5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the city of Kaliningrad, in the Kaliningrad Region. 6.  On 15 August 2002 the applicant and two other persons were arrested in Moscow on suspicion of drug trafficking during an undercover police operation. 7.  According to the applicant, the police officers allegedly ill-treated him during the arrest, planted a sachet of drugs into his pocket, and took his money and car documents. 8.  On 17 August 2002 the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow authorised the applicant's placement in custody. On 19 August 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal against that detention order but it was never examined. 9.  On an unspecified date the investigating authorities allegedly seized the applicant's car. 10.  On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with drug trafficking and the case was transferred to the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow for trial. 11.  On 28 March 2003 the Ostankinskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of having acquired, transported and sold drugs in an organised criminal group on a particularly large scale. The court established that the applicant, his two co-accused and several other persons had organised a criminal group with a view to drug trafficking. The applicant had transported the drugs and had surveyed the sales. Before the court, he claimed that he had never sold drugs and that the undercover agents had planted them on him. The court dismissed the applicant's submissions, relying on the testimonies of his co-accused and the police officers, including anonymous witness A., and other physical evidence. It sentenced the applicant to nine years' imprisonment and a confiscation of property. 12.  On 22 July 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment. 13.  From 17 August 2002 to 2 April 2003 the applicant had been held in remand centre IZ-77/2 in Moscow. 14.  For the first ten days the applicant was held in cell no. 157 where the conditions of detention were satisfactory. 15.  On 28 August 2002 the applicant was transferred to cell no. 283 which was designed for six persons and had five or six bunks but accommodated eight inmates. The applicant was afforded less than one square metre of cell space. For six months he did not have daily walks. He was not provided with bedding. The lavatory was not separated from the living area and was two metres away from the dining table and one metre away from the bunks. The windows were covered with bars and metal shutters which limited access to natural light. In December 2002, while the outside temperature dropped to between -20º and -28ºC, the cell was not heated; the walls were covered with frost and the applicant had to sleep in his jacket. In November and December 2002 he did not have access to shower. The cell was full of smoke because all inmates smoked, the applicant being a non-smoker. The cell was infested with lice and cockroaches. The applicant's complaints to the administration were left without reply. 16.  On an unspecified date after the trial the applicant was transferred to a cell for convicts where four to five detainees had to share one bunk and slept in shifts.
(b)  Remand centre IZ-77/3 in Moscow 17.  From 2 April to 16 August 2003 the applicant was held in remand centre IZ-77/3 in Moscow, firstly in cell no. 213 and later in cell no. 714. 18.  Cell no. 213 was designed for 30 persons but housed over one hundred inmates. The detainees had to sleep in shifts. The applicant was not provided with bedding. The cell swarmed with lice, bugs and cockroaches but the administration did not provide disinfectants. The lights and the TV were always on. The cell had no ventilation and was filled with smoke. The applicant constantly suffered from hypertension and nose bleeding, developed dermatitis and lost over twenty kilograms in weight. As a result of the inflammation of his sciatic nerve and aggravation of radiculitis, his legs became numb, limiting his ability to move. 19.  On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to cell no. 714 in the medical wing of the remand centre where he was given anti‑hypertensive medications and received anaesthetic injections to relieve him from pain.
(c)  Remand centre IZ-67/1 in Smolensk 20.  From 17 to 28 August 2003 the applicant was detained in remand centre IZ-67/1 in Smolensk. 21.  The cell where the applicant was detained had three-tier bunks, two detainees sharing one bunk. No bedding was provided. The cell was smoky and infested with insects. The lavatory was not separated from the living area.
(d)  Hospital no. 1 of prison IK-8 in Kaliningrad 22.  From 27 October 2004 to 16 February 2005 the applicant stayed in hospital no. 1 of prison IK-8 in Kaliningrad. He was not provided with bedding or any hygiene items. His cells swarmed with lice, bugs and cockroaches and the applicant developed dermatitis. The applicant was held together with Sh., suffering from schizophrenia and advanced tuberculosis and a HIV-positive detainee who had bleeding wounds on his body and used common tableware. He was also kept together with inmates having infectious hepatitis. The food and water were of bad quality and the applicant was deprived of a daily walk. 23.  Referring to certificates issued by the head of remand centre IZ-77/2 and dated 21 and 29 July 2008, the Government stated that in 2002-2003 the maximum capacity of remand centre IZ-77/2 had been 2,110 persons. At the material time the remand centre had accommodated 3,194 detainees. The applicant had been detained in cell no. 150 measuring 57.9 square metres and cell no. 283 measuring 10.5 square metres. 24.  With reference to the above certificates, the Government submitted that the applicant had at all times been provided with at least 4 square metres of cell space, a personal sleeping place and bedding. His cells had been sufficiently lit and ventilated and properly heated in winter. The metal shutters in all of them had been removed pursuant to an instruction of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation of 26 November 2002. The cells had been permanently disinfected and the cell windows had been glazed in winter. The applicant had had weekly access to a shower and his bedding had been replaced accordingly. 25.  The Government stated that it had been impossible to indicate the exact number of persons who had been held together with the applicant in his cells owing to the destruction of the logbook containing the headcount of detainees held in the remand centre (книга количественной проверки лиц, содержащихся в следственном изоляторе). 26.  The Government also provided a barely legible copy of the applicant's cell record card (камерная карточка), according to which he had been provided with bedding and cutlery.
(b)  Remand centre IZ-77/3 in Moscow 27.  At the time of the applicant's detention in remand centre IZ-77/3 in Moscow, the centre's maximum capacity had been 1,250 inmates. The applicant had been held there in cells nos. 202, 213 and 704, measuring, respectively, 32.7 square metres, 28.5 square metres and 36.2 square metres. 28.  With reference to certificates issued by the head of remand centre IZ-77/3 dated 22 and 31 July 2008 and the applicant's cell record card, the Government submitted that the applicant had been at all times provided with at least 4 square metres of cell space, a personal sleeping place and bedding. His cells had been sufficiently lit and ventilated and properly heated in winter. The metal shutters in all of them had been removed pursuant to an instruction of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation of 26 November 2002. The cells had been permanently disinfected and the cell windows had been glazed in winter. The applicant had had weekly access to a shower and his bedding had been replaced accordingly. 29.  The Government stated that it had been impossible to indicate the exact number of persons who had been held together with the applicant in his cells owing to destruction of the logbook containing the detainee headcount. 30.  The Government enclosed copies of records of the destruction of documents from IZ-77/3 dated 20 September 2005 and 10 April 2006. According to the first record, on 20 September 2005 an official commission of remand prison IZ-77/3 had destroyed the following documents: lists of prisoners participating in the detention facility's household activities (списки осужденных, используемых на хозяйственных работах), daily orders concerning security and control (суточные приказы по охране и надзору), guard reports (постовые ведомости), check lists (проверочные списки), regulations on the structural subdivisions of certain internal affairs entities (положения о структурных подразделениях органов внутренних дел), and correspondence with various organisations. According to the report of 10 April 2006, on that date a commission consisting of officials of IZ-77/3 had destroyed the following documents: documentation concerning the facility's personnel drills (документы учебных тренировок с личным составом), records of planned and control searches (акты плановых и контрольных обысков), lists of prisoners participating in the detention facility's household activities, a plan of supervision of IZ-77/3 (план надзора ИЗ-77/3), correspondence with various organisations, and copies of orders given by the head of IZ-77/3.
(c)  Remand centre IZ-67/1 in Smolensk 31.  While the applicant had been detained in remand centre IZ-67/1 in Smolensk, the capacity of that detention facility had been 945 detainees and it had accommodated 894 inmates throughout 2003. In remand centre IZ‑67/1 the applicant had been detained in cell no.171 measuring 17.5 square metres. 32.  The Government made further submissions concerning the material conditions of the applicant's detention in IZ-67/1 similar to their statements concerning remand centres IZ-77/2 and IZ-77/3 summarised above.
(d)  Hospital no.1 of IK-8 in Kaliningrad 33.  The Government made no submissions concerning hospital no. 1 of IK-8 in Kaliningrad. 34.  In August 2004 the applicant allegedly asked for dental treatment and paid for it. After several consultations the head of the colony's hospital allegedly refused to continue the treatment, which caused the applicant physical and mental suffering because he was unable to eat. 35.  On 11 August 2004 the applicant complained to the colony hospital about the rapid deterioration of his eyesight but was refused any treatment. 36.  One month later, when the applicant was practically unable to move by himself, the administration authorised an ophthalmologist paid by the applicant's wife to examine the applicant. He was diagnosed with retinal detachment in both eyes and urgent surgery was recommended. 37.  In October 2004 the applicant was transferred to hospital no. 1 of IK-8 in Kaliningrad. 38.  It appears that despite the applicant's repeated requests he was not examined by any specialist until December 2004. 39.  On 20 December 2004 an ophthalmologist examined the applicant and diagnosed him with total retinal detachment in both eyes. 40.  On 22 December 2004 a medical panel established that the applicant's illness was incompatible with his continued detention. He was discharged from the hospital on 16 February 2005. 41.  On 18 April 2005 the applicant was granted disability status in connection with his loss of sight. 42.  By a decision of 13 May 2005, the Tsentralny District Court of Kaliningrad ordered the applicant's release from custody owing to health reasons. It appears that he was released on the same day. 43.  In March 2006 the applicant issued proceedings against colony IK-9, colony IK-8 and the Ministry of Finance, claiming compensation in the amount of 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the refusal to provide him with medical treatment, which had in turn caused him to lose his eyesight. It transpires that throughout the proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer that he had appointed. 44.  By a judgment of 26 March 2007 the Tsentralny District Court of Kaliningrad granted the applicant's claims in part. The judgment, in so far as relevant, reads:
“... It follows from the reply of the head of the medical unit of the Kaliningrad regional department of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences... dated 4 April 2005, [the applicant] had been under medical supervision in the medical unit of colony OM-216/9 from 10 September 2003. Upon admission he was examined by a medical panel which concluded that his state of health was satisfactory. Since autumn 2004 [the applicant] had started noticing a rapid deterioration of his eyesight. On 20 October 2004 he was examined by an ophthalmologist. The preliminary diagnosis was: “secondary retinal detachment in both eyes?” To confirm the diagnosis [the applicant] was admitted to hospital no.1 where he stayed from 1 December 2004 to 16 February 2005 and received an in-patient clinical and X-ray examination. The diagnosis was confirmed: “total retinal detachment in both eyes”.
...
Witness S. interviewed by the court submitted that she had examined [the applicant] on his wife's request in colony IK-9 on 20 October 2004 when she had diagnosed him with [retinal detachment in both eyes]. She had indicated that he needed an additional examination in a hospital.
...
The medical expert panel in its report no. 98 established the following.
The materials available [to the medical panel] do not enable it to establish the exact period of time when [the applicant] acquired the illness which had entailed declaring him disabled.
However it is reasonable to assume that the illness (total retinal detachment in both eyes, in respect of which disability status was granted [to the applicant]) started developing on 15 June 2004 when [the applicant] first complained of periodic blinking of dark spots in his eyes and deterioration of his eyesight.
After examining the case materials and the medical documents, the panel discovered grave defects in the diagnostics and medical treatment during [the applicant's] stay in hospital no.1:
- in spite of the applicant's complaints of deterioration of his eyesight and the ophthalmologist's request for his additional examination in connection with the diagnosis of secondary retinal detachment in both eyes made on 27 October 2004, [the applicant] was not examined in due time. He was only examined on 20 December 2004 – that is, two months after his admission to the hospital, which had major implications and negative consequences for his eyesight.
- At the examination in hospital after the diagnosis of “total retinal detachment in both eyes”, [the applicant] did not undergo the ultrasound eye scanning ordered on 20 December 2004. The scanning was indispensable for establishing the origin of his illness, which could have been caused by a trauma, a tumour, myopia, or excessive physical effort.
According to the conclusion of the special medical panel, [the applicant] suffers from total retinal detachment in both eyes which has caused total blindness. It is impossible to establish the exact reason of this condition owing, in particular, to the defects in [the applicant's] examination and treatment in hospital no.1.
...
According to the clinical data available in [the applicant's] medical file, in 2000 he suffered from slight myopia in both eyes – 0.2 in the right eye and 0.1 in the left eye, corrigible to 1.0.
Moreover, the development of the applicant's eye problems permits the expert panel to conclude that heightened tension was not the reason for him developing total two-sided retinal detachment.
The [applicant's] illness, which entailed his disability, has a clear causal connection with the defects in his medical treatment.
Despite the fact that the exact reason for [the applicant's illness] could not be identified, grave defects of examination and treatment took place. During the first examination by an ophthalmologist on 20 October 2004 the latter diagnosed [the applicant] with two-sided retinal detachment with a retained pink reflex of the pupil, which indicates that at that moment [the applicant] did not suffer from total retinal detachment and, if treated in due time, a positive outcome including partial preservation of eyesight could not have been excluded. At the examination on 20 December 2004 [the applicant] was already diagnosed with total two-sided retinal detachment.
Hence, the delays in providing [the applicant] with qualified ophthalmologic surgery played a crucial rule in his becoming blind.
Bearing in mind the above mentioned circumstances of the case, the court considers that grave defects in the applicant's examination and treatment while in detention, which had caused his blindness, caused him physical and mental suffering.
Under those circumstances the court, taking into account the character of the mental and physical suffering sustained by [the applicant] as a result of his inadequate medical treatment during the service of his prison sentence, which had caused his blindness, considers it appropriate to award him 300,000 Roubles in respect of non-pecuniary damage against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation.” 45.  By a special decision (частное определение) taken on the same date as the above-mentioned judgment, the Tsentralny District Court called on the head of Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences (“the FSES”) and the head of the Kaliningrad regional department of the FSES to pay attention to the fact that the examination of the applicant's case had revealed the lack of proper organisation of medical treatment for convicts in the colonies of the Kalningrad Region, which seriously endangered their life and health. Both officials were requested to inform the court of the measures taken in that respect within the time-limits provided by the relevant national legislation. 46.  The outcome of that request remains unclear. 47.  On 30 May 2007 the Kaliningrad Regional Court dismissed the prosecutor's appeal against the judgment of 26 March 2007. In particular, it rejected the prosecutor's argument that the amount of the award was excessive and found that it was reasonable and adequate. 48.  The judgment of 26 March 2007 and the appeal decision of 30 May 2007 referred to the applicant's family name as “Romakhov” instead of “Romokhov”. 49.  On 30 May 2007 the judgment of the Tsentralny District Court of Kaliningrad became final and enforceable. 50.  On 24 August 2007 the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation received unspecified “enforcement documents” from the applicant in respect of the above judgment. 51.  On 17 October 2007 the Ministry of Finance received further unspecified “enforcement documents” from the applicant. 52.  By a letter of 21 November 2007 the Ministry of Finance returned the first set of documents to the applicant because he had failed to enclose a duly certified copy of the judgment and his bank details. 53.  By a letter of 5 December 2007 the Ministry returned the second set of documents to the applicant because he had again failed to submit a duly certified copy of the judgment and his bank details. 54.  On 13 February 2008 the Ministry of Finance received the required documents. 55.  On 29 May 2008 the amount of 300,000 Russian roubles (RUB) was transferred to the applicant's bank account. 56.  In support of their submissions the Government furnished a copy of the payment order of 29 May 2008, according to which the amount of RUB 300,000 had been transferred to the applicant's account on that date. 57.  According to the applicant, the delay in the execution of the judgment of 26 March 2007 had been caused by the fact that the first-instance court had misspelled his family name as “Romakhov” instead of “Romokhov”, both in the first-instance judgment and the related writ of enforcement.