5.  The applicant was born in 1987 and lives in Orenburg. 6.  During the night of 14 September 2008 the applicant had an altercation with Ms K. in a local bar. He repeatedly slapped her across the face in response to her allegedly insulting behaviour. Ms K. called the police, complaining that she had been beaten up and robbed of two gold rings. Criminal investigation was instituted following the complaint. 7.  According to the applicant, he went to the Leninskiy District police department the following day and submitted a written statement explaining the events of the previous night. He denied having robbed Ms K. but admitted to hitting her a number of times in the course of a heated argument. An officer on duty immediately wrote a report informing the head of the Leninskiy District police department that the applicant intended to abscond and to intimidate the victim and witnesses. In response, the head of the police department prepared a memorandum, which read as follows:
“The Operative Search Division of the Leninskiy District police department in Orenburg is in possession of information that [the applicant] ... is an accomplice to a number of serious criminal offences committed in Orenburg and has been arrested on a number of occasions on suspicion of having committed criminal offences. However, he avoided criminal liability owing to his connections with organised criminal groups. In November 2007 a stolen car was found in [the applicant’s] garage, and number plates from stolen cars were discovered in his house during the search. However, [the applicant] was released on his own recognisance. During that period witnesses were intimidated and threatened, and subsequently changed their statements. [The applicant] was not charged with the crime. It is known that [the applicant] is a member of an organised criminal group, ‘Marmony’, [and] that he enjoys authority within the criminal community despite his young age.” 8.  Having received the written statement from the applicant, a police investigator authorised the applicant’s arrest. He noted that both the victim and eyewitnesses had identified the applicant as the robber. 9.  On 17 September 2008 the applicant was charged with armed robbery. The police investigator asked the Leninskiy District Court of Orenburg to order the applicant’s remand in custody for seventy-two hours. On the same day the District Court accepted the investigator’s request for an extension of the detention for seventy-two hours. It noted that the decision to arrest the applicant was lawful and well-founded given the reasonable suspicion, confirmed by statements by the victim and eyewitnesses, that he had committed a serious criminal offence. 10.  On 19 September 2008 the police investigator released the applicant on his own recognisance. 11.  In January 2009 the applicant was served with the final version of the bill of indictment, charging him with aggravated armed robbery. He was committed to stand trial before the Leninksiy District Court. 12.  In the course of the trial proceedings, Ms K. amended her statements to say that she doubted that the applicant had taken her two gold rings. She accepted the possibility that the rings could have been lost during the altercation with the applicant. 13.  On 10 March 2009 the District Court dismissed the charge of aggravated armed robbery. It reclassified the offence committed by the applicant as an aggravated disorderly act performed in a public place with the use of objects resembling a weapon, and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. The applicant was immediately taken into custody. On 16 April 2009 the Orenburg Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal, endorsing the District Court’s reasoning. 14.  The applicant and his lawyer sought a supervisory review of the conviction. Following a round of unsuccessful complaints, their request was accepted. On 14 August 2009 the Registry of the Orenburg Regional Court sent letters to the applicant and his lawyer informing them that a hearing had been scheduled before the Presidium of the Regional Court on 31 August 2009. The letters indicated that the parties were free to attend the hearing, but that their absence did not preclude the examination of the matter. The Registry also forwarded to the applicant’s correctional colony a copy of a printed statement which was to be signed by him and returned to the court as soon as possible. The statement, in so far as relevant, read as follows:
“I, Chebotarev Sergey, have been informed that my supervisory review complaint [will be] examined on 31 August 2009.
I have been informed of my right to legal aid.
Delete where not applicable: 2.  I refuse legal aid, and my refusal is not connected to my financial status.
It has been explained to me that by virtue of Article 132 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure a court may order a defendant to bear the costs and expenses related to legal aid counsel’s participation in the proceedings.”
The applicant signed the statement on 14 August 2009 and it was immediately transferred to the Regional Court by fax. He also circled point no. 2 of the statement. 15.  On 31 August 2009 the Presidium of the Orenburg Regional Court, acting in response to a complaint made by the applicant’s lawyer, Mr Borisov, and by way of supervisory review proceedings, quashed the judgments of 10 March and 16 April 2009 and ordered a retrial. It reasoned as follows:
“By virtue of Article 252 § 2 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, the legal reclassification of a charge is possible in the course of a court hearing if such a reclassification does not place the defendant in a worse legal position and does not violate his defence rights.
As it appears from the decision to indict [the applicant] and the bill of indictment, [the applicant] was charged with [the following]: on 14 September 2008, at 12.25 a.m., in a bar ... he sought to steal another’s property; using an object resembling a weapon he threatened the life and limb of Ms K.; he threatened [Ms K.] with violence; and he openly stole gold objects ... At the same time, he used violence that did not pose a threat to the life and limb of the bar manager, Mr L., who had tried to stop [the applicant’s] unlawful actions; that is, [he] was charged with the criminal offence described in Article 162 § 2 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the course of the trial the court amended the charges, having found [the applicant] guilty of a criminal offence laid down by Article 213 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code, namely disorderly conduct – a serious disturbance of public order exhibited in flagrant disrespect of society, carried out with an object resembling a weapon [and] in connection with resistance against a person seeking to put an end to the public disorder.
Having provided reasons for its decision to reclassify the actions of the defendant, the trial court noted in the judgment that [the applicant’s] intention to commit a robbery had not been proven at the court hearing; during the altercation [the applicant] had not ordered the victim to hand over the gold objects but had acted on a rowdy impulse while pursuing other goals.
[The applicant] was not charged with disorderly conduct and he did not have an opportunity to defend himself against the new charge ...
The reclassification of [the applicant’s] offence in the course of the trial from Article 162 § 2 to Article 213 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code is in violation of the law and led to the limitation of his right to defend himself guaranteed by the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure.” 16.  By the same decision the Presidium ordered the applicant’s remand in custody, without citing any reasons or setting a time-limit. The applicant, who at the material time was serving his sentence in a correctional colony, was not taken to the supervisory review hearing, but his lawyer attended. 17.  On 2 September 2009 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. He argued that the Presidium’s decision ordering the applicant’s remand in custody was manifestly ill-founded and unlawful. The lawyer further submitted that his client was not likely to abscond or re-offend as he had been released on his own recognisance before, he had not violated the conditions of his release, and he had had permanent places of work and residence before his conviction. 18.  Two weeks later, the Supreme Court sent a letter to the applicant’s lawyer, asking him to submit copies of all court judgments bearing the courts’ stamps. On 9 October 2009 the lawyer complied with the requirement and sent duly certified copies of all judgments issued by the Leninskiy District and Orenburg Regional Courts and the Presidium in respect of the applicant. He did not receive any decision following his appeal. 19.  In the meantime, on 28 September 2009 the Leninskiy District Court of Orenburg scheduled the first trial hearing and extended the applicant’s detention, having noted the gravity of the charges against him and the lack of any evidence that he was not fit to remain in custody. 20.  It appears from the District Court’s decision of 26 October 2009 that after the Regional Court had sent the case file back to the trial court, the prosecutor’s office amended the charges against the applicant to aggravated disorderly conduct instead of robbery. 21.  On 5 November 2009 the Leninskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of aggravated disorderly conduct and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. During the trial the applicant and his lawyers built a line of defence against the charges of both robbery and disorderly conduct. They argued that the applicant was guilty of neither of the two crimes and that he had merely hit the victim a couple of times, and had thus committed battery. 22.  On 22 December 2009 the Regional Court upheld the conviction, noting that both the applicant and his lawyer had had time to prepare their defence against the charge of aggravated disorderly conduct as the prosecutor’s office had brought the new charge before the trial had commenced. In the Regional Court’s opinion, the applicant had effectively pursued his line of defence against the new charge. 23.  The applicant complained that on 22 September 2009 he had been transferred to facility no. IZ-56/1 in Orenburg where he had remained until 26 January 2010. He supported his submissions with a handwritten statement of an inmate who had been detained in the same facility between 2008 and 2010. The applicant described the conditions of his detention as inhuman: there was severe overcrowding, with less than two square meters of personal space afforded to inmates. He argued that given the number of persons and bunks in the cells, the conditions had been particularly cramped. 24.  The applicant further submitted that he had been kept in cells measuring between 20 and 45 square metres and housing eight to sixteen inmates. He stressed that the number of detainees in the cells had never dropped below eight. For the first ten days after his admission to the facility on 22 September 2009, he was held in a cell measuring five metres by nine metres with fourteen sleeping places and accommodating sixteen inmates. Inmates had to take turns to sleep because of the shortage of sleeping places. Save for the first ten days of his detention, the applicant had an individual sleeping place at all times. He further complained that the bedding had been changed only twice during his entire stay in the facility. The cell window, located slightly below the ceiling, was 50 cm wide and 50 cm long. Metal plates had been installed outside the windows, which significantly reduced the amount of daylight that could penetrate the cells. The windows could not be opened to allow access to fresh air. In order to open them, inmates had to remove the glass from the window frames. Lighting in the cells was produced by a 100-watt bulb, which was turned on day and night. The applicant was unable to sleep well with the lighting turned on. He suffered from severe headaches and exhaustion. The cells were in a deplorable sanitary condition and infested with insects, cockroaches and bedbugs. 25.  The applicant further submitted that the cells had been equipped with a sink, a tap for cold running water and a lavatory pan. The lavatory pan was placed in a corner of the cell and separated from the living area by a metre-high brick partition. The applicant argued that the partition had afforded no privacy, as it had only been installed on one side. Inmates using the lavatory could still be observed by other inmates and warders. The applicant had been able to take a shower once a week. 26.  Food – mostly cabbage, soya products, cereals and potatoes – had been served in paltry quantities. Detainees had drunk water from the cell tap, as no drinking water had been provided. 27.  Relying on certificates issued by the director of facility IZ-56/1 on 30 June 2011, extracts from the inmate population logs for three dates in September 2009, eight dates for each month of October and November 2009 and January 2010 and nine dates in December 2009, and a cell register (a card recording the applicant’s movements between the cells), the Government claimed that between 22 September 2009 and 26 January 2010 the applicant had stayed in six different cells measuring between 15 and 17.4 square metres. The Government further argued that two smaller cells measuring 15 and 16 square metres respectively, had contained six sleeping places and housed three other inmates. The remaining cells had eight sleeping places and had accommodated four inmates. The Government also provided the Court with handwritten affidavits of facility warders to confirm the number of sleeping places in each of the cells. They stressed that the applicant had had an individual sleeping place at all times. 28.  The Government stated that each cell where the applicant had been held had a window measuring approximately one square metre. The windows had not been covered with metal plates or shades which could have blocked access to natural light or fresh air. The windows had been glazed. Inmates had also been able to open a small casing in the window. The Government further confirmed the applicant’s submission related to the lighting arrangement. They clarified that a 100-watt bulb had been turned off after 10 p.m. and that a 40-watt bulb installed above the cell door had ensured security lighting in the cell at night. The cells had been equipped with a properly functioning ventilation system. 29.  A lavatory pan had been installed in the corner of the cell 2 metres away from the dining table and 1.5 metres away from the closest bunk. The Government insisted that the lavatory pan had been separated from the living area by a ceiling-high brick partition. A door had been installed on another side, forming a cubicle with a lavatory pan and a sink inside. 30.  Inmates were able to take a shower once a week for at least fifteen minutes. The bedding was changed once a week, after inmates had taken a shower. The cells were also cleaned once a week. 31.  The Government supported their description of the lighting and ventilation arrangements and the sanitary conditions with handwritten statements by facility personnel. Lastly, they stated that food had been served to inmates three times a day. The quantity and quality of the food had been checked daily by the medical personnel of the facility. The results of the checks had been recorded in the facility log.