6.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Moscow. 7.  On 1 August 1997 the applicant was arrested and charged with assault. He remained in custody pending investigation and trial. 8.  On 31 December 1997 the criminal investigation in respect of the applicant was completed and his case-file was forwarded to the Perovskiy District Court of Moscow. 9.  In January-April 1998 the District Court adjourned the trial twice because of a conflict in the judge’s schedule and once because the applicant’s lawyer’s failed to appear. 10.  On 27 May, 13 July and 20 October 1998 the District Court adjourned the hearing in the matter because of the failure of the witnesses to appear. 11.  On 27 November and 6 April 1998 the trial was adjourned because the applicant was ill, and owing to the absence of the witnesses and the applicant’s lawyer respectively. 12.  The District Court heard the case on 7 and 13 May 1999. On 17 May 1999 it found the applicant guilty of assault and extortion and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. The verdict was quashed on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 5 April 2000. The appeal court noted that the applicant’s indictment had contravened the rules of criminal procedure, and remitted the matter for further investigation. 13.  On 16 June 2000 the City Court forwarded the case-file to the District Court. On 28 July 2000 the District court fixed the hearing for 22 September 2000. 14.  The hearing of the matter was adjourned on 22 September, 1 and 8 November and 8 December 2000, for the following reasons: (a) to give the trial court time to study the file, (b) owing to the absence of the defendants, who were not transported to the courthouse on two occasions, and (c) upon request by the prosecution and defence counsel. 15.  On 21 December 2000 the District Court remitted the matter for additional investigation. The trial was re-opened on 16 March 2001, when the District Court fixed the hearing for 10 April 2001. 16.  The hearing scheduled for 10 April 2001 was adjourned owing to the witnesses’ failure to appear. On 28 April 2001 the hearing was adjourned owing to the applicant’s illness. 17.  On 30 May 2001 the witnesses and the applicant’s lawyer failed to appear and the hearing was adjourned. On 6 June 2001 the District Court adjourned the hearing because the defendants were ill. 18.  During the period between 25 June and 25 September 2001 the District Court adjourned the trial eight times owing to the witnesses’ or lawyers’ failure to appear. 19.  On 25 September 2001 the District Court heard the case. It found the applicant and two other defendants guilty of assault and extortion. The applicant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. The defendants appealed. 20.  The District Court forwarded the case-file to the City Court on 14 January 2002. On 19 February 2002 the City Court found that the trial had been held in the absence of the applicant’s representative and it quashed the judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 21.  The District Court fixed the trial for 29 April 2002. During the period between 29 April and 25 June 2002 the District Court adjourned five hearings owing to the witnesses’ and lawyers’ failure to appear. 22.  On 9 July 2002 the hearing was adjourned owing to a conflict in the judge’s schedule. 23.  On 29 July 2002 the witnesses failed to appear and the hearing was adjourned. The next three hearings were adjourned owing to the lawyers’ failure to appear. On 15 October 2002 the applicant’s lawyer asked for another adjournment in order to study the case-file. 24.  The District Court heard the case from 30 October to 4 November 2002. On 4 November 2002 the District Court convicted the applicant of extortion and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. On 19 March 2003 the City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. 25.  On 17 July 2003 the Presidium of the City Court quashed the appeal judgment of 19 March 2003, by way of supervisory review, on account of certain procedural irregularities, and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 26.  On 15 September 2003 the City Court again upheld the judgment of 4 November 2002 on appeal. 27.  Pending investigation and trial, the applicant was detained in remand prisons nos. IZ-77/1 and IZ-77/3 in Moscow. 28.  According to the Government, the applicant was detained in remand prison no. IZ-77/1 from 6 August 1997 to 17 June 1999, from 3 May 2000 to 22 October 2001, and from 27 March to 21 October 2002. They provided the following information as regards the cells where the applicant was detained, their surface area and the number of sleeping places per cell:
 
Cell no.
Surface area (in square metres)
Number of beds
102 29.  The Government further indicated that the applicant was detained in remand prison no. IZ-77/3 from 17 June 1999 to 3 May 2000, from 22 October 2001 to 27 March 2002, and from 21 October 2002 to 14 January 2003. They provided the following information as regards the cells where the applicant was detained and their surface area:
 
Cell no.
Surface area (in square metres)
413 30.  The applicant was detained in cell no. 610 from 21 October 2002 to 14 January 2003. There were between twenty-eight and thirty inmates detained there together with the applicant. 31.  The Government did not provide information as regards the remand prisons’ population during the period of the applicant’s detention there, noting that the relevant documents had been destroyed on the expiry of the statutory time-limit for storing them. 32.  At all times the applicant was provided with an individual sleeping place. The cells were equipped with ventilation in good working order. There was natural and artificial lighting. The cells were regularly disinfected. The water supply and heating systems functioned properly. The average temperature in the cells was +180C during the summer and +20 to +220C during the winter. The inmates were entitled to outdoor exercise and use of shower facilities. 33.  According to the applicant, he was detained in severely overcrowded cells. There were between ninety and one hundred and twenty inmates held in one cell with only ten to sixteen beds. The inmates had to take turns to sleep. 34.  The applicant received regular medical assistance. On 26 September 1998 the applicant consulted an ophthalmologist who diagnosed him with slight myopia and prescribed him glasses. On 20 November 2002 the applicant had another eye examination and was prescribed new glasses as his myopia had got worse. 35.  On 25 August 2003, while the applicant was serving a sentence in correctional colony no. IK-17 in Nizhniy Novgorod, he was diagnosed with varicose veins and underwent the necessary treatment.
(b)  The applicant’s submissions 36.  According to the applicant, his health has seriously deteriorated owing to his detention in appalling conditions in the remand prisons. 37.  On 30 July 2004 the applicant was released. In November 2004 he was diagnosed with hepatitis.