4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and is currently serving his sentence in correctional colony IK-10 in Rubtsovsk in the Altay Region. 5.  On 10 July 2004 the applicant was charged with manslaughter. On the same date by a decision of the Leninskiy District Court of Barnaul (“District Court”) he was placed in detention pending trial. 6.  On 27 April 2005 the District Court convicted him as charged and sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment. On 16 June 2005 the Altay Regional Court upheld the trial court's judgement with minor changes. 7.  In the period from 13 July 2004 to 10 July 2005 the applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-22/1 in Barnaul in the Altay Region. 8.  The parties' descriptions of his detention conditions differ on a number of counts. 9.  According to the applicant, he was detained in the following cells:
- from 20 July to 25 October 2004 in cell no. 2 that housed from 9 to 16 inmates;
- from 25 October to 3 December 2004 in cell no. 52 that housed from 19 to 25 inmates;
- from 3 December 2004 to 27 April 2005 in cell no. 41 that housed from 14 to 18 inmates;
- from 27 to 29 April 2005 in cell no. 29 that housed more than 15 inmates;
- from 29 April to 10 July 2005 in cell no. 142 that housed from 18 to 24 inmates. 10.  The applicant did not provide a detailed description of each cell but maintained in general terms that all cells had been overcrowded, that he had not had an individual sleeping place and that ventilation and sanitary conditions had been inadequate. Owing to the unsatisfactory sanitation, he had suffered skin diseases and psychological problems. No adequate medical assistance had been provided to him. 11.  The applicant complained about conditions of his detention in remand prison IZ-22/1 to various authorities. On one occasion, the Prosecution Office of the Altay Region commissioned an inspection to investigate his allegations. According to a report of 18 February 2005, the inspector found that at the material time the applicant was not provided with an individual sleeping place. He stated that the failure of the prison authorities to provide detainees with individual sleeping places was a continuous problem resulting from a slum state of one of the prison wings. Other aspects of the applicant's detention, notably medical assistance, sanitation and communication with authorities, were found to be satisfactory. 12.  On the basis of certificates and photographs prepared by the prison administration in February 2009, the Government submitted that the applicant had been detained in the following cells:
- from 13 July to 25 October 2004 in cell no. 2 measuring 12.8 square metres and accommodating maximum three inmates;
- from 25 October to 3 December 2004 in cell no. 52 measuring 23.9 square metres and accommodating maximum five inmates;
- from 3 December 2004 to 27 April 2005 in cell no. 41 measuring 21 square metres and accommodating maximum five inmates;
- from 27 to 29 April 2005 in cell no. 29 measuring 19.7 square metres and accommodating maximum four inmates;
- from 29 April to 10 July 2005 in cell no. 142 measuring 20.3 square metres and accommodating maximum five inmates. 13.  The Government further stated that the applicant's cells had been ventilated through casement windows and had in addition been equipped with ventilation shafts. The average temperature and the average level of humidity had met sanitary and hygiene requirements. Cleaning and disinfection of the cells and checks on the correct operation of the systems of ventilation, sewage, water-supply and heating had been carried out on a regular basis. 14.  With reference to a certificate by the detention facility's governor and statements by officers B., G., and Ch. – all documents dated February 2009 – the Government stated that the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place. Furthermore, a copy of his registration card reflected that, upon arrival at the facility, he had been given individual bedding items. 15.  The Government further asserted that all cells had been equipped with a sink and a lavatory that had been separated from the living area by a partition of 1.1 metre in height. Showers had been available once a week with a simultaneous change of bedding. 16.  As to the applicant's health, it had been regularly monitored and he had been provided with adequate medical assistance when that had been necessary. 17.  The applicant had never complained about the unsatisfactory detention conditions. The facility's authorities had never caused any impediments in his communication with officials. All his correspondence had been duly dispatched to addressees. 18.  The Government did not comment on the report by the prosecution authorities of 18 February 2005.