5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Daugavpils. 6.  On 2 June 1998 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of rape and brought to the Ventspils Police Department. The applicant contended that he had been beaten by police officers immediately after his arrest and later during police questioning. On the same day he was placed in custody in a cell in the Ventspils Police Department. 7.  According to the applicant, the cell where he was placed was dirty and infested with fleas and bedbugs. Food was limited to one meal per day and the drinking water had a strong taste of bleach. Moreover, receiving food parcels from relatives was prohibited. It was impossible for the applicant to keep himself clean because of the lack of water and personal hygiene products. In order to prevent him from writing complaints, his pen and paper were seized. 8.  Between 2 and 4 June 1998 the applicant was questioned by the police without being represented by a lawyer. A State-appointed lawyer assisted the applicant during questioning from 4 June 1998 onwards. 9.  In the course of the pre-trial investigation and after its completion, the applicant allegedly filed numerous complaints with the Ventspils Public Prosecutor's Office and with other State authorities, complaining about the conditions in which he had been held and his ill-treatment by the police. However, according to him, he received only standard replies and no investigation was carried out. On 25 November 1998 the applicant filed a complaint with the Kurzeme Regional Public Prosecutor's Office complaining about the conditions of his detention. On 26 November 1998, in reply to his complaint, a prosecutor stated that the facts complained of, such as the alleged lack of personal hygiene products and the inability to wash, fell outside the competence of the Prosecutor's Office. On an unspecified date the applicant announced a hunger strike to protest against the conditions of his detention. 10.  Later, the applicant was transferred to the Ventspils Police short-term detention facility. On 18 November 1998 he submitted a complaint to the Ventspils Public Prosecutor's Office complaining about misconduct on the part of one of the police officers on duty. On 26 November 1998 a prosecutor visited the applicant and found his complaints unsubstantiated. 11.  According to the applicant, on 26 November 1998, immediately after the prosecutor's visit, the same police officer on duty, while giving the applicant a bottle of water through the security hatch in the cell door, sprayed gas in his face and shut the ventilation outlets. During the next six hours, at some forty-minute intervals, he poured gas into the cell from gas canisters through the ventilation outlets and subsequently shut them. The applicant and his cellmate asked for the ventilation outlets to be opened; the police officer agreed on condition that the applicant withdrew his complaint. 12.  On 29 November 1998 the applicant applied to the Kurzeme Regional Public Prosecutor's Office complaining about the aforementioned facts and seeking to institute criminal proceedings against the police officer. It appears that no investigation was carried out in respect of the facts complained of and that the applicant was not provided with any reply. 13.  On 13 January 1999 the Kurzeme Regional Court found the applicant guilty of the aggravated rape and sexual assault of a fifteen-year-old girl and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment. The applicant appealed. 14.  On 4 March 1999 the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, after having held a hearing, upheld the assessment of evidence by the trial court. However, the appellate court amended the judgment, ordering the applicant to pay the victim 4,000 Latvian lati (LVL) for non-pecuniary damage. The applicant was represented by a State-appointed lawyer before the first-instance court and the appellate court. 15.  The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law. On 11 May 1999 the Senate of the Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible for lack of arguable points of law. The applicant sought to initiate an extraordinary supervisory review of this decision; however, on 14 June 1999 the Office of the Prosecutor General dismissed his application. 16.  On 6 June 1999 the applicant was transferred to Jelgava prison to continue serving his sentence, and remained there until 22 November 2000. On admission he underwent a medical examination; according to the medical report, he was a drug addict and suffered from venereal disease, spondylosis, dermatitis and gastric problems. The Government maintained, and the applicant himself did not deny, that he received the necessary medical treatment. While in Jelgava prison, he was punished on thirty-two occasions for various disciplinary offences. The last of these penalties was imposed on him on 18 July 2000. 17.  From 12 to 14 April 2000, the Prison Administration carried out a general inspection of Jelgava prison. Detainees were questioned about the conditions of their detention; no specific complaints were received. 18.  According to the documents submitted by the Government, during a cell inspection carried out on 18 July 2000 the applicant behaved aggressively towards the prison guards, used threatening gestures and obscene language. Three guards who had performed the cell inspection subsequently filled in and signed the report form intended for such purposes; however, the applicant himself refused to give explanations, he only noted that he did not speak Latvian and that he did not have trust in the prison guards. The chief supervisor of the relevant prison wing then recommended punishing him with solitary confinement in an isolation cell (soda izolators); the supervisor's report includes a comment according to which the prison doctor examined the applicant and found him fit to undergo the punishment. By a decision taken on the same day, 18 July 2000, the prison governor imposed a punishment of fifteen days' isolation on the applicant, starting from the next day. 19.  On the next day, 19 July 2000, after having been transferred to an isolation cell, the applicant was reported again to be behaving aggressively; he also declared a hunger strike. He was then handcuffed for an unspecified amount of time. As on the previous day, three prison guards in charge of the disciplinary unit wrote a disciplinary report. The applicant explained that he had had a “nervous outburst”. It appears that the applicant received no separate punishment for this incident. 20.  The applicant contends that on numerous occasions he applied to various State authorities including the Specialised Public Prosecutor's Office, seeking an investigation into the allegedly unlawful disciplinary penalties imposed on him. On 4 October 2000 he was visited by a prosecutor with whom he discussed this matter. According to the Government, the applicant indeed complained to the aforementioned Prosecutor's Office – but not to any other authority – on 14, 24, 30 and 31 October 2000. However, it cannot be inferred from the case file that in his complaints he actually mentioned the numerous disciplinary penalties imposed on him. These four complaints were forwarded to the Prison Administration, which replied to him by a letter of 21 November 2000 signed by its director; there is no mention of any disciplinary penalty in it. 21.  On 7 November 2000 the applicant complained about the alleged unlawfulness of the disciplinary penalty imposed on him on 18 July 2000. On 24 November 2000, a prosecutor of the Specialised Public Prosecutor's Office dismissed his complaint, finding that the impugned punishment had been justified. 22.  On 4 and 14 November 2000 the applicant filed new complaints with the Specialised Public Prosecutor's Office, the content of which has not been disclosed to the Court. The Government inferred that the applicant had been complaining about management problems in Jelgava prison. By a letter of 15 December 2000 the competent prosecutor replied to him, advising him to submit details of any disputes with the chief supervisor of the wing to the prison governor prior to writing to the Prison Administration or the Prosecutor's Office. 23.  According to the applicant, on an unspecified date at the end of 2000 he was again placed in a disciplinary cell, where a group of prison guards handcuffed him and then beat, clubbed and kicked him. In the course of the assault the applicant fell to the floor, hit his head against the floor and lost consciousness. After that, he suffered from a violent headache and vomited. Subsequently, a prison doctor examined the applicant and noted a traumatic displacement of his left-side facial bones; however, the applicant remained in the disciplinary cell and no medicines were given to him. The applicant provided a short synopsis of his medical history, drawn up and certified by three members of the medical staff of Grīva prison; this document does not mention any such trauma. Nevertheless, the applicant insisted that the beating had indeed taken place, despite being unable to give the exact date. He claimed to have addressed numerous complaints to various authorities, including the Prosecutor General, requesting that criminal proceedings be instituted against the prison guards allegedly involved in the beating incident; however, no investigation was carried out and the applicant did not receive any reply to his complaints. The Government denied these allegations. 24.  At the request of the governor of Jelgava prison, the director of the Prison Administration on 14 November 2000 approved the applicant's transfer to Daugavpils prison to continue serving his sentence. It appears that on 22 November 2000 the applicant was transferred to the Central Prison Hospital in Rīga and that he stayed there until 11 January 2001. 25.  The applicant also contended that on an unspecified date in 2001 he had undergone an X-ray examination of his skull in the Central Prison Hospital. The results of this examination allegedly confirmed the traumatic displacement of his left-side facial bones and revealed a trauma to his right hand, loss of hearing in his left ear and a damaged retina in his right eye. He claimed that doctors had refused to operate on him or even to report his injuries to the Prosecutor General. As he had expressed dissatisfaction with the conduct of the doctors, he was subsequently penalised and placed in a disciplinary cell where he allegedly did not receive any medical assistance or treatment. The medical synopsis submitted by the applicant (see paragraph 23 above) does not mention any such examination, and there is no other document in the case file to confirm these statements. 26.  Between 11 January 2001 and 26 January 2002 the applicant served his sentence in Daugavpils prison. During that period, he was punished on twenty occasions for various disciplinary offences, including on six occasions by solitary confinement, inter alia, for being intoxicated with drugs. The conditions of detention in Daugavpils were generally poor, the food was of poor quality and of insufficient quantity and the detainees were not provided with any personal hygiene products. 27.  Between 8 November and 21 December 2001 the applicant was kept in a special segregation unit of the prison. According to him, the cell where he was placed together with other detainees was located in the prison basement and had no daylight. The cell was very humid and cold since its windows were unglazed and since the central heating pipes and radiators gave off no heat. It was in a poor state of repair, dirty and infested with insects and rats. Furthermore, it lacked hot water and was not even equipped with a washbasin; hence, the applicant was unable to keep himself clean. His clothes were never taken to the prison laundry, so that he was obliged to wear the same underwear for two months. As there was no drinking water supply, the detainees were forced to drink water from the toilet flush or from a bucket intended for the same purpose. The cell was inadequately furnished as there was no dining table or furniture for keeping personal belongings, and no cutlery. The Government did not submit any comments in this regard. 28.  The applicant asserted that he had applied to the prison authorities, various State officials and the Prosecutor General complaining about the conditions of detention but had not received any answer. Moreover, according to the applicant, his complaints gave rise to abuse from prison staff: he was verbally assaulted, threatened with violence, his warm clothes were taken off him and false reports were made about him. The Government denied that the applicant ever complained about the conditions of his detention. 29.  On 21 December 2001 the applicant declared a hunger strike to protest against the conditions of his detention. He was immediately punished with solitary confinement and placed in disciplinary cell no. 22. According to the applicant, this cell had no windows, no ventilation system and no washbasin. It was overrun by insects and rats. No toiletries and bedding were provided, and the applicant's request for some boiled water was refused. At night, the applicant slept on a folding bunk bed which was fixed to the wall during the day so that it was impossible to lie down or sit on it in daytime. If the applicant felt unwell during the day, he was forced to lie on the floor. Moreover, he allegedly fainted several times because of the extremely stale air in the cell and he complained about this to the prison staff, but in vain. Each morning the cell was searched; he was consequently ordered to strip naked and brought out into the corridor, where he was humiliated by the prison staff. According to the Government, the applicant's allegation of daily strip-searches was wholly unsubstantiated. 30.  The applicant submitted that on the tenth day of his confinement he was visited by a prison doctor who, instead of providing any kind of medical assistance, informed him that he would be kept in these conditions until he agreed to give up his hunger strike. 31.  The applicant further alleged that on the thirteenth day of his hunger strike he was transferred to disciplinary cell no. 14. This cell was very cold, since its window contained only empty panes without glass. On the next day, the applicant allegedly fainted again, collapsed on the floor and wounded his forehead on the metal rim of the bunk bed. Shortly afterwards he was examined by a prison doctor who declared that he should lie down in bed. However, this indication appears not to have been followed and the applicant remained in the disciplinary cell in the same conditions. 32.  The Government did not comment on most of the facts described above, merely observing that there were “no solitary confinements or any other special cells for those who have announced a hunger strike in Daugavpils prison”. 33.  On 4 January 2002 the applicant discontinued his hunger strike for health reasons. According to him, on 7 January 2002 he lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General complaining of the allegedly unlawful disciplinary penalties imposed on him and of his inhuman treatment in Daugavpils prison. The applicant did not specify whether he received any answer to this complaint. The Government denied this assertion; according to them, the last complaint during this period was made by the applicant on 26 March 2001, was addressed to the Inspector General of the Ministry of Justice (Tieslietu ministrijas ģenerālinspektors) and related only to restrictions on receiving food parcels from relatives. The applicant claimed that he had subsequently been threatened by the deputy prison governor, who warned him that that he would be subjected to even worse conditions if he continued to complain. 34.  On 25 January 2002 the applicant was released from the disciplinary cell. Shortly thereafter he was admitted to the Central Prison Hospital in Rīga to undergo medical treatment for tuberculosis. In April 2002 he left hospital and was transferred to Grīva prison, where he continued serving his sentence until his release on 2 June 2008. The applicant submitted that the medical assistance in that prison had not been appropriate to his condition; he did not, however, provide any details or descriptions in that regard.