7.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Lereşti. 8.  On 5 November 1992 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having murdered his father. 9.  By a judgment delivered by the Argeş County Court on 24 September 1993, he was convicted of murder and sentenced to twenty‑seven years’ imprisonment. 10.  He served his sentence mainly in Colibaşi Prison. 11.  On 14 December 2005 he was released from prison. 12.  On 3 December 1998 prison guards S.N. and L.D. carried out a search in the applicant’s cell following his self-intoxication with medicines. 13.  As stated in the prosecutor’s decision of 29 June 1999, on 9 December 1998 the applicant claimed that certain personal objects had been stolen. Prison guards S.N. and L.D went into his cell. The applicant accused them of stealing four boxes of coffee during the search. As he became aggressive, prison guard S.N. immobilised and repeatedly hit him with a truncheon in order to calm him down. However, instead of calming down he became more aggressive, so he was handcuffed and taken to cell no. 57. This version of events was not contested by the applicant. 14.  On the same day, prison guard S.N. drafted a report stating that he had been forced to use a truncheon against the applicant because of his aggressive behaviour. 15.  On 17 December 1998 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Argeş Forensic Laboratory. The forensic report drafted after the examination stated that the applicant had been hit with a hard object, probably on 9 December 1998, causing him injuries that needed eight or nine days of medical treatment. It noted the existence of an ecchymosed yellow‑purplish zone on his hip and his left thigh, as well as a one‑centimetre‑long scratch on his left fist. As a result of the aggression, his tympanum was broken. 16.  On 23 December 1998 the applicant filed a criminal complaint concerning the incident with the Bucharest Military Prosecutor’s Office (Parchetul Militar Bucureşti). 17.  The chief doctor of Colibaşi prison gave a statement on 13 January 1999. He stated that the applicant had been involved in the incident of 9 December 1998 because of his mental illness. The applicant and S.N. were questioned on 19 January 1999. 18.  On 14 June 1999 a criminal investigation was initiated against prison guard S.N. for abusive behaviour. 19.  Two of the applicant’s co-detainees were heard by the investigating prosecutor. They stated that the applicant had been repeatedly hit by prison guard S. N. Two other prison guards stated that the use of force by their colleague S.N. had been brought on by the applicant’s violent behaviour. 20.  In his written statement, S.N. admitted that he had used the truncheon with excessive force to calm the applicant down, without previously trying to use other means. 21.  On 29 June 1999 the military prosecutor decided to discontinue the investigation against prison guard S.N. and ordered him to pay an administrative fine amounting to one million Romanian lei (“RON”), equivalent to 30 United States Dollars (“USD”). The decision referred to the applicant’s medical condition and noted that agent S.N. had used the truncheon with excessive force and broken the applicant’s tympanum. However, taking into account the specificity of S.N.’s activity as a prison guard and the need to solve difficult situations in prison, it found that the acts committed by S.N. could not be classified as an offence. 22.  According to the applicant, the military prosecutor’s decision was never communicated to him. Although the Government contended that the decision was communicated to the applicant they did not submit any evidence in this respect. 23.  As the applicant did not receive any reply from the military prosecutor, on 23 February 2000 he sent a letter to the chief military prosecutor making reference to the incident of 9 December 1998 and asking for a criminal investigation against prison guard S.N. It appears from the file that the applicant did not receive any reply to this letter. 24.  When the applicant was arrested in 1992, he was diagnosed with unstable personality disorder. 25.  The expert report drafted by Argeş Forensic Laboratory on 9 November 1995 concluded that the applicant suffered from polymorphic psychopathy and loss of discernment. It recommended the applicant’s hospitalisation in a psychiatric establishment, in accordance with Article 114 of the Criminal Code. Based on the conclusions of that report, the applicant was granted a suspension of the execution of his punishment for the period between 28 February and 8 August 1996. 26.  Another expert report drafted by the same forensic laboratory on 24 July 1997 stated that the applicant suffered from the same disease – polymorphic psychopathy – and concluded that he needed to be under the supervision of a psychiatric unit belonging to the prison sanitary network. 27.  Four months later an expert report drafted by the Bucharest Forensic Institute concluded that the applicant suffered from sociopathy, and that he could be treated in the prison medical network. 28.  Two other reports, drafted on 17 September and 20 November 1998, stated that the applicant suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and recommended his admission to a specialised psychiatric unit in the prison network for supervision and treatment. 29.  A new expert report, drafted on 5 April 1999, recommended his hospitalisation in Poiana Mare psychiatric hospital. Consequently, the applicant lodged a request for a stay of execution of his prison sentence. On 11 May 1999 his request was dismissed by the Argeş County Court on the ground that the report had not stated that the applicant’s medical condition could not be treated in the prison hospital. 30.  Two subsequent reports, drafted on 14 March 2001 and 26 March 2002 respectively, stated that the applicant had been diagnosed with pyloric stenosis (a complication of a duodenal ulcer, characterised by the stricture of the pyloric canal and manifested by vomiting after each meal) and dyspeptic ulcer syndrome (ulcer syndrome characterised by epigastric pains and burning sensations). They recommended the medical treatment offered by the prison hospitals. 31.  A report prepared by the hospital of Colibaşi prison on 21 May 2004 stated that the applicant had served a large part of his prison sentence in the prison’s hospital. Moreover, from the analysis of the documents submitted by the Government it appears that the applicant was hospitalised in the Bucharest prison hospital:
-between 16 November and 4 December 1992, on the ground that he suffered from a personality disorder;
-between 1 November and 2 December 1997, for examination by a psychiatric doctor because he was refusing to eat;
-between 20 March and 7 April 1998, for treatment of his polymorphic psychopathy;
-between 16 and 24 April 1998, for refusing to eat and for treatment of his polymorphic psychopathy;
-between 19 August and 19 October 1999 because he had been diagnosed with Gausser syndrome;
-between 6 July and 10 July 2000 because he was in a coma and had a high fever;
-between 29 March and 17 April 2002 and between 19 July and 7 August 2002, for treatment of his polymorphic psychopathy;
-between 29 June and 7 July 2004 for treatment of his duodenal ulcer, polymorphic psychopathy and lumbar discopathy;
-and between 21 October and 2 November 2005, for obesity and insufficiency of peripheral circulation. 32.  Furthermore, in 2000 the applicant was hospitalised three times in the Colibaşi prison hospital for treatment of his chronic gastric ulcer. In 2002 he was again hospitalised in the same hospital for treatment of his pyloric stenosis. 33.  The applicant refused to eat on seven occasions. 34.  According to the information submitted by the applicant, he was of Baptist confession. While in detention, he had attended a Baptist seminar at the “Source of Light-Europe” Institute. 35.  On 29 November 2002 P.G., the general manager of the national civil assistance centre for prisons “Hope for the Future” (Speranţa pentru viitor), addressed a letter to the Colibaşi prison authorities stating that the applicant had been monitored by their advice and social reintegration service. The manager expressed his concern about the confiscation by the prison authorities of a small radio-cassette player awarded to the applicant for good results obtained while attending the “Christian moral education” programme. 36.  By a letter dated 24 December 2002 the prison management informed the applicant that according to the applicable law prisoners only had the right to have battery-operated radios and television sets. They added that, on request, he could listen to his audio cassettes on the cassette player belonging to the prison’s cultural and education department. 37.  On 20 November 2002 the applicant informed the Registry of the Court that he had sent two letters for which he had not received any acknowledgement of receipt. He expressed suspicion that the prison staff were obstructing his right of recourse to the Court. He specified that one of the letters contained photocopies of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of Justice and the criminal complaints filed against the prison authorities. 38.  On 22 January 2004 the applicant asked the prison authorities to provide him with photocopies of the documents requested by the Court. He enclosed the letters sent by the Court’s Registry on 1 and 9 December 2003. 39.  In 1996 the applicant had been sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for a minor offence. For the same offence he had been ordered to pay a fine of RON 100,000 (equivalent to USD 3). As he had executed both punishments he lodged a request for the return of the sum paid as a fine. 40.  By a final decision of 22 April 1997, the Câmpulung District Court allowed his request and ordered the return of the money. 41.  According to the applicant, on 4 June 2003 he lodged a request for the enforcement of the decision of 22 April 1997. 42.  By a decision of 8 February 2001 the Argeş District Court pronounced the divorce of the applicant and his wife and awarded custody of their two minor children to the paternal grandmother. It also ordered the mother to pay a monthly sum towards the children’s maintenance. 43.  The applicant alleged that on 12 February 2004 he had lodged a criminal complaint against his former wife for failure to pay the monthly allowance, but had received no reply from the authorities. He also complained about the passivity of the authorities in enforcing that decision. 44.  On 3 January 2000 the applicant lodged a civil action for the partition of the inheritance left by his father. By a decision of 10 December 2001 the Câmpulung District Court allowed his action in part, allocating him a house and other movable assets. 45.  The applicant lodged a request for the enforcement of the decision. By a letter dated 28 March 2003, the bailiff M. informed him that he had to pay the enforcement fees. According to information supplied by the Government, the applicant had submitted a new request for the enforcement of the decision in January 2006. The enforcement had subsequently been finalised in June 2006.