4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and before his arrest lived in Kerch. In 2000 he contracted pulmonary tuberculosis. It remains unknown whether the applicant received any treatment for this condition while at liberty. 5.  On 31 January 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed an armed robbery and was taken to a police station. He claimed that he had been physically ill-treated at the police station and forced to sign a waiver of his right to a lawyer. However, he did not provide any documentary evidence that he sustained injuries on that date. The applicant also alleged, without providing further details or any evidence, that he had not been given enough time to prepare his defence. On the same date the applicant was questioned without a lawyer being present. 6.  On 27 April 2009 the Kerch Town Court found the applicant guilty of unlawful possession of a weapon and armed robbery, sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment and ordered the confiscation of all his property. The conviction was based on various items of evidence, including statements made by the applicant himself at the trial, in which he admitted to having bought a weapon and broken into a flat to rob an old woman. The applicant did not appeal against the judgment. 7.  On an unspecified date he lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court and complained that the evidence against him had been falsified, that the first-instance court had not examined the witnesses and evidence properly, and that his guilt had not been properly established. He did not complain about the lack of access to a lawyer or the insufficient time to prepare his defence. On 15 October 2009 the Supreme Court rejected his cassation appeal as unfounded. The applicant received the copy of this decision on 27 October 2009. 8.  On 10 January 2011 the Court asked the applicant to provide copies of relevant documents from the criminal case file. The applicant applied to the first-instance court in this respect. On 16 March 2011 the president of the first-instance court rejected the request, noting that there was no legal basis in domestic law. 9.  On several occasions the applicant requested that the first-instance court give him access to the case file, but to no avail. 10.  Between 1 February and 26 March 2009 the applicant was held in the Simferopol Temporary Detention Facility (ITT).  Between 26 March and 7 July 2009 he remained in the medical unit of the Simferopol Pre-trial Detention Facility (SIZO). According to the applicant, the conditions of his detention in the ITT and the SIZO were deplorable. 11.  Between 7 and 13 July 2009 the applicant was held in Prison no. 7 for prisoners suffering from tuberculosis. 12.  Between 13 July and 14 August 2009 the applicant was held in the specialist tuberculosis hospital in Prison no. 61. 13.  On 14 August 2009 the applicant returned to Prison no. 7 and remained there until 1 December 2010. According to the applicant, in the autumn the temperature in the cells was around 12oС, while in winter it was only two degrees warmer than outdoors. The windows in the prison cells were covered with polyethylene sheets instead of glass, the cells were damp, and the food was inadequate. The applicant did not provide any further details about the cells or the food. 14.  The Government argued that the applicant’s description of the conditions in Prison no. 7 was inaccurate. According to them, the prison was heated by its own boiler plant, which in 2009 began operating on 21 October, while in 2010 it began on 8 October. During the autumn-winter periods of 2009-11 the temperature in the prison premises was: 18-20oC in the residential area, 20-22oC in the medical facilities, and 25-27oC in the bath-and-laundry wing. All the windows in the prison were properly glazed prior to the beginning of the cold season. The cells had natural ventilation. The humidity in the cells was measured daily. The level was 44%, which was normal. The food which the applicant received was in compliance with national legislation. The Government supported their description of the conditions in Prison no. 7 by certificates issued by the prison administration. 15.  On 1 December 2010 the applicant was sent to Simferopol Prison no. 102 for healthy detainees. He was detained there until 27 January 2011. 16.  From 27 January to 9 February 2011 the applicant was detained in Prison no. 7. 17.  From 9 February 2011 onwards the applicant was detained in Prison no. 102. 18.  According to the applicant, on 1 February 2009 he informed the ITT paramedic that he was suffering from tuberculosis. According to the Government, the applicant did not inform the ITT administration that he had any health problems. 19.  On 5 February 2009 a radiography examination revealed changes in the applicant’s lungs and it was recommended that he be examined by a specialist. 20.  On 9 February 2009 the applicant underwent blood and sputum tests in Kerch Municipal TB Hospital no. 1 and was examined by a specialist. On the same date the ITT administration asked the TB hospital to assess whether the applicant required medical treatment and isolation in connection with his tuberculosis. 21.  On 2 March 2009 the applicant underwent another radiology examination in the TB hospital. The radiologist who conducted the examination noted that the applicant had “disseminated infiltrated TB”. However, laboratory tests carried out on the same date did not confirm that diagnosis, having revealed no tuberculosis bacteria in the applicant’s blood and sputum. 22.  On 19 March 2009 the doctors of the TB hospital, having studied the results of the above-mentioned medical tests and examinations, concluded that (i) the changes in the applicant’s lungs discerned from the radiography images were post-tuberculosis scars indicating that his tuberculosis had been cured; (ii) there were no tuberculosis bacteria in the applicant’s blood and sputum; (iii) the applicant did not need medical treatment or isolation; and (iv) he fell within category 5.1 (see the Order of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine no. 384 of 9 June 2006 below). Those conclusions were sent to the ITT administration. 23.  On 26 March 2009, following the applicant’s arrival at the SIZO, it was established that his tuberculosis had reactivated. He was placed in the SIZO medical unit and started receiving anti-tuberculosis medication. He also underwent an unspecified number of medical tests aimed at establishing the exact type of his tuberculosis. The applicant did not provide further details about the tuberculosis treatment he received in the SIZO. 24.  On 8, 9 and 10 July 2009 the applicant underwent sputum tests and a radiography examination of the thorax. 25.  Between 13 July and 14 August 2009 the applicant underwent bronchoscopy examination and was diagnosed with recurrent infiltrative tuberculosis and chronic bronchitis. He was prescribed treatment for his diseases, which he subsequently received. The case-file contains a certificate noting that the treatment for tuberculosis which the applicant received from 13 to 22 July 2009 was “ineffective”. 26.  On 17 August and 19 August 2009 the applicant underwent a microscopic sputum examination. 27.  On 8 October 2009 the applicant underwent a radiography examination of the thorax. 28.  On 28 October 2009 the applicant’s medical treatment for tuberculosis was modified. 29.  On 8 December 2009 the applicant was examined by a doctor, who diagnosed him with cervical and thoracic osteochondrosis. 30.  On 17 December 2009 the applicant underwent another sputum test. 31.  On 20 January 2010 a radiography examination of the applicant’s thorax revealed “some positive dynamics” in the state of his lungs. 32.  On 22 April 2010 the applicant was examined by a neuropathologist and diagnosed with osteochondrosis of the lumbar spine. 33.  On 27 April 2010 the applicant underwent another radiography examination of the thorax. 34.  On 28 April 2010 the applicant underwent a radiography examination of the spine and was diagnosed with diffuse osteoporosis and osteosclerosis. On the same date he was examined by a neuropathologist, who prescribed him medication for those diseases. He subsequently received that medication. No further information about the gravity of the applicant’s osteoporosis, osteosclerosis and osteochondrosis or their progress was made available to the Court. 35.  On 30 April 2010 the applicant was examined by a doctor. On 5 May 2010 he underwent an electrocardiogram, and spirography and sputum tests. 36.  On 11 May 2010 the applicant was again examined by the doctor, who diagnosed him with chronic bronchitis and prescribed medication, which the applicant subsequently received. The applicant did not inform the Court about the progress of his bronchitis. 37.  On 14 July 2010 the applicant’s anti-tuberculosis treatment was modified. 38.  On 4 August 2010 the applicant underwent a sputum test, which revealed that the tuberculosis bacteria were not increasing. 39.  On 11 August 2010 the applicant underwent another radiography examination of the thorax. 40.  On 5 October 2010 the applicant underwent another sputum test, which revealed no tuberculosis bacteria. 41.  On 3 November 2010 the applicant underwent a radiography examination of the thorax. 42.  The applicant’s anti-tuberculosis treatment was completed on 26 November 2010 because he had recovered. He was registered as a person requiring regular follow-up radiography examinations of the lungs. 43.  On 27 January 2011 the applicant underwent laboratory tests and a chest X-ray, which confirmed that he had recovered from tuberculosis and no longer required treatment. 44.  The applicant stated before the Court, without having submitted any evidence or further details, that his eyesight had deteriorated as a result of the anti-tuberculosis treatment, and that he had been allergic to the anti-tuberculosis medication he had received.