5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Novosibirsk. 6.  On 8 April 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder and placed in pre-trial detention pursuant to an order of the Berdsk District Court of the Novosibirsk Region (“the Berdsk District Court”). 7.  Between 3 June 2003 and 12 May 2004 the Berdsk District Court extended the applicant’s detention pending trial on several occasions. On the latter date it ordered that he remain in detention until 12 August 2004. It referred to the seriousness of the charges against him and the absence of any grounds to change that particular preventive measure. 8.  On 11 August 2004 the Berdsk District Court convicted the applicant as charged and he was sentenced to imprisonment. It also ordered that he remain in detention until his conviction became final. 9.  On 15 December 2004 the Novosibirsk Regional Court quashed the applicant’s conviction and sent his case to the first-instance court for fresh examination. Its decision stated that the preventive measure applied to him “should remain unchanged”. 10.  In an interlocutory hearing on 9 March 2005 the Berdsk District Court examined a request by the applicant for release pending trial, subject to him either giving an undertaking not to leave a specified place or the application of a different preventive measure. He argued, in particular, that the Novosibirsk Regional Court’s brief indication in its decision of 15 December 2004 that the preventive measure applied to him should remain unchanged could not serve as a sufficient legal basis for his continued detention. In this connection, the Berdsk District Court noted that the Novosibirsk Regional Court’s decision, in so far as it had concerned the preventive measure, had been lawful as it had been taken in accordance with the relevant provisions of national law. It further did not consider it possible to release the applicant pending trial on account of the seriousness of charges against him and the fact that he was a foreign national and did not reside within the territory of Russia, with the result that he might abscond if at liberty or put pressure on witnesses. The court thus ordered that his detention be extended until 15 June 2005. 11.  On 6 April 2005 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the decision of 9 March 2005 on appeal. It stated that the Berdsk District Court, in convicting the applicant on 11 August 2004, had indicated that he should remain in detention until that judgment became final. It further noted that when quashing the conviction, it itself had stated that the preventive measure applied to the applicant should remain unchanged, and that then, in accordance with Article 255 § 3 of the Russian Criminal Code, the Berdsk District Court had extended the applicant’s detention for three months. It thus concluded that the applicant’s pre-trial detention was lawful, well‑founded and based on a court order. 12.  On 8 June 2005 the Berdsk District Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 15 September 2005. He requested his release, stating that he had been in custody for a long time and that his health had deteriorated. The court held that there were no grounds to change the preventive measure applied to him. It referred to the seriousness of the charges against him and the fact that he was a foreign national and did not reside within the territory of Russia, with the result that he might abscond or influence witnesses if released. 13.  On 5 September 2005 the Berdsk District Court ordered that the applicant remain in detention until 15 December 2005. He asked the court to change the preventive measure, referring to the poor state of his health and the fact that he had already been kept in detention for a long time. He further argued that he would not abscond, given that his family lived in Berdsk and owned property nearby. The court stated that because the applicant had been charged with a particularly serious offence, had pleaded not guilty, was a foreign national and was not registered within the territory of Russia, he might seek to evade justice. It also stated that the extension of his detention was necessary, in view of the fact that an expert examination in his case was being carried out in Moscow at the time. 14.  On 14 December 2005 the Berdsk District Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 15 March 2006. He asked to be released, arguing that he had a child and family in the Novosibirsk Region as well as property nearby where he could be registered. He had also already spent a long time in detention and his state of health had deteriorated. The court gave reasons similar to those indicated in its decision of 5 September 2005. 15.  On 15 March 2006 the Berdsk District Court ordered the applicant’s release, subject to him giving an undertaking not to leave a specified place. The court noted that he had been kept in detention for a long time, and that his wife and child lived in Novosibirsk, where the latter went to school. It also took into account the fact that they were Russian nationals, and that there was therefore a possibility, and a place, for the applicant to live in the Novosibirsk Region pending trial. The court further noted that the results of the expert examination carried out in Moscow had since been received. It also referred to the fact that the applicant had no previous criminal record, had positive references from his place of residence and place of work and needed medical treatment as his health had deteriorated. 16.  On 19 May 2006 the Berdsk District Court acquitted the applicant. In the operative part of its judgment it stated that he had a right to “rehabilitation” (реабилитация) and that it was open to him to claim compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 17.  On 21 August 2006 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the acquittal on appeal. 18.  After his acquittal the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the authorities in the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Novosibirsk under Articles 131 and 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 136 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He claimed 10,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for the pecuniary damage resulting from his unlawful prosecution and detention, and RUB 120,761 for costs and expenses. He argued, in particular, that as a result of being prosecuted for an offence he had not committed he had been deprived of his liberty, which had caused him and his family suffering. Furthermore, he could not work and his health had deteriorated. 19.  On 30 January 2008 the Oktyabrskiy District Court partly allowed the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damage and awarded him RUB 500,000 (approximately 12,500 euros). In its reasoning the court firstly noted that under Article 5 of the Convention everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in breach of that provision should have the right to compensation. It further noted that by virtue of the Berdsk District Court’s judgment of 19 May 2006 the applicant had been acquitted and his right to “rehabilitation” had been recognised. On this basis the court found that he had been unlawfully prosecuted, unlawfully detained from 8 April 2003 to 15 March 2006 and, subsequently, unlawfully subjected to an undertaking not to leave a specified place. It further stated that, where a person’s right to rehabilitation had been recognised, the existence of non-pecuniary damage was presumed and it was only the amount to be awarded that had to be established. For these purposes the court took into account the suffering caused to the applicant and the fact that his health had deteriorated. It relied on Articles 1070 and 1100 of the Civil Code in this regard. 20.  On the same date the Oktyabrskiy District Court discontinued the proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses, on the grounds that it could not be examined within the civil proceedings but rather should be brought within criminal proceedings. 21.  On 18 March 2008 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 22.  Between 2003 and 2006, during the examination of the applicant’s case, he was on several occasions taken to the temporary detention facility of the Berdsk Office of the Interior (“the Berdsk IVS”) so that he could take part in the proceedings. 23.  The applicant provided the following information concerning his detention in the IVS:
-  between 6 and 15 April and 13 and 20 May 2003 he was held with one cellmate in cell no. 9, which measured less than 6 square metres and was equipped with two beds;
-  between 5 and 12 August 2003 he was again held in cell no. 9, but this time with three cellmates;
-  between 7 and 21 October 2003 and 3 and 10 February 2004 he was held with nine cellmates in cell no. 6, which measured around 16 square metres;
-  between 11 and 18 May 2004 he was again held in cell no. 6, but this time with five cellmates;
-  between 15 and 18 June 2004 he was held with nine cellmates in cell no. 4, which measured around 18 square metres and was equipped with six beds;
-  between 15 and 20 July 2004 he was again held in cell no. 9, but this time with two cellmates;
-  between 27 July and 13 August 2004 he was held with one cellmate in cell no. 11, which measured 5.75 square metres and was equipped with one bed;
-  between 31 August and 7 September 2004 he was held with eleven cellmates in cell no. 8, which measured around 18 square metres and was equipped with six beds;
-  between 3 and 18 March, 17 and 24 May, 7 and 10 June, 30 and 31 August and 13 and 20 December 2005, and between 14 and 15 March 2006, the applicant was again held in cell no. 8 with six, eight, five, two, six and eight cellmates respectively;
-  between 31 August and 6 September 2005 the applicant was again held in cell no. 11, but this time with two cellmates. 24.  None of the cells was equipped with a wash basin, which made basic hygiene procedures impossible. Detainees could take a shower only once every ten days. There was no partition between the lavatory and the rest of the room, which offered no privacy. The cells were infested with bedbugs and no pest control treatments were ever conducted. As there were no windows, there was no fresh air or daylight. The ventilation system was turned on very rarely, so the cells were stuffy and humid and in summer it was hard to breathe. The artificial lighting was insufficient, which affected detainees’ eyesight. The fact that there were no tables and chairs was humiliating as detainees had to eat, prepare for hearings and write complaints and applications while sitting on the floor. Food was served only once a day and the applicant was constantly hungry. Walks outside the cells were irregular and did not last for more than fifteen minutes. 25.  According to the Government, they were unable to provide exact information about the cells the applicant was held in 2003 and part of 2004 or the number of inmates he was held with, as the relevant documents had been destroyed on the expiry of their storage period. 26.  They did, however, provide the following information concerning the applicant’s detention in the Berdsk IVS in 2004 to 2006:
-  between 11 and 18 May 2004 he was held with six inmates in cell no. 6, which measured 17.3 square metres;
-  between 3 and 18 March, 17 and 24 May, 7 and 10 June and 13 and 20 December 2005, and between 14 and 15 March 2006, he was held with six to nine inmates in cell no. 8, which measured 18.3 square metres;
-  between 30 August and 6 September 2005 he was held with two cellmates in cell no. 11, which measured 5.75 square metres. 27.  The cells did not have windows but were ventilated. They contained no other furniture apart from beds. The number of cellmates exceeded the number of available beds. Each cell had a wall-mounted lavatory, but there was no partition to divide it from the rest of the cell. The cells were cleaned daily, and pest control treatments were conducted every three months. 28.  Detainees were each provided with bedding, towels, crockery and cutlery. Shaving items were made available upon request at least twice a week. Detainees were taken for a daily walk of a minimum of one hour in a yard measuring 48.8 square metres. Hot meals were provided three times a day. 29.  On 30 August 2005 a group of police officers of the Berdsk Office of the Interior accompanied by an officer of the Berdsk IVS entered the applicants’ cell to inspect it. 30.  According to the applicant, the police officers ordered him and his cellmates to stay crouched down with their hands on the back of their heads and started checking their personal belongings and sleeping places. One of the officers threw a pillow on the floor and the applicant moved to pick it up. An officer tried to then kick him in the head, but as he tried to cover himself with his arms, he kicked him in the arm. The officers insulted and threatened him. 31.  On the same date the applicant complained about the above incident to the Berdsk prosecutor’s office and the Department of Internal Security of the Department of the Interior of the Novosibirsk Region. 32.  On 6 September 2005 an investigator of the Berdsk prosecutor’s office refused to institute a criminal investigation into the incident. The decision stated, in particular, that according to the statements given by the police officers and the head of the Berdsk IVS, no physical force had been used against the applicant. Detainee N., who according to the applicant had remained in the cell and had witnessed the incident, submitted that when the police officers had started the inspection he had left the cell and waited in the corridor. He had heard the applicant arguing with the police officers. When he had re-entered the cell after the inspection, the applicant had told him about the incident and had said that he would be making a complaint. However, N. had not seen him be kicked in the arm. His statement was confirmed by Sh., an officer of the Berdsk IVS who was on duty on 30 August 2005, who stated that N. had been outside the cell during the inspection. The investigator concluded that there was no evidence that an offence had been committed. The decision stated that it could be appealed against to a higher prosecutor or a court. 33.  The Berdsk prosecutor’s office informed the applicant of the decision by letter on 27 September 2005. According to the applicant, he was not informed of the decision. 34.  Nevertheless, the applicant complained about the decision to a higher prosecutor. 35.  On 26 October 2005 the prosecutor of Berdsk dismissed the complaint and upheld the decision. 36.  The applicant did not appeal against the refusal to institute criminal proceedings to a court.