5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lived until his arrest in Vladimir. 6.  On 23 October 2004 an investigator of the Vladimir prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of aggravated rape. 7.  The applicant was arrested on 25 October 2004. The arrest record was issued at 8.20 p.m. on the same day. It did not indicate the grounds for the applicant’s arrest, save for a reference to Article 91 § 2 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant signed the arrest record, noting that he had been informed of his constitutional rights as an accused, including the right to remain silent and to be assisted by counsel. It appears that the investigator made a handwritten note in the arrest record, stating that the applicant had not been searched. 8.  After the investigator had drawn up the arrest record, he began questioning the applicant in the presence of his lawyer, Mr Bagryanskiy. The record shows that the questioning started at 9.35 p.m. The record bears the applicant’s signature after the paragraph stating that he was informed of the nature of the accusations against him, namely, that he was suspected of having participated in a gang rape on 23 October 2004. He was informed that his car, in which the rape had allegedly taken place, had been seized. The applicant made a handwritten entry in the record, noting that he had decided to make use of his constitutional rights and would remain silent. The applicant’s counsel, Mr Bagryanskiy, wrote in the record that the applicant had not been provided with details surrounding the alleged criminal offence and that therefore the reasons for his arrest had not been explained to him.
(a)  Authorisation of the pre-trial detention: detention order of 27 October 2004 9.  On 27 October 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladimir authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention, holding as follows:
“[The applicant] is employed [and] has a permanent place of residence.
However, he has a previous conviction; [the parties] did not provide the court with information showing that the criminal record had expired. [The applicant] is suspected of having committed a serious criminal offence against an individual; [the offence] is punishable by imprisonment. The victim identified [the applicant] as a perpetrator of the criminal offence against her. It follows that, if released, [the applicant] might influence the victim during the pre-trial and judicial investigation; therefore, the victim took part in the identification parade in conditions whereby [the applicant] was prevented from seeing [her].
Consequently, the court accepts the motion of the senior investigator of the Vladimir prosecutor’s office to place [the applicant] in custody.” 10.  The applicant’s lawyer appealed, arguing that the applicant had not been properly and promptly informed of the reasons for his arrest and that his detention was unlawful. Several days later the lawyer lodged an additional appeal, requesting the applicant’s release on bail or the application of an alternative, more lenient, measure of restraint. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the lawyer urged the Regional Court to take into account the appalling conditions of detention to which the applicant would be subjected. He also argued that the applicant had no criminal record and that the District Court had not had any information disputing that fact. 11.  On 5 November 2004 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the detention order, endorsing the reasons given by the District Court. It noted, in particular, the gravity of the charges against the applicant and his previous conviction, as confirmed by police records presented by the prosecution authorities and undisputed by the applicant. As regards the lawyer’s argument concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention, the Regional Court noted that it was not the courts’ task to deal with the matter in that set of proceedings.
(b) Extension of the detention: order of 22 December 2004 12.  On 22 December 2004 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 11 January 2005 inclusively, noting the applicant’s “personality”, the gravity of the charges against him and the likelihood that he would abscond, re-offend and pervert the course of justice. 13.  The applicant’s lawyer appealed, arguing that the detention was unlawful and excessively long. The lawyer also reiterated the arguments that he had put forward in his statement of appeal against the detention order of 27 October 2004. 14.  On 1 February 2005 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the decision of 22 December 2004, holding as follows:
“Having examined the materials presented in the appeal statements, the court decides as follows.
While examining whether it was necessary to extend [the applicant’s] detention, the judge correctly took into account the gravity of the charges [and] the information on the accused’s character.
It follows from the materials presented that [the applicant] was held liable for an administrative offence.
The judge’s conclusion that [the applicant] is likely to abscond from the pre-trial investigation and judicial proceedings, to continue his criminal activities, and to pervert the course of justice is corroborated by the record of an additional interrogation of the victim, which is enclosed in the case file and from which it follows that the victim has been receiving insulting phone calls which frighten her and which she considers a way of applying mental pressure on her for having instituted the criminal proceedings.
The extension of [the applicant’s] detention is also connected to the necessity of carrying out investigative measures with a view to closing the pre-trial investigation.
The judge examined the possibility of applying another, more lenient, measure of restraint to [the applicant], as reflected in the decision, which states that applying a different measure of restraint to the accused cannot be justified.
...
By virtue of the requirements of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, when a judge examines an extension of detention issue, [he] does not have to take into account the conditions of [the applicant’s] detention, as raised by the lawyer in his appeal statement”.
(c)  Request for release: decision of 14 February 2005 15.  On 9 December 2004 the applicant’s counsel, Mr Bagryanskiy, submitted a request for the applicant’s release to the Leninskiy District Court, arguing that his arrest and subsequent detention were unlawful. 16.  According to the Government, two hearings scheduled for 23 December 2004 and 17 January 2005 were postponed following the prosecutor’s request for a stay in the proceedings or in view of his absence from a hearing. Another delay in the proceedings occurred when the prison transport service did not bring the applicant to the courthouse. The hearing on 1 February 2005 was rescheduled because the applicant’s lawyer did not attend. 17.  On 14 April 2005 the Leninskiy District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had been committed to stand trial and that the first trial hearing had been scheduled for 8 February 2005. 18.  On 17 May 2005 the Vladimir Regional Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant, upholding the District Court’s findings.
(d)  Detention from 12 January to 13 October 2005
i.  Decision of 25 January 2005 19.  In the meantime, on 12 January 2005 the period of the applicant’s detention authorised by the decision of 22 December 2004 expired. On the following day the applicant, having been served with the final version of the bill of indictment for charges of aggravated robbery and sexual assault in addition to aggravated rape, was committed to stand trial before the Frunzenskiy District Court. The court received the case file on 17 January 2005. 20.  At the preliminary hearing on 25 January 2005 the Frunzenskiy District Court, having noted that the applicant and his co-defendant were charged with a serious criminal offence, that the applicant had been held administratively liable and that there were reasons to believe that, if released, he and his co-defendant would abscond, threaten the victim and pervert the course of justice, concluded that there were no grounds for changing the measure of restraint. 21.  On 16 March 2005 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the decision of 25 January 2005, finding that the lawyers’ arguments that the defendants had permanent places of work and residence in Vladimir and that they had no intention of absconding did not suffice to conclude that the District Court’s decision had been incorrect. The Regional Court also noted that there were no grounds for releasing the defendants after 11 January 2005 because they were considered to be detained “pending judicial proceedings”. In the Regional Court’s opinion, after the District Court had received the criminal case file, it had six months to examine the issue of the applicant’s detention.
ii.  Remittal for further investigation and request for release: decision of 27 April 2005 22.  In April 2005 a lawyer for the applicant, Mr G., asked the Frunzenskiy District Court to remit the case to the prosecutor’s office for further investigation because the investigators had committed various procedural violations and had breached the applicant’s defence rights. At the same time, the applicant’s counsel sought his release. 23.  On 27 April 2005 the District Court remitted the case for further investigation and noted that the measure of restraint applied to the applicant and his co-defendant “should remain unchanged”, as the circumstances which had served as the grounds for their arrest were still present and there were no reasons to authorise a change. 24.  On 28 June 2005 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the decision, noting that it was well-founded. The Regional Court also found that the co-defendants’ detention was within the six-month period authorised by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(e)  Extension of the detention until 13 October 2005: order of 7 July 2005 25.  On 7 July 2005 the Frunzenskiy District Court authorised the extension of the applicant’s and his co-defendant’s detention for an additional three months, until 13 October 2005. The District Court stated that the authorised period of the applicant’s detention would expire on 13 July 2005 because the District Court had received the case file on 13 January 2005. It concluded that the defendants had been charged with serous criminal offences and were likely to abscond, pervert the course of justice and threaten the victim. 26.  On 11 August 2005 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the decision, reasoning as follows:
“Having discussed the arguments put forward in the appeal statement, the court considers that the decision [of 7 July 2005] is lawful and well-founded.
When the [District] court was taking the decision, [it] took into account the gravity of the three criminal offences which are punishable by more than ten years’ imprisonment and which are considered serious, posing a particular danger to society. The arguments laid down in the appeal statement were examined by the court and the respective findings were made. [It] was found that there were no grounds for changing the measure of restraint. The above-mentioned findings are reasoned and the reasoning should be considered convincing.
The courts of the first and second instances examined the complaints that the arrest on 25 October 2004 had been unlawful and that after 11 January 2005 [the applicant and his co-defendant] had been detained unlawfully, and found them to be unsubstantiated.”
(f)  Extension of the detention until 13 January 2006: order of 13 October 2005 27.  On 13 October 2005 the Frunzenskiy District Court extended the applicant’s and his co-defendant’s detention until 13 January 2006. The wording of the decision was identical to that issued on 7 July 2005. 28.  On 23 November 2005 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the decision, endorsing the reasons given by the District Court.
(g)  Extension of the detention until 13 April 2006: order of 11 January 2006 29.  On 11 January 2006 the Frunzenskiy District Court, in a decision identical to those issued on 7 July and 13 October 2005, extended the applicant’s and his co-defendant’s detention until 13 April 2006. 30.  On 7 March 2006 the Vladimir Regional Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant, concluding that the District Court’s findings were lawful and well-reasoned. 31.  On 10 April 2006 the Frunzenskiy District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment and a fine. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. 32.  On 3 November 2004 the applicant was placed in detention facility no. IZ-33/1 in Vladimir. During the entire period of his detention, until 12 May 2006, he was kept in three different cells: nos. 50, 52 and 56. On 10 November 2004 he was held for several hours in cell no. 50. From 3 to 15 November 2004 and from 6 to 17 May 2005 he was kept in cell no. 56. For the remaining period of his detention he applicant was held in cell no. 52. 33.  Relying on certificates issued by the head of the detention facility in May 2009 and barely legible extracts from prison population logs for four days in 2004 and twelve days in 2005, the Government submitted that cell no. 50 measured 77.35 square metres, had had twenty-two sleeping places and housed between ten and twenty-two inmates. Cell no. 52 measured approximately 39.4 square metres, had ten bunks and accommodated from six to ten persons. Cell no. 56 measured approximately 58 square metres, had sixteen sleeping places and housed ten to sixteen persons. To the extent that it was possible for the Court to decipher the extracts from the prison population logs, the number of detainees housed in the cells on the relevant days corresponded to the highest number indicated by the Government for each cell. The Government also submitted that the applicant had always had an individual sleeping place. 34.  The Government further submitted that cell no. 52 had one window and the two other cells had two each. Each window measured 1.1 square metres. From 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. the cell was lit by two or four 80 watt bulbs. At night a 40 watt bulb lit the cell. Each cell had a properly functioning air conditioning system and a heater installed below the window. In addition, inmates were allowed to open a casing in the windows to give them access to fresh air. According to the Government, each cell was equipped with a tap and a lavatory pan, which were installed in a corner, more than 3 metres from a table. The lavatory pan was separated from the living area by a 1.9 metre-high partition. Inmates were allowed to take a shower once every seven days, for which they were afforded between fifteen and thirty minutes. The facility’s shower room was equipped with twelve shower heads. The Government supported their submission with a copy of the schedules of seven “shower days” for cell no. 52, in which the applicant was being held at the time. The schedules showed that the entire cell population had been afforded fifteen minutes to take a shower. According to the schedule lists, from eight to ten inmates had been taken from cell no. 52 to the shower room. 35.  Lastly, the Government stated that the sanitary conditions in the facility had complied with the existing legal requirements. The applicant had received an adequate quantity of food of proper quality. Medical assistance had been provided to him whenever necessary and free of charge. The Government also submitted black-and-white photographs of cells nos. 52 and 56 and of the shower room taken at the end of 2009 in facility no. IZ-33/1. 36.  In the additional observations submitted to the Court on 16 October 2009, the Government stressed that the information concerning the cell floor space and the number of sleeping places had been verified by the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences. The representatives of the Service discovered certain discrepancies between the information provided by the head of facility no. IZ-33/1 and the actual situation. In particular, cell no. 50 measured 47.35 square metres and had thirty-three sleeping places. Cell no. 56 measured 58 square metres and had forty-two sleeping places. The information provided by the head of the facility about cell no. 52 was correct. The Government further submitted that it was impossible to establish the exact number of inmates detained together with the applicant, as the prison population logs had been destroyed prior to the expiry of the statutory time-limit. The official who had destroyed them had been sanctioned. The Government provided the Court with a certificate issued by a committee of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences as a follow-up to the inquiry into the incident. Having noted that the head of facility no. IZ-33/1 had provided the Government with incorrect information concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention and that the Court would probably interpret that fact unfavourably for the Government, the members of the committee stated that it was impossible to establish who had provided the head of the facility with the misleading information. 37.  While the applicant had provided slightly different measurements of the cells, his main dispute was about the number of inmates held in each cell. In particular, he argued that cell no. 52 had twenty-one sleeping places and had usually housed twenty-five to thirty detainees. Cell no. 50, which was equipped with thirty-three sleeping places, housed approximately fifty detainees. Cell no. 56 housed between forty-five and fifty-five detainees. The applicant insisted that owing to severe overcrowding, he had not had an individual bunk. Inmates had had to take turns to sleep. He further pointed out that detainees had been kept in extremely cramped conditions. Part of the cell floor space was occupied by metal bunks serving as beds for the occupants. The rest of the space was taken up by a wooden table, a bench, shelves, a tap, and a lavatory pan. That arrangement had left inmates with literally no free space where they could move. There was a lavatory pan in the corner of the cell, just a few metres away from the wooden table and bunk beds, separated from the living area by a partition no more than 90 cm high. Given that the lavatory pan was installed on a 30 to 40 cm-high pedestal, the partition did not offer any privacy. A curtain which inmates hung to obtain some privacy was removed by the wardens. Furthermore, the facility administration did not provide inmates with cleaning fluids. The lavatory pan was always dirty and had no lid, allowing unpleasant odours to permeate the cell. 38.  The applicant further stated that the cells had had no air conditioning system. They had been damp, stuffy and dark inside. Inmates had been allowed to smoke in the cells, which had been unbearable for the applicant, who did not smoke. Detainees had also washed their clothes in the cells, creating excessive humidity. The cell windows had been too small and had not allowed sufficient light to enter the cells as they were covered by metal netting. The fluorescent lighting had been constantly on. The cells had been infected with bed-bugs, lice and cockroaches but the administration had not provided any insecticides. Inmates had not been provided with toiletries. They had been allowed to take a shower once every seven days. Fifteen minutes had been afforded to fifteen to twenty inmates, while only four to five shower heads had worked. Food had been very scarce and of low quality. Inmates had been allowed to have an outdoor walk for an hour a day in the facility courtyards. The courtyards had been covered by metal roofs, with merely a metre of empty space between the walls and the roof. 39.  The applicant supported his submissions with statements by two inmates: Mr Y. and Mr Z. Between 30 January 2004 and 1 July 2005 Mr Y. had been detained together with the applicant in cells nos. 52 and 56. Although Mr Z., the applicant’s co-defendant, had never shared a cell with the applicant, he had been housed in the facility at the same time as the applicant. Mr Z. had also been kept in cells nos. 50 and 52. Both detainees’ descriptions of the detention conditions were very similar to that given by the applicant. 40.  The applicant also submitted four colour photographs of a cell which he had shared with twenty-three other inmates. The photographs showed from eight to ten inmates in a very small and sombre room with a row of three-tier bunk beds installed along a wall. According to the applicant, the remaining inmates had been taken for their daily outdoor walk when those photographs had been taken. The photographs also showed a long table with two benches placed between the bunks and another wall. The remaining floor space not taken up by the furniture was only sufficient to allow the entire cell population to stand shoulder to shoulder. The bunks were not separated from each other. The inmates had hung linen and clothes on the bunks to get some privacy. There was dirty and worn-out bedding on the bunks, which were installed in such a way that they blocked the window. The window was covered with two rows of metal bars. The photographs also showed a heavily scratched floor and walls with peeling paint. The furniture was in a very dilapidated state. The bunks were rusty, and clothes had been hung on a rope below the ceiling. 41.  In addition, the applicant provided the Court with a copy of order no. 7 issued on 31 January 2005 by the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences. The order dealt with the renovation programme of temporary detention facilities in Russia for 2006. It contained a list of temporary detention facilities and the conditions of detention therein which raised particularly serious concerns. Detention facility no. IZ-33/1 in Vladimir was among them. The order indicated that, with 1,009 detainees, the facility was housing twice its maximum capacity (507 places). It also indicated that inmates in that facility had less than 2.5 square metres of personal space. 42.  Lastly, the applicant presented copies of letters to the Vladimir regional prosecutor from the same head of facility no. IZ-33/1 on whose certificates the Government had relied in their submission to the Court. The letters concerned an inmate, Mr N., who had been detained in the facility from 13 April 2004 to 27 June 2006. Mr N. had also stayed in cells nos. 50 and 56. In his letters to the prosecutor, the head of the facility indicated that cell no. 50 measured 47.35 square metres, had thirty-three bunks and housed twenty-four to thirty-three inmates. Although he indicated the same size of cell no. 56 as in the certificate that he had submitted to the Government, the head of the facility noted that that cell had forty-two sleeping places and twenty-nine to forty-two persons had been detained there together with Mr N. 43.  The applicant lodged a number of complaints before various domestic authorities, including the courts, alleging that he had been detained in appalling conditions. The complaints were to no avail.