5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and is serving a prison sentence in the Murmansk Region. 6.  On 13 January 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud and abuse of power. On 14 January 2005 the Severomorskiy Garrison Military Court authorised the applicant’s detention pending investigation. In particular, the court noted as follows:
“... [The prosecutor] submitted that there were sufficient grounds to believe that [the applicant] might attempt to conceal ... the evidence and to put pressure on witnesses who worked under his supervision or were financially or otherwise dependent on him. The investigators had sufficient material in their possession showing that [the applicant] might interfere with the investigation and the establishment of the truth, or that he might abscond.
...
The fact that the [applicant’s] efforts aimed at interfering with the investigation had a systematic nature was confirmed by ... a recording of a discussion which took place on 27 January 2004 between [the applicant] and [defendant] Shch., during which [the applicant] asked [the defendant] to reconcile the statements they were to give during the questioning to be held by the investigator.
Furthermore, according to the testimony of witness G., [the applicant] asked him to change his earlier statement, threatening him with unpleasant consequences if he refused to comply.
According to the statement of witness S., [the applicant] told him that he was the holder of a Belarusian passport ... and [had] bank accounts abroad.
...
Having regard to the arguments put forward by [the prosecutor and defence counsel] and to the materials in the case file, [the court] concludes that [the applicant] should be remanded in custody. ...
... [T]he court takes into account the materials presented by investigators showing that [the applicant] might influence the witnesses or interfere with the proceedings or the establishment of the truth.
Regard being had to the [applicant’s] character, age and family situation, the court also takes into consideration [the fact] that he is suspected ... of having committed criminal offences entailing a custodial sentence which exceeds two years.” 7.  On 12 July 2005 the Severomorskiy Town Court of the Murmansk Region received the case file. The court ordered that the applicant remain in custody pending trial. 8.  On 22 December 2005 the Town Court further extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 11 April 2006. 9.  On 5 April 2006 the Town Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 11 July 2006. The applicant asked to be released, arguing that he had a permanent residence and employment, had to support a minor child and had no previous criminal record. He further complained that he suffered from chronic gastritis and chronic duodenal ulcer. However, at the temporary detention centre he had not been receiving the medication and special diet he had been prescribed by his doctor. Lastly, he claimed that he had been unable to prepare his defence owing to the poor conditions of his detention. The court dismissed the applicant’s arguments, noting as follows:
“The grounds for the [applicant’s] detention have not ceased to exist, given that [he] is charged with serious criminal offences for which a custodial sentence exceeding two years can be applied in the event of conviction. In such circumstances, the court considers that [the applicant] might abscond or interfere with the administration of justice.
...
The [applicant’s] argument that the medical aid provided is insufficient and that he is not receiving a prescribed diet is not supported by appropriate evidence and is rebutted by the information submitted by the prosecutor. ... The special diet was prescribed for the period from spring to autumn. The prescription was cancelled in November 2005.” 10.  On 25 April 2006 the Murmansk Regional Court quashed the decision of 5 April 2006 and released the applicant on bail. The court noted, inter alia, as follows:
“According to the materials in the case file, the applicant was taken into custody to prevent him from putting pressure on witnesses and interfering with the administration of justice.
The materials supporting the above measure were, indeed, relevant during the investigation stage of the proceedings ...
To date, the applicant has been indicted, the prosecution has collected the evidence and summarised it in the indictment, the lists of witnesses for both the prosecution and the defence have been prepared, [and] the case is being tried in court.
Accordingly, [the applicant] is not in a position to influence the witnesses for the prosecution and, as a result, to interfere with the establishment of the truth. Moreover, any change by the witnesses in their statements during the trial will be assessed by the court in accordance with [the rules of criminal procedure].
Having regard to the above, the [lower] court’s conclusion that the grounds for the applicant’s detention have not ceased to exist is not convincing.
The restrictive measure applied to [the applicant] should therefore be less severe.” 11.  On 27 April 2006 the applicant paid the bail and was released. 12.  On 26 May 2006 the Regional Court granted a request made by the prosecutor for supervisory review of the decision of 25 April 2006. On 15 June 2006 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the decision of 25 April 2006 by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh consideration on appeal. It also ordered the applicant’s remand in custody pending the appeal hearing. In particular, the court noted as follows:
“It is clear from the [court order] of 14 January 2005 that [the applicant] was remanded in custody in view of the risk of his putting pressure on witnesses, that is of interfering with the administration of justice and the establishment of the truth. The court also took into account the [applicant’s] character, family situation and the fact that he was suspected of having committed offences entailing a custodial sentence exceeding two years.
The prosecutor’s argument that [the applicant] might abscond was not based on the above-mentioned court order.
Accordingly, [on 25 April 2006] the [Regional Court] verified only one ground underlying the [applicant’s] remand in custody, that is a risk of putting pressure on witnesses and interfering with the administration of justice.
Having regard to that ground, [the Regional Court] indicated... that the arguments furnished by the investigators and the court underlying the [applicant’s] remand in custody had been relevant during the investigation stage. When the trial started, all the evidence having been collected and all the victims and witnesses having been questioned, the defendant was prevented from interfering with the establishment of the truth ....
However, the materials in the case file show that witness G. asked the [prosecutor’s office] to protect him from the [applicant], who pressured [G.] not to testify against him. Furthermore, there is evidence showing that [the applicant has sought to] interfere with the administration of justice by giving instructions to other defendants as regards the charges against them.
The start of the trial does not signify that the risk of [the applicant] interfering with the administration of justice ceased to exist, as the testimonies of the [other defendants] are very important for the correct and objective consideration of the case ... by the [trial] court.
The trial started in July 2005.
The [Regional Court] failed to take into consideration the fact that [the applicant] is the holder of a Belarusian passport with a false name and bank accounts abroad; that he is indicted on sixty charges, each of them being a grievous offence; that he is accused of having committed those offences in concert and that he is the leader of the organised criminal group; and that the damage caused by the crimes of that organised criminal group amounted to 130 million roubles.
The decision adopted by the [Regional Court] is contradictory to the previous court orders extending the [applicant’s] pre-trial detention.
On 15 July 2005 the [Town Court], when fixing the trial opening, ordered that [the applicant] should remain in custody.
On 4 August 2005 the [Regional Court] upheld the said decision on appeal.
On 22 December 2005 the [Town Court] extended the [applicant’s] pre-trial detention until 11 April 2006.
The [Regional Court] upheld the said decision on appeal.
The above court orders established that the circumstances underlying the applicant’s remand in custody have not ceased to exist.
The above court orders came into effect.
The [Regional Court] in its decision [of 25 April 2006] questioned the findings of those decisions, which is impermissible.
As regards the amount of bail, [the court] also agrees with the prosecutor that [the amount of bail imposed on the applicant was insufficient, as he] was released on bail in the amount of 500,000 roubles, which is half as much as the bail imposed on defendant Shch.
Having regard to the above, the decision of the [Regional Court] of 25 April 2006 shall be quashed ...” 13.  On 20 June 2006 the applicant was re-arrested. 14.  On 27 June 2006 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 5 April 2006 on appeal. 15.  On 6 July 2006 the prosecutor asked the Town Court to further extend the applicant’s detention referring, inter alia, to the fact that the applicant had a foreign passport under a false name and bank accounts abroad. The court ordered that the applicant remain in custody until 11 October 2006. It noted, in particular, as follows:
“The grounds for the [applicant’s] detention have not ceased to exist, given that [he] is charged with serious criminal offences for which a custodial sentence exceeding two years can be applied in the event of conviction.
Furthermore, the court has grounds to believe that [the applicant] might abscond or interfere with the administration of justice. The court bases this finding on the materials submitted by the prosecution.
The fact that the applicant, when released for a month and a half, behaved appropriately does not signify that he would not abscond in the future, given the complexity and length of the criminal proceedings and the multiple charges against him.” 16.  On 5 October 2006 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 11 January 2007. The court referred again to the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the risk that he might abscond or interfere with the administration of justice. On 23 November 2006 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 5 October 2006 on appeal. 17.  Subsequently, the Town Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention on 21 December 2006, 4 April 2007, and 3 July 2007 until 11 April, 11 July and 11 October 2007 respectively. The court reiterated the reasoning of the previous court orders. The Regional Court upheld those decisions on appeal on 20 February, 15 May and 31 July 2007. 18.  On 4 October 2007 the Town Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 11 January 2008. In particular, the court reasoned as follows:
“When deciding on the further extension of the [applicant’s] pre-trial detention, the court .... considered the following the arguments furnished by the prosecution ... : the gravity of the charges, the risk of [the applicant] absconding or interfering with the proceedings.
At this stage of the trial, the grounds underlying the [applicant’s] remand in custody have not ceased to exist. [The applicant] is charged with numerous grievous offences which entail a custodial sentence exceeding two years.
Furthermore, the information contained in the documents submitted by the prosecution and considered by the court ... shows that [the applicant] might abscond or interfere with the administration of justice.
The length of the trial is justified by different factors, such as the number of offences [the applicant] is charged with, a great number of witnesses and [the amount of] documentary evidence, and cannot justify the [applicant’s] release.” 19.  On 27 November 2007 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 4 October 2007 on appeal. 20.  On 25 December 2007 the Town Court extended the applicant’s pre‑trial detention until 11 April 2008. The court reiterated verbatim its reasoning contained in the court order of 4 October 2007. 21.  It appears that the applicant’s detention pending trial was subsequently extended until his conviction on 27 October 2008. 22.  As set out above (see paragraph 6) the applicant was arrested on 13 January 2005. Following the preliminary investigation, the criminal case was received by the Town Court on 12 July 2005 for adjudication. On 15 July 2005 the Town Court fixed the trial in respect of four defendants, including the applicant, for 26 July 2005. Subsequently the trial was deferred until 11 October 2005 due to the fact that two of the defence counsel and several witnesses were on vacation. 23.  According to the Government, the criminal case concerned sixty‑six counts of fraud and abuse of power. The trial court was to question 139 witnesses and to study substantial volumes of written evidence. The court held 370 hearings. 24.  The Government provided the following information as regards the adjournment of the trial hearings:
Date
Reason for adjournment
13 October 2005
Adjourned until 1 November 2005 upon the request of one of the defence counsel for time to study the case-file materials.
14 November 2005
Adjourned until 20 December 2005 due to certain witnesses’ failure to appear.
22 December 2005
Adjourned until 27 December 2005 upon the request of one the defendants and his counsel.
11 January 2006
Adjourned until 31 January 2006 upon the request of one of the defendants and his counsel for time to study the case-file materials.
16 March 2006
Adjourned until 4 April 2006 upon the applicant’s request for time to study the case-file materials.
6 April 2006
Adjourned until 11 April 2006 upon one of the defendants’ request.
22 June 2006
Adjourned until 27 June 2006 due to the illness of one of the defendants.
29 June 2006
Adjourned until 5 July 2006 due to the applicant’s illness.
13 July 2006
Adjourned until 18 July 2006 due to a scheduling conflict of one of the defence lawyers.
2 and 10 August 2006
Adjourned until 8 and 15 August 2006 respectively due to a scheduling conflict of one of the defence lawyers.
17 August 2006
Adjourned until 22 August 2006 upon the applicant’s request.
15 September 2006
Adjourned until 26 September 2006 due to the prosecutor’s sick leave.
4 October 2006
Adjourned until 10 October 2006 upon the applicant’s request in view of a pending medical examination.
12 October 2006
Adjourned until 17 October 2006 in order to obtain the attendance of certain witnesses.
29 November 2006
Adjourned until 5 December 2006 due to a scheduling conflict of two of the defence lawyers.
14 December 2006
Adjourned until 19 December 2006 due to the failure of certain witnesses to appear.
21 December 2006
Adjourned until 26 December 2006 upon one of the defendants’ request.
28 December 2006
Adjourned until 10 January 2007 due to the holiday season.
11 January 2007
Adjourned until 16 January 2007 upon the prosecutor’s request for time to obtain the attendance of certain witnesses.
18 January 2007
Adjourned until 23 January 2007 upon the prosecutor’s request for time to prepare the evidence to be presented at the trial.
23 January 2007
Adjourned until 24 January 2007 due to the authorities’ failure to ensure the attendance of the applicant and another defendant and due to the failure of two defence lawyers to appear.
25 January, 1, 15 and 22 February and 1 March 2007
Adjourned until 31 January, 6, 20 and 27 February and 3 April 2007 respectively due to the defence lawyers’ inability to attend (for various reasons: sick leave, scheduling conflict, additional time to study the case file).
28 May 2007
Adjourned until 4 June 2006 due to one of the defendants’ failure to appear.
12 July 2007
Adjourned until 16 July 2007 due to a scheduling conflict of one of the defence lawyers.
19 July 2007
Adjourned until 27 August 2007 due to the prosecutor’s sick leave, one of the defence lawyers’ vacation, etc.
23 October 2007
Adjourned until 6 November 2007 upon the request of one of the defendants, who replaced his lawyer.
6 November 2007
Adjourned until 13 November 2007 due to the illness of one of the defendants.
27 December 2007
Adjourned until 9 January 2008 due to the holiday season.
24 April 2008
Adjourned until 28 April 2008 due to the presiding judge’s sick leave.
7 May 2008
Adjourned until 12 May 2008 upon the request of one of the defendants.
15 May 2008
Adjourned until 19 May 2008 due to the defence lawyers’ inability to attend (for various reasons) and the applicant’s medical examination.
22 May, 20 and 25 June 2008
Adjourned until 26 May, 23 and 27 June 2008 respectively due to the applicant’s medical examination.
4 July 2008
Adjourned until 7 July 2008 due to a scheduling conflict of one of the defence lawyers.
11 July 2008
Adjourned until 15 July 2008 upon the defendants’ request for time to prepare their closing arguments. 25.  On 22 July 2008 the trial concluded and the court retired for deliberations. The pronouncement of the verdict started on 27 October 2008 and was completed on 5 November 2008. The applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. 26.  It appears that none of the parties appealed against the verdict. 27.  According to the applicant, from Monday to Friday of each week he was detained at the temporary detention centre in Severomorsk from 13 January 2005 until his release on bail on 27 April 2006 and from 20 June 2006 when he was again remanded in custody until 5 April 2007. According to the Government, the applicant was delivered to the temporary detention centre and detained there to study the case file, to participate in the trial and in connection with his making motions to the courts examining his case. 28.  The Government provided the following description of the temporary detention centre. It was located on the ground floor of a five‑storey building constructed in 1995. There was no outside exercise area attached to it. 29.  The cells where the applicant was detained had the following characteristics:
Cell no.
Surface area (square metres)
Number of bunk beds/cell capacity
1 30.  All the cells were equipped with suction and exhaust ventilation and electric lighting. The cells had no windows. Nor was there induction ventilation, toilets, a water supply or dining tables. On certain occasions, the number of detainees held in the cells exceeded their designed capacity. 31.  The temporary detention centre underwent a refurbishment in June‑August 2007. The ventilation system was reconstructed. Toilets and a night lighting system were installed. Tables and benches were provided. 32.  In 2009 the municipal administration allocated a plot of land for the construction of a new temporary detention centre which would be equipped with outside exercise area in compliance with statutory regulations. 33.  According to the applicant, he was kept in a windowless cell without any other access to fresh air or daylight. It was dim and stuffy. The only source of lighting was a 40-watt bulb surrounded by a wooden lattice. There was no ventilation. The cell was not equipped with a toilet. During the day time, he was allowed to use the toilet in the building twice a day. For the rest of the time he had to use a bucket placed in the cell. No table or chairs were provided. Nor was there a sink or running water. He was not given any toilet paper. He had to stay indoors all the time without any opportunity for an outdoor walk or exercise. 34.  On many occasions the cell where he was detained was overcrowded. The number of inmates varied from six to eight. The beds were metal frames with wooden boards placed over them. The inmates were not provided with mattresses, blankets, pillows or bed sheets. 35.  In June 2006 the applicant complained to the Town Prosecutor about the conditions of his detention. 36.  On 14 August 2006 the prosecutor admitted the truth of the applicant’s allegations in respect of the conditions of his detention at the temporary detention centre and promised that measures in response to the applicant’s complaint would be taken. 37.  On 20 November 2006 the prosecutor advised the applicant of the authorities’ plans to start the construction of a new temporary detention centre in Severomorsk. 38.  On an unspecified date the prosecutor informed the applicant that it was impossible to bring the conditions of the detention at the temporary detention centre into compliance with statutory requirements owing to certain financial difficulties.