferred away from UF‑91/13 to an unspecified penitentiary institution.
(c) Medical assistance available to the applicant after 2 April 2003 24.  Between 2 April 2003 and 20 August 2004 the applicant was kept in Prison UF-91/15 (УФ-91/15, hereafter UF-91/15). 25.  On 5 November 2003 the applicant was placed in the inter-regional tuberculosis hospital («межобластная туберкулезная больница», hereafter MSTB), a specialised facility within LIU-10, for clinical confirmation of diagnoses of ischaemia and chronic hepatitis. On 18 December 2003 he was discharged from the MSTB to UF-91/15 with a diagnosis of compound gastritis, pyloric spasm and emotionally unstable personality disorder. 26.  On an unspecified date in 2004 the applicant was transferred to UF‑91/21. On arrival he was listed in the prison medical register. The Government submitted that on several occasions the applicant had refused to take preventive anti-tuberculosis medications. According to the applicant, shortly after the transfer to UF‑91/21 he was placed in its prison infirmary where he received injections with non-disposable syringes. 27.  On 25 October 2004 the applicant was placed in the MSTB on account of suspected relapse of tuberculosis and underwent general and biochemical blood tests, as well as a chest X-ray. He was diagnosed with recurrence of infiltrative tuberculosis of the upper lobe of the left lung. 28.  According to the Government, on 29 November 2004 the applicant’s blood test revealed antibodies to viral hepatitis C. Relying on the test results, the LIU-10 doctors diagnosed the applicant with chronic hepatitis C and treated him with essenciale, cerucal, riboksin and vitamins C, B1 and B6. The applicant submitted that at some point Mr G., the deputy head of LIU-10, referring to scarce budgetary financing, offered to purchase some costly hepatoprotective medicines for him at his own expense. 29.  On 16 December 2004 and 27 January 2005 the applicant’s blood tests revealed no acute hepatitis C. The applicant was then prescribed ninety-three doses of anti-tuberculosis medications, such as isoniazid, rifampicin, ethambutol, protionamid and streptomycin. On 26 January 2005 the MSTB doctor filed with the head of LIU‑10 a report stating that the applicant had taken none of the prescribed doses. 30.  On 7 February 2005 the applicant was discharged from the MSTB and placed in the LIU-10 infirmary. He was prescribed five anti-tuberculosis medicines, vitamins and hepatoprotective treatment. According to the Government, on several occasions, namely on 11 February, 2 and 30 March, 8 and 12 April, 20 June and 12 July 2005, as well as on 2 February 2006, the applicant refused to take the prescribed anti-tuberculosis treatment. 31.  On 30 March 2005 the doctors of the LIU-10 infirmary prescribed the applicant with a course of anti-tuberculosis medication comprising sixty doses. 32.  According to the Government, the applicant’s tuberculosis had been stabilised by August 2005. 33.  On 25 October 2005 the applicant took blood tests and was diagnosed with infiltrative tuberculosis and hepatitis C in a partial remission stage. No acute hepatitis C was revealed at that time. According to the applicant, he received no antiviral or hepatoprotective treatment. 34.  On 9 December 2005 the LIU-10 infirmary doctor issued a certificate confirming that the applicant had taken none of the sixty doses of the prescribed anti-tuberculosis medication. 35.  On 18 April 2006 the applicant was transferred to the MSTB for inpatient treatment and allegedly placed in a cell with active tuberculosis carriers. On 27 April 2006 the applicant was discharged from the MSTB and transferred back to LIU-10. 36.  On an unspecified date in 2007 the applicant was transferred from LIU‑10 to correctional facility IK-18 of the Novosibirsk Region. 37.  On unspecified dates in 2005 the applicant complained to the prosecutor’s office of the Novosibirsk Region (“the regional prosecutor’s office”) about his infection with hepatitis C and lack of medical assistance in LIU-10. By letters of 11 and 13 April 2005 the regional prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that his complaints had been dismissed as unsubstantiated. 38.  At some point the applicant complained to the Main Department of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences in the Novosibirsk Region. On 4 July 2005 they replied that the applicant had been refusing to comply with doctors’ instructions and had taken only six out of sixty prescribed doses of anti-tuberculosis treatment. They commented that the applicant had been provided with appropriate and comprehensive medical assistance. 39.  The applicant applied for conditional release on health grounds. On 15 April 2005 the Novosibirskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region dismissed his request. Apparently the applicant did not appeal against the decision. 40.  The applicant sued a regional branch of the Federal Penitentiary Service claiming compensation for damage to health. On 28 February 2005 the Dzerzhinsk District Court of Novosibirsk returned the statement of claims to the applicant for elimination of discrepancies. It appears that the applicant did not comply with the court’s request. He lodged another statement of claims, which was returned to him for a failure to eliminate discrepancies by the Dzerzhinsk District Court of Novosibirsk on 1 August 2005. Apparently the applicant did not appeal against the decision. 41.  The applicant believed that his property rights had been infringed by a private company and lodged against it two statements of claims, one of which was returned to him for elimination of discrepancies on 8 November 2005. On 3 April 2006 the second action was disallowed for failure to pay a court fee. The applicant did not appeal against the rulings. 42.  The applicant complained to the regional prosecutor’s office that Mr G. had made death threats to him. He also complained about his infection with hepatitis C and interference with his correspondence with the Court. 43.  By letter of 27 March 2006 the regional prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that they had dismissed the entire set of his complaints as unsubstantiated. They observed, in particular, the following:
“<...> [Medical] data obtained in the course of the objective examination excludes viral hepatitis’ activity and the need to administer antiviral treatment.
The infection with hepatitis C could have occurred as a result of repeated acts of self-mutilation [that damaged] the epidermis and the mucous membrane of the stomach, committed in March and May 1995 and June and September 1996. Since 2000 [medical] facilities of the Novosibirsk Region penitentiaries have used only disposable syringes and needles; thus the possibility of infection with viral hepatitis C in these facilities is excluded.
<...> In 2005 [the applicant] sent no applications to the European Court via the LIU‑10 administration; however, he received acknowledgment of receipt dated 16 January 2006 of his application form dated 9 November 2005. In 2006 [the applicant] sent two letters to the European Court, namely a sealed letter of 14 February 2006 and [the applicant’s] explanation of 17 February 2006; by 22 March 2006 LIU-10 had not received any replies to these letters.” 44.  On 29 August 2006 the regional prosecutor’s office received the applicant’s complaint of poor detention conditions and insufficient medical assistance in LUI-10, as well as about the disciplinary sanctions imposed on him by the LIU-10 authorities. 45.  On 29 September 2006 the regional prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that they had carried out an inquiry into the facts complained of and established the following. In 2006 LIU-10 had been fully supplied with anti-tuberculosis treatment and thus the necessary medication had been available to the applicant. The applicant’s allegations that Mr G. had extorted foreign currency from him in exchange for expensive hepatoprotective medicines were rebutted, as Mr G. had only advised the applicant of his right to purchase additional treatment. 46.  On 18 August 2005 the applicant sent his first letter to the Court. 47.  On 8 December 2005 the applicant, referring to his poor state of health and lack of adequate medical assistance in LIU-10, requested the Court to indicate to the Government interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. He submitted that he was unable to submit copies of his medical record kept in LIU-10. 48.  On 26 January 2006 the President of the Chamber requested the Government to submit factual information on the case. 49.  On 20 April 2006 the Court forwarded the factual information submitted by the Government to the applicant for comments, to be submitted before 1 June 2006. On 4 May 2006 the LIU-10 authorities received the Court’s letter. According to the applicant, he was served with it only on 25 May 2006. 50.  On 26 July 2006 the Court acknowledged receipt of the applicant’s letter. On 11 August 2006 the Court’s letter reached LIU-10. The letter carries the LIU-10 incoming mail stamp. 51.  On 8 September 2006 the Court informed the applicant that his case had been communicated to the Government. On 22 September 2006 the Court’s letter reached LIU-10. The letter carries the LIU-10 incoming mail stamp placed next to a signature of the Section Registrar. 52.  On 13 September 2006 the Court acknowledged receipt of the applicant’s letter. On 2 October 2006 the Court’s letter reached LIU-10. The letter carries the LIU-10 incoming mail stamp placed next to a signature of a lawyer of the Registry. 53.  On 19 September 2006 the Court acknowledged receipt of the applicant’s letters. On 13 October 2006 the Court’s letter reached LIU-10. The letter carries the LIU-10 incoming mail stamp placed next to a signature of a lawyer of the Registry. 54.  On 22 September 2006 the Court acknowledged receipt of the applicant’s letters. On 13 October 2006 the Court’s letter reached LIU-10. The letter carries the LIU-10 incoming mail stamp placed next to a signature of a lawyer of the Registry.
(b) Sanctions imposed on the applicant 55. Between 13 February 2002 and 4 May 2005 the applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell six times and reprimanded five times for failure to comply with prison regulations. 56.  The applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell a further nine times. In particular, on 28 October 2005 he was sanctioned for storing prohibited items; on 1 and 22 March, 14 April, 24 May and 21 July 2006 for unauthorised visits to certain areas of a penitentiary institution; on 14 June 2006 for smoking outside the designated area. On 29 September 2006 he was again confined in a disciplinary cell for swearing at an officer, and on 13 October 2006 he was punished for sending a complaint to the Prosecutor General without the authorities’ permission. 57.  On 17 March and 6 September 2006 the applicant was reprimanded for swearing. Two more reprimands were given him, on 10 July and 14 August 2006, for unauthorised visits to certain areas of a penitentiary institution.
(c) Conversations with the LIU-10 officials 58.  On 14 February 2006 the applicant handed over to the LIU-10 authorities a sealed letter to the Court. On the same date Mr S., the new deputy head of LIU-10, and two other officials, Mr K. and Mr L., organised a meeting with the applicant and discussed the contents of the letter. The case file contains a certificate signed by the three officials, which reads as follows:
“On 14 February 2006 a conversation was held with the convict Mechenkov in the educational work unit [of LIU-10] concerning the sealed complaint he had lodged. In the course of the conversation Mechenkov refused to inform the [LIU-10] officers of the purpose of the complaint and of its content.” 59.  According to the applicant, on 27 March 2006 Mr S. in the presence of Mr K. said to the applicant, alluding to the latter’s application to the Court, that he “had got mixed up with the State that had no mercy” and that even if he survived in prison, he might be hit by a car after his release. 60.  On 7 July 2006 Mr S., Mr K. and Mr L. held another meeting with the applicant and issued a certificate analogous to that of 14 February 2006. On the same date they sent the applicant’s letter to the Court. 61.  On 2 August 2006 Mr S., Mr K. and Mr L. discussed his sealed complaint to the Court with the applicant and issued a certificate to that effect. 62.  On 19 and 27 October 2006 Mr S., Mr K. and Mr L. issued certificates confirming that they had had conversations with the applicant concerning his sealed complaints and stating that the applicant had refused to disclose their contents. On the same dates the LIU-10 authorities sent the applicant’s letters to the Court. 63.  On 17 December 2006 and 9 January 2007 Mr L. issued certificates confirming that he had conversed with the applicant and that the latter had refused to disclose the contents of his sealed letters. On 18 December 2006 and 9 January 2007 the LIU-10 authorities sent the applicant’s letters to the Court.
II. MEDICAL documents submitted by the Government 64.  The Government submitted to the Court copies of a number of documents related to the applicant’s medical history. Most of the copies are of poor quality. 65.  Majority of the documents relate to the events between June 1996 and March 2003 and concern the treatment that the applicant received on account of tuberculosis. The documents submitted that relate to the applicant’s hepatitis C may be summarised as follows. 66.  A barely legible one-page document entitled “Discharge summary” is dated 18 December 2003; it is unclear which medical institution issued it. It transpires from the document that by 18 December 2003 the applicant had been diagnosed with chronic hepatitis of unconfirmed aetiology in inactive phase. 67.  A record dated 5 November 2004 that appears in a document entitled “Medical record” lists the applicant’s diagnosises, including chronic viral hepatitis C with zero activity. 68.  The case file contains one page of the “Discharge summary”. It is clear from the content of the document that the discharge summary contains more than one page. The document confirms that between 25 October 2004 and 7 February 2005 the applicant was kept in the MSTB and diagnosed with infiltrative tuberculosis concurrent with chronic viral hepatitis C with zero activity. It transpires from the document that the applicant had unspecified blood tests, chest X-ray and electrocardiogram. 69.  According to a one-page document that presumably forms part of a medical record, on 11 February 2005 the applicant visited a doctor and complained that he had been infected with hepatitis C in UF-91/15. The applicant, who had refused to take anti-tuberculosis treatment, was prescribed with essenciale, vitamin B6 and two more medicines, the names of which are illegible. 70.  The case file contains a barely legible one-page document from which it transpires that the applicant spent some time in an unspecified medical institution with a diagnosis of recurrence of tuberculosis concurrent with viral hepatitis C with zero activity. The document contains no information concerning the treatment prescribed to the applicant.