5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in the town of Roslavl, Smolensk Region. 6.  The applicant was arrested on 31 January 1996 and detained in Smolensk remand centre no. 67/1. Following a medical check on 24 October 1997 the applicant was diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis. In April 1998 he was transferred to a prison. 7.  In 2004 the applicant sued the remand centre for damage to health and sought compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage caused by the allegedly appalling conditions of detention between January 1996 and April 1998. By a judgment of 8 June 2004, the Leninskiy District Court of Smolensk rejected the applicant's claims. The court found that the applicant had not adduced any evidence that the administration of the remand centre had wilfully caused him any damage. On 22 February 2005 the Smolensk Regional Court upheld the judgment. 8.  Thereafter, the applicant unsuccessfully sought access to certain documents relating to the conditions of his detention in the remand centre in 1996. He asked for criminal proceedings to be brought against the centre's administration. On 5 September 2005 a prosecutor refused his request. On 10 April 2006 the District Court upheld that refusal. 9.  From 26 December 2004 to 12 January 2005, from 22 March to an unspecified date in late 2005, and in 2006 the applicant was detained in Smolensk remand centre no. 67/1. 10.  In December 2004 he was placed in cell no. 173, measuring twelve square metres and designed for thirteen detainees. It actually housed no fewer than seventeen detainees. In March 2005 the applicant was placed in cell no. 203, measuring twelve square metres and designed for twelve detainees. It actually housed no fewer than seventeen inmates. Thereafter he was detained in cell no. 205. 11.  In all cells the beds had dirty mattresses and no other bedding was provided. No tableware was provided. Food had to be kept on the floor next to the lavatory pan. The pan was not separated from the living area; the area around it was damp; the walls and ceiling were black with dust and mould. There were recurring problems with the water supply. Showers were allowed less than once a week. 12.  The applicant submitted to the Court written statements from his cellmates from early 2005, who confirmed his description of the conditions of detention in the remand centre. He also submitted four photographs, apparently showing the cell(s) in which he had been detained in 2004 and/or 2005. 13.  The applicant was detained in the remand centre from 25 December 2004 to 13 January 2005, from 21 March to 10 April 2005, and from 10 March to 15 June 2006. In the intervening periods of time the applicant was detained in colonies. 14.  The applicant was kept in the remand centre in cells nos. 143, 173 and 203. During the first period of time the applicant was afforded around one square metre of cell space; the cell population exceeded the number of beds. In March and April 2005, as well as in March and June 2006, the applicant had been afforded less than 1.5 square metres of the cell space and did not have his own bed. The remaining time there were between three and seven square metres per detainee in the cell. 15.  On 12 and 22 January 2005 the applicant complained to the Regional Prosecutor's Office and the Regional Supervising Prosecutor's Office about the allegedly appalling conditions of detention. On 25 March 2005 he raised a similar complaint before the Leninskiy District Court of Smolensk. 16.  On 30 March 2005 the Regional Ombudsman refused to inspect the remand centre when the applicant requested it. 17.  On 5 April 2005 the District Court refused to process the applicant's request for institution of criminal proceedings against the administration of the remand centre. 18.  By letters of 11 April 2005 the Regional Prosecutor's Office notified the applicant that his allegations concerning the conditions of detention “had been confirmed in part”. That letter did not specify the nature of those allegations. 19.  By a letter of 29 April 2005 the Regional Prosecutor's Office acknowledged the temporary unavailability of water and showers in the remand centre. The Prosecutor's Office also stated as follows:
“... the sanitary conditions in cells nos. 173 and 203 are satisfactory but repair works are needed ...
In reply to your complaints ... about lack of an individual bed, bedding, tableware and insufficient cell space per inmate ... the Regional Office of the Department of Execution of Sentences were instructed to remedy the situation.” 20.  By a letter of 25 March 2005 the Smolensk Region Supervising Prosecutor's Office informed the applicant that the replies to his complaints had been forwarded to the administration of the remand centre and that he was not entitled to a copy of those replies. 21.  The applicant brought court proceedings against the administration of the remand centre. On 1 July 2005 the District Court refused to process his complaint under the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 20 September 2005 the Regional Court upheld that decision. 22.  In reply to the applicant's renewed complaint, on 24 April 2006 the Regional Prosecutor's Office acknowledged that the cell space afforded per detainee in the remand centre had been in breach of national law. 23.  The applicant also complained that the prison authorities had opened his correspondence with a human-rights non-governmental organisation. On 28 April 2006 the prosecutor decided that since there had been no indication that the NGO had been acting as legal counsel for the applicant, his correspondence with it was not privileged and thus was subject to monitoring.