6.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in the Krasnodar Region. 7.  On 18 May 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud. On 18 December 1999 she was released on bail. 8.  On 14 March 2000 the Rostov Regional Court received the case file and opened the trial against the applicant and four other persons. 9.  On 13 June 2000 the Rostov Regional Court found the applicant guilty of fraud and extortion and conditionally sentenced her to five years' imprisonment. However, on 2 November 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial. 10.  On 14 May 2001 the Rostov Regional Court found the applicant guilty of fraud, extortion, robbery, kidnapping, and theft and sentenced her to seven and a half years' imprisonment. She was taken into custody from the courtroom. 11.  On 16 January 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgment of 14 May 2001 on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial. The applicant was remanded in custody pending the determination of the criminal charges against her. 12.  On 1 July 2002 the Rostov Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 1 October 2002. It found as follows:
“The defendants [the applicant and four other persons] are charged with kidnapping, illegal deprivation of liberty, burglary and other crimes.
They have been in custody: ... [the applicant] – since 18 May 1999 ...
The Prosecutor requested that the defendants' detention be extended by 3 months.
Having examined the Prosecutor's request, and having heard the parties to the proceedings, the court considers it necessary to extend the defendants' detention by 3 months, that is, until 1 October 2002 inclusive, because they are charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences.
Under Articles 255 and 256 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, the defendants' detention on remand is extended by 3 (three) months, that is, from 1 July 2002 to 1 October 2002.” 13.  On 6 November 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the extension order, finding that it was sufficiently justified. 14.  On 1 October and 31 December 2002 and 31 March, 26 June, 25 September and 15 December 2003 the Rostov Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 1 January, 31 March, 30 June, 26 September, 25 December 2003 and 15 March 2004 respectively. The wording of the decisions was identical to that applied in the decision of 1 July 2002. 15.  The applicant appealed against each of the above-mentioned extension orders to the Supreme Court, arguing that they were not sufficiently reasoned and that the court had not taken into consideration her individual situation. On 12 February, 14 May, 16 July, 16 October and 24 December 2003 and 31 March 2004 respectively, the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the above-mentioned decisions on appeal. 16.  In the meantime, on 19 February 2004 the Rostov Regional Court extended the defendants' pre-trial detention until 19 May 2004, citing the gravity of the charges against them. The applicant appealed against the extension to the Supreme Court. 17.  On 10 March 2005, that is, after the applicant's conviction by the Regional Court (see paragraph 19 below), the Supreme Court of Russia terminated the examination of the applicant's appeal because she had been convicted by the Regional Court in the meantime. Neither the applicant nor her counsel were summoned to appear at the hearing. 18.  As regards the trial proceedings in the period from 27 February 2002 to 25 February 2004, the case was adjourned on over forty-two occasions: at the request of the applicant and her co-defendants, who wished to study the case file or the records of the hearings; at the requests of the applicant and her co-defendants for the replacement of their representatives and the need for their newly appointed representatives to study the case file; due to the illness of the defendants' representatives and their failure to appear before the court; and due to the illness of the applicant and co-defendants or following complaints made by them concerning their health. On one occasion the hearing was adjourned due to the failure of the authorities to transport the defendants to the courtroom. 19.  On 17 May 2004 the Regional Court found the applicant guilty of multiple counts of fraud, multiple counts of kidnapping, extortion, theft and robbery and sentenced her to five years' imprisonment. 20.  The applicant lodged an appeal. She claimed, in particular, that the lay judges had sat on the bench unlawfully. The law had been changed and after 1 January 2004 lay judges were no longer permitted to take part in the administration of justice. 21.  On 10 March 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation held an appeal hearing. The Supreme Court dismissed her appeal as unsubstantiated. As to her allegations about the allegedly unlawful composition of the tribunal, the court found that the trial had begun before 1 January 2004 and that the participation of two lay judges in the determination of the criminal charges against her had been in accordance with the principle of continuity of the trial. 22.  From 25 May to 8 December 2001 and from 11 February 2002 to 17 May 2005 the applicant was held in detention facility IZ-61/1 of Rostov‑on-Don (Следственный Изолятор ИЗ-61/1 Главного управления Федеральной службы исполнения наказаний по Ростовской области). Throughout this period the applicant was held in the following cells:
(a)  cell no. 181 measuring 25.5 square metres and designed to accommodate 6 detainees;
(b)  cell no. 183 measuring 32.2 square metres and designed to accommodate 8 detainees;
(c)  cell no. 185 measuring 19.2 square metres and designed to accommodate 4 detainees; and
(d)  cell no. 189 measuring 27.9 square metres and designed to accommodate 6 detainees.
(a)  The Government's account 23.  The number of inmates detained simultaneously with the applicant had not exceeded the design capacity of the cells. 24.  In each cell the applicant had an individual bed and had been provided with bedding (a mattress, a pillow, a blanket, two bed sheets and a pillowcase) and tableware (a spoon, a mug and a plate). 25.  Each cell had windows measuring at least 1.2 by 0.9 metres with glazed window panes equipped with vents easily accessible by the inmates. Access to fresh air and daylight had not been restricted. The level of natural lighting had corresponded to established sanitary norms and had allowed the inmates to read and write. 26.  The metal screens on the windows had been removed in December 2002. 27.  The cells had been illuminated with 100 watt filament lamps, which had been on from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. At night-time the cells had been lit by 40 watt security lights with tinted glass shades. The security lights had not disturbed the inmates' sleep. 28.  All cells had been ventilated by functioning extractor fans. Natural ventilation through windows had also been available. 29.  The cells had also been equipped with a functioning heating system. The average winter temperature had not dropped below plus 19 degrees Celsius, and the average summer temperature had not gone above plus 23 degrees Celsius. 30.  The applicant had received food of adequate quality and quantity in accordance with established legal norms. 31.  The applicant had been provided with adequate medical assistance. She had been detained separately from detainees suffering from tuberculosis, other infectious and skin diseases. She had undergone medical checkups on a regular basis and had been provided with necessary assistance following her requests. The applicant had never complained to the administration of IZ-61/1 about any alleged inadequacy in the treatment she had received. 32.  In support of their observations the Government provided several certificates issued by the director of IZ-61/1 in July 2009 and undated statements by prison wardens. They also submitted documents attesting to the destruction in 2006-2007 of registration logs (журналы покамерного размещения) in respect of the cells in IZ-61/1 following the expiry of the three-year time-limit for storing them.
(b)  The applicant's account 33.  The cells in which the applicant had been held had always been overcrowded. Cell no. 181 had accommodated 14-17 inmates, cell no. 183 had accommodated 60-70 inmates, cell no. 185 had accommodated 10-12 inmates, and cell no. 189 had accommodated 15-26 inmates at any given time. The inmates had been obliged to take turns to sleep. 34.  The small windows in the cells had been covered with metal screens which had still been in place in 2003 and which had prevented daylight and fresh air from coming in. 35.  The arrangement of the bunks in two tiers had left the detainees very limited space and access to daylight. The artificial light in the cells had been switched on around the clock and had disturbed the applicant's sleep. 36.  The ventilation system had not been functioning most of the time. The heating had also been inadequate. The cells had been very cold and damp. The air had been thick with the stench of tobacco, dirty laundry and the toilet. 37.  The cells had swarmed with insects. However, no remedial measures had been taken by the detention facility's administration in this respect. 38.  The lavatory in the corner of the cell, which had no flush system and no lid, had been elevated above the floor and had been separated by a 1.1 metre long partition from the wash basin, but not from the living area. It had always been occupied and had offered no privacy. 39.  The applicant had never been provided with any personal hygiene items or toiletries. 40.  The daily food ration had been poor in quality and scarce in supply. 41.  The prison yard had been overcrowded and unequipped for physical exercise. The walls of the yard had been covered with “shuba”, a sort of abrasive concrete lining designed to prevent detainees from leaning against the walls. They had been topped with metal spikes. 42.  The applicant had been allowed to take a shower once a week. On that day, she had not been allowed to go outside for a walk. 43.  The applicant claimed that her health condition had considerably deteriorated during her stay at IZ-61/1. She submitted that for almost nine months there had been no gynaecologist among the medical staff of the facility, which had prevented her from consulting a specialist in due time. Upon her release, she had been diagnosed with a number of diseases which she had not had prior to her placement in IZ-61/1, including: chronic pyelonephritis, chronic bronchitis, neurocirculatory dystonia, thyroid gland disease, gynaecological disease, and tooth decay. 44.  In support of her statements, the applicant produced written depositions by three former cellmates, Ms S., Ms K. and Ms Ch. They stated, in particular, that in 2000-2005 cell no. 189, where they had been detained together with the applicant and which had measured approximately 20 square meters, had housed 15 to 26 inmates at any one time. They also stated that they and the other detainees had slept in shifts. 45.  The Government did not contest that the applicant's former cellmates had been held in the same detention facility as the applicant during the relevant period of time. 46.  Besides making reference to the general provisions of domestic law governing the transport of detainees, the Government made no specific submissions as regards the conditions of the applicant's transport to and confinement at the holding cells area of the Rostov Regional Court. 47.  The Government submitted, however, that the applicant had been provided with food (dry rations and hot food) on the days when she had been taken to the courthouse. They relied on a certificate dated 17 July 2009 issued by the director of IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don.
(b)  The applicant's account 48.  The applicant had been transported from the detention facility to the courthouse on over one hundred and seventy-five occasions within a period of three years. 49.  On the days of court hearings, she had been taken from her cell early in the morning to the so-called “assembly cell”, together with other detainees who had a court hearing on that day. The “assembly cells” had been dark, damp, and smelly, without windows, ventilation or heating. They had not been equipped with lavatories or wash stands. The applicant had then been taken to a prison van. 50.  The applicant had been transported in an individual compartment of the van measuring 0.5 square metres. On many occasions she had to share that compartment with another person, and, owing to the lack of space, they had to take turns to sit on each other's lap. 51.  It had been very cold in the van in the winter and stiflingly hot in the summer. It had not been possible to use the lavatory. 52.  The transport to and from the courthouse had taken several hours on each occasion. The vehicle had collected detainees from other facilities and had made stops at other courthouses on its way. 53.  At the courthouse the applicant had been detained in a small, dirty, dim windowless cell measuring 1 square metre. There had been neither ventilation nor heating in the cell. The applicant had to ask the wardens to take her to the lavatory. 54.  On the days of court hearings, the applicant had not been provided with any food, as she had been taken from her cell before breakfast and taken back after dinner. She had not been given any food rations to take with her to the courthouse. Neither had she seen other detainees receive any. 55.  The applicant's former cellmates Ms S., Ms K. and Ms Ch. confirmed the above statements.