5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Riga. 6.  The applicant alleges that for an extended period of time in the 1990s he was a police informant on criminal matters in Balvi. It appears that that collaboration was officially documented by the police and the applicant was paid for his services. Over time, the criminal community in Balvi became aware of his role as an informant, and as a result he was assaulted and threatened with murder on several occasions. The applicant then moved to Rēzekne. 7.  On 6 October 2005 the applicant was arrested on charges of rape of his partner’s minor daughter and of indecent assault on the partner’s minor son. 8.  The applicant was transferred to Daugavpils Prison on 25 October 2005, and stayed there until 26 October 2006, when he was transferred elsewhere (see paragraph 20 below). During this period he was taken to Riga Central Prison on four occasions. He spent a total of approximately fifty-five days in Riga and more than 300 days in Daugavpils. 9.  The Government submitted, and the applicant did not deny, that when he had arrived at Daugavpils Prison he had had the standard entry interview with a member of the security staff of the prison. It appears that during the interview the applicant gave the names of several inmates of the prison with whom he had had conflicts in the past, and the administration of the prison undertook to keep him isolated from those individuals throughout his stay in Daugavpils. On the other hand, according to the Government, the applicant did not inform the administration of the prison about his previous collaboration with the police, and did not ask to be kept isolated from any other prisoners. The Government submitted that on 21 February 2006 the applicant requested the governor of Daugavpils Prison to transfer him to a unit in which prisoners were involved in housekeeping activities (kitchen duties and laundry work) and hence often came into contact with other prisoners. 10.  On 17 January 2006 the prosecutor charged with investigating the criminal charges against the applicant invited the applicant to submit his final motions concerning the criminal case. According to the applicant, on that day he requested the prosecutor to arrange for his transfer to Matīsa Prison, which has a section designated for holding detainees who have worked for law-enforcement institutions or collaborated with those institutions (see paragraph 37 below). The applicant alleged that the prosecutor agreed to order his transfer to Matīsa Prison in exchange for a plea bargain. The applicant submitted that he felt pressured to accept that arrangement, and the plea bargain was signed on 20 January 2006. The applicant’s defence counsel was present when the plea bargain was signed. The Government questioned the reliability of the applicant’s version of the events, underlining that under national law the prosecutor did not have any authority to order the applicant’s placement in a particular prison; the institution competent to do so was the Prisons Administration (Ieslodzījuma vietu pārvalde). 11.  The applicant alleged, and the Government did not in substance dispute, that on 24 March 2006 a note was added to his case file that he was to be held in isolation from other detainees. The parties differ as to the precise nature and effects of such a requirement – according to the Government the applicant’s case file did not contain anything in writing to the effect that he should be held in isolation prior to 1 November 2008, thus, for example, the administration of Daugavpils Prison could not have known about it. The Government submitted to the Court a copy of a document from 11 April 2006, signed by the Rēzekne chief of police, concerning the transportation of three detainees from Rēzekne to Daugavpils, on which the word “isolation” appears next to the applicant’s name. 12.  On 13 April 2006 the Prisons Administration refused to order the applicant’s transfer to Matīsa Prison. It firstly noted that according to the applicable domestic rules (see paragraph 37 below) only “a certain category of prisoners” served their sentences in Matīsa Prison. The applicant was informed that the Prisons Administration had no information concerning his alleged links with law-enforcement institutions. The Prisons Administration further indicated that a decision to transfer the applicant could only be made after his conviction had become final (it became final on 1 February 2007: see paragraph 27 below). 13.  The applicant alleged that while in Daugavpils Prison he had been subjected to repeated physical violence by other prisoners. The applicant indicated that he had lost several teeth as a result of beatings he had received. In his submission, the violence against him was a direct consequence of his earlier collaboration with the police, which had become known in the prison, which held numerous inmates from Balvi. The applicant indicated that the fact that he had been charged with sexual offences against minors also made him the target of abuse by other prisoners. 14.  The applicant furthermore noted that the administration of Daugavpils Prison had frequently moved him from one cell to another, thus exposing him to an even larger number of other prisoners. When he complained about this the applicant received a response from the Prisons Administration on 19 June 2007, in which it was indicated that the placement of detainees in cells was at the discretion of the authorities of each individual prison and that in the applicant’s case the administration of Daugavpils Prison had made its decisions “taking into account the available space in cells, psychological factors, and the level of education and state of health of prisoners”. 15.  On 12 June 2006 the applicant wrote to the Prosecutor General and submitted rather detailed information about his collaboration with the criminal police in Balvi, such as the alias given to him by the police and the fact that he had been paid for his services. He underlined that because of the nature of the charges against him and because of his former collaboration with the police he was constantly in danger of retribution by other prisoners. The applicant’s letter was forwarded to the Prisons Administration, which dismissed his request to be transferred to Matīsa Prison on 27 June 2006. 16.  On 21 July 2006 the applicant once again wrote to the Prosecutor General. In his letter he essentially repeated the claims made in his previous letter, but also explicitly referred to the “isolation request” in his case file, which he stated had been respected whenever he had been transported outside Daugavpils. He also gave details of several instances of ill-treatment of other inmates of Daugavpils Prison. The applicant’s letter was forwarded to the Prisons Administration, which requested additional information from Daugavpils Prison. The head of security of Daugavpils Prison denied the existence of any threats to the applicant and submitted statements from two of the inmates named by the applicant, denying that the incidents recounted by the applicant had ever taken place. In the light of this information, on 25 August 2006 the Prisons Administration rejected the applicant’s request for transfer to Matīsa Prison. 17.  A similar request of 24 July 2006, addressed to the Prisons Administration, was rejected on 7 August 2006. 18.  On 14 August 2006 the applicant wrote to the Supreme Court (where his criminal case was pending at that time: see paragraph 26 below) and explained that that court was the only avenue through which he could still hope to obtain a transfer to Matīsa Prison. On 17 August 2006 he received a reply from a judge of the Supreme Court informing him that the Prisons Administration was the body which was competent to decide questions of transfer of prisoners. 19.  On 27 August 2006 the applicant asked the Prosecutor General to initiate criminal proceedings against Balvi Criminal Police for their failure to acknowledge his collaboration with the police. On 22 September 2006 the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office (Specializētā vairāku nozaru prokuratūra) requested information from the Security Police about the progress made with regard to the applicant’s request from May 2006 in which he had asked the police to confirm his collaboration. 20.  On 5 October 2006 the applicant received a response from the criminal police, informing him that his collaboration had been confirmed and that the State Police on 5 October 2006 had requested the Prisons Administration to transfer him to Matīsa Prison. The director of the Prisons Administration ordered the transfer on 13 October 2006 and on 26 October 2006 the applicant was transferred to Riga. 21.  Upon a request from the Government Agent, on 11 March 2011 the Ministry of Justice provided information concerning, inter alia, the applicant’s complaints submitted to the ministry. The ministry reported that it had received, either directly from the applicant himself or via prosecutors, numerous complaints which had principally related to unfair conviction, employment issues in prisons, and similar matters. The applicant had on one occasion (on 13 August 2007) complained about “the actions of the Prisons Administration in transferring him between cells”. The Ministry of Justice had provided the applicant with a response, a copy of which has not been made available to the Court. 22.  According to a summary of the applicant’s medical records submitted by the Government, in November and December 2006 and in January 2007 the roots of five of his teeth were extracted in Daugavpils Prison. On two occasions (on 31 January 2006 and 9 December 2010) the applicant was diagnosed with chronic periodontitis. 23.  In a response given to the applicant on 28 August 2007 the Prisons Administration noted that there was nothing in the applicant’s case file that would indicate that the applicant had lost his teeth during altercations with other inmates of Daugavpils Prison. 24.  According to information obtained by the applicant from the medical department of Matīsa Prison, in 2007 he had visited the dentist there on no fewer than seven occasions. The reason for and the nature of these visits was not given. 25.  By a judgment of 22 March 2006 the Latgale Regional Court convicted the applicant of the offences with which he was charged and sentenced him to a prison term of thirteen years and one month. In deciding to convict the applicant, the first-instance court relied on statements from the two victims. The court also heard statements from two other witnesses and took into account statements from the applicant’s partner and her mother. It also relied on two reports from expert psychologists. The applicant’s statements were summarised in the judgment and were followed by a note that he had retracted his confession before the hearing. The applicant alleged that he had tried to submit to the court a written statement of his reasons for confessing (namely, that he had wished to be transferred to Matīsa Prison). However, given the choice of either having his statement read out at the hearing and admitted in evidence or not having it admitted in evidence, he had chosen the latter, since he had not wanted to disclose his previous collaboration with the police in a public forum. 26.  On 5 December 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of the first-instance court by agreeing with the lower court’s reasoning. With regard to the applicant’s confession, the appeal court noted that he had given conflicting accounts as to why it had been written. Specifically, on one occasion he had explained that it had been done to ensure his transfer to another prison, while in a letter to the president of the first-instance court he had explained that he had confessed because his psychological state had been such that he did not care what happened. Taking into account the differing explanations, the appeal court chose not to believe them. 27.  The Senate of the Supreme Court on 1 February 2007 refused to accept an appeal by the applicant on points of law, since it was held that he had failed to substantiate his appeal with any indication of significant violation of substantive or procedural law. 28.  On 16 July 2007 the applicant asked the Senate of the Supreme Court to reopen the proceedings in his case because of violations of procedural law and the Convention which had allegedly been committed during the original proceedings. That request was refused on 10 August 2007, since requests for reopening of proceedings could only be submitted by a prosecutor or by an attorney acting on behalf of a convicted person. No State-provided legal aid was available for applications for reopening of proceedings. 29.  The applicant eventually secured legal representation, and on 14 March 2008 the Senate considered his request for reopening of the proceedings, and rejected it on the merits.